# Sadly, 6 More Soldiers Die In Afghan Bomb Blast



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Six Canadian soldiers and an Afghan interpreter were killed Wednesday in a roadside bomb attack in southern Afghanistan, military officials said.
They were killed when their*armoured vehicle struck an improvised explosive device in the volatile Panjwaii district southwest of Kandahar, Brig.-Gen. Tim Grant told a news conference.
"We are greatly saddened by the loss of these great, young Canadians," said Grant, the commander of Canada's troops in Afghanistan.
The soldiers were returning to their forward operating base after conducting a joint operation with the Afghan National Army, said Grant. They were travelling in a convoy when their armoured NG-31 Nyala vehicle struck the bomb at about 11 a.m. local time.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/04/afghanistan-nato.html?ref=rss


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

How long untill someone post how they died for our freedom and values and other drivel?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Lt.-Col. Maria Carl, a spokesperson for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, said the community mourns the loss of the soldiers.

"They gave their lives to improve the lives of the Afghan people."

CBC.com

They did not die for our freedom, but they did die trying to help bring a sense of freedom and democracy to the Afghan people.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> They did not die for our freedom, but they did die trying to help bring a sense of freedom and democracy to the Afghan people.


By imposing a narco-state? A puppet called Karzai?
After 6 years, the country is going backwards. Maybe NATO should also say sorry for murdering 65 civilians last week.

This is our Vietnam.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> By imposing a narco-state? A puppet called Karzai?
> After 6 years, the country is going backwards. Maybe NATO should also say sorry for murdering 65 civilians last week.
> 
> This is our Vietnam.


Why not start a new thread for your bitterness and leave this one to honour these six who died doing what they believed was right?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I agree with SINC, as much as I'm against this war, ArtistSeries you were not invited to bash this thread with something irrelevant to the mourning of six lives who died believing they're doing the right thing for the Afghan people. Shame on you.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I agree with Sinc as well. AS has a right to express his views, which is, in part, what these soldiers were trying to bring to the Afghan people. However, there is a time and place to express various views. This may be the time, but I don't feel it is the proper place. Paix, mes amis.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Why not start a new thread for your bitterness and leave this one to honour these six who died doing what they believed was right?


How do you know what they felt?
Really? They are soldiers and they follow orders.

It's a fool's errand - and while I have sympathy for the soldiers, I have none for this mission.
You go to war, this is what happens - end of story.
There is no honour in what has happened, if you can't stomach this, maybe you should also ask to bring them home.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

This is a quasi public thread so I don't see a problem in making posts related to the deaths. The thread is what we all make it, not just what the initial poster unverbally intends it to be.

I would never wish to speculate on soldiers beliefs or feelings about going to war or fighting a war in Iraq. I know from personal and family experience that many people join the military because they can't get any other types of work, or its the only way to pay for a higher education. For some the military can be a way out of poverty. For others, it's simply a way out.

Most of the major offensives of the Afghanistan war are long over. Why is it then that we have lost more Canadian lives since the Conservatives became the minority government and changed our mission?

Our role in Afghanistan needs to be changed. A sign of our progress there should be less Canadians dying, not more.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

My heart goes out to each family of those who were lost today. It's difficult to even imagine what they're going through.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> This is a quasi public thread so I don't see a problem in making posts related to the deaths. The thread is what we all make it, not just what the initial poster unverbally intends it to be.


:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think that when somebody opened a separate thread for the political debate on a shooting, it was a really good move. Was it runtheworldonmac? Either way, as with the occasional thread for a death of some public figure, it seems like the sensible thing. There's always room for the endless ehmac game of pin the tail on the ideology, but there is also plenty of room for parallel threads.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> This is a quasi public thread so I don't see a problem in making posts related to the deaths. The thread is what we all make it, not just what the initial poster unverbally intends it to be.


The lack of respect for the soldiers by trashing their efforts in this thread is abysmal and certainly not worthy of any applause.

The loss of life and the feelings of the family should rise above politics, but I guess some just can't grasp that concept.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I know what you mean. You might same the same thing about trashing Canada on Canada day. Oh wait... I'm still having a hissy fit.   

---

My first gut reaction when I hear of the soldiers deaths has nothing to do with politics. These were 6 Canadian men / or women who have been killed. Respect is warranted IMO. 

However, the time-delay from sadness / respect to anger does happen fairly quickly for me as well.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Canada is not drafting people into the army. My brother is in the army reserves right now and is looking forward to being deployed early next year. Trust me ArtistSeries, these soldiers died doing something they believe in. They died serving Canadians, serving the world. Don't spit in their faces and tell us that they're merely robots following orders.

Rest in peace, soldiers, and condolences to their families and friends.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Canada is not drafting people into the army. My brother is in the army reserves right now and is looking forward to being deployed early next year. Trust me ArtistSeries, these soldiers died doing something they believe in. They died serving Canadians, serving the world. Don't spit in their faces and tell us that they're merely robots following orders.
> 
> Rest in peace, soldiers, and condolences to their families and friends.


Nicely said.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> The loss of life and the feelings of the family should rise above politics, but I guess some just can't grasp that concept.


Hey Sinc, I'm not going to say anything for or against the current endeavor in Afghanistan, everyone knows both mine and your position (which are clearly different).

I was listening to something very interesting on CBC Radio this evening which made me think of your "Yellow" ribbon to support our troops. A commentator was saying how the "Yellow" ribbon is really a US import and that it had become a tool used by the Republican party to beat up on Democrats in the US. 

My wife made a very interesting and astute comment... Why would we not use the Poppy as our symbol of support? Why do we need a "Yellow" ribbon? 

The Canadian symbol for supporting our troops both past and present has been the Poppy. 

I put this to you Sinc... Why not use the Poppy? Is the Canadian symbol for supporting our troops not good enough? Does it not convey enough meaning?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> I put this to you Sinc... Why not use the Poppy? Is the Canadian symbol for supporting our troops not good enough? Does it not convey enough meaning?


Thanks for the civil tone dj and yes, it is well known how we both have differing opinions about the mission.

That being said, the use of the yellow ribbon comes directly from the PPLI here in Edmonton who adopted it for their use in this area, as did many other units across Canada.

My neighbour, who is a Chief Warrant Officer with 20 years plus service and still volunteered to go to Afghanistan in the spring puts it this way.

The poppy is reserved especially for the Remembrance Day celebrations and honours all vets of all wars, but predominately those who perished during their time of service.

The yellow ribbon on the other hand, honours the service of all today's soldiers on active duty overseas, as well as those in training to replace them in the rotation. Since the vast majority of them return home, those who don't are then honoured with the poppy.

If that's good enough for Canadian troops, it's good enough for me and a very logical explanation for the use of the ribbon.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> I was listening to something very interesting on CBC Radio this evening which made me think of your "Yellow" ribbon to support our troops. A commentator was saying how the "Yellow" ribbon is really a US import and that it had become a tool used by the Republican party to beat up on Democrats in the US.


And you are correct. Of course ignorant fools will have their guesses based on ignorance...

This would be more apt for SINC: Red Friday - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> And you are correct. Of course ignorant fools will have their guesses based on ignorance...


it is sad that you are such a bitter man that you continue to resort to name calling. 

If you could read, you would see that I acknowledged the ribbon was "adopted" by the forces. The reason for its use came from a member of the unit who use it. Speaking of ignorance, when was the last time you spoke to a member of the PPLI to verify my story?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> it is sad that you are such a bitter man that you continue to resort to name calling.


SINC, for name calling I usually go to Magic - Something Magic in the Air ....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ehMax said:


> I know what you mean. You might same the same thing about trashing Canada on Canada day. Oh wait... I'm still having a hissy fit.


That would be trashing Canada in a Happy Canada Day thread. As I said, there's plenty of room for parallel threads, as there were on Canada Day.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> The Canadian symbol for supporting our troops both past and present has been the Poppy.
> 
> I put this to you Sinc... Why not use the Poppy? Is the Canadian symbol for supporting our troops not good enough? Does it not convey enough meaning?


Using the poppy would be so filled with irony considering Afghanistan's biggest cash crop.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> Unfortunately, many of the overzealous war-promoting commentators argue that our soldiers' belief in the mission is in itself reason to continue the commitment indefinitely.
> 
> Soldiers follow orders and serve their country. It is imperative that we as Canadians ensure that self-sacrificing spirit is not employed in vain.


Let's not employ Canadian spirit in vain


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Let's not employ Canadian spirit in vain


That was a good essay from veteran soldier and military reporter Scott Taylor, editor of Esprit de Corps. When _*he*_ criticizes the war is he also being disrespectful to our troops?



> Those who argue in favour of continuing such an open-ended, unchallenged military mission claim they "get it," while anyone who asks to see tangible evidence of progress to justify the sacrifice doesn't "get it."
> 
> However, given that a recent poll concluded more than two-thirds of Canadians would not support an extension of our military deployment beyond 2009, maybe the naysayers do "get it."


From another article in the magazine:


> Instead, our troops fight for an idea that was sold to them and the Canadian public and then left to die before the ink was wet.
> 
> They say those that die badly haunt the living. What of those that die of neglect?


And to make my position clear, I'm sorry that 6 more Canadian soldiers had to die and I respect the sacrifice of those who will put their life on the line for what they believe. I am angry that the mission is a sham, has no chance of ever reaching it's objectives militarily (which Harper & Co. know full well) and that these young people are dying to satisfy right-wing and US-driven political objectives.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> The lack of respect for the soldiers by trashing their efforts in this thread is abysmal and certainly not worthy of any applause.
> 
> The loss of life and the feelings of the family should rise above politics, but I guess some just can't grasp that concept.


sending soldiers to die for Pax Amerikana is truly trashing their efforts

true respect for our soldiers would be to bring them home from this fool's errand


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> sending soldiers to die for Pax Amerikana is truly trashing their efforts
> 
> true respect for our soldiers would be to bring them home from this fool's errand


Only fools or cowards would abandon a commitment to NATO through 2009. Thankfully Canada is neither.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Only fools or cowards would abandon a commitment to NATO through 2009. Thankfully Canada is neither.


Is this like our commitment to Kyoto?

Now I see you are using that factious commitment to NATO…. Even old General Mackenzie is bellowing (or is it “scapegoating”) NATO as an excuse as to why we are losing there… Not enough troops from other countries… 

So now, SINC resorts to platitudes and other scurrilous reasons to support this “big adventure”. I’d say that this baby is done, stick a fork in it and stop wasting lives – bring them home. 

So SINC, do you have other meaningless phrases to spout this evening? Because so far, I’ve yet to see a rational excuse for staying in Afghanistan…. Facts are Afghanistan is a narco state run by warlords and drug pushers, Karzai does negotiate with the Taliban and there does not seem to be a plan for the future of Afghanistan… 

This mission is so derailed there is no point of continuing. Truth is, it was lost when the Americans became distracted with Iraq. It’s been five years and it makes no sense to waste lives there. 

One reason that “we” went there was to get Bin Laden – heck, the Taliban offered him up to the world court but that was not good enough (or maybe someone wanted an excuse). Some say, we have to help – great but that’s only a cheap excuse – look at the abuses in Sudan, and not much is being done…


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Is this like our commitment to Kyoto?
> 
> Now I see you are using that factious commitment to NATO…. Even old General Mackenzie is bellowing (or is it “scapegoating”) NATO as an excuse as to why we are losing there… Not enough troops from other countries…


:yawn: :yawn: :yawn: 

Same old, same old.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:
> 
> Same old, same old.


Sure...
A little better than specious thinking and blurbs from the shallow end of the intellectual pool....

It's quite dishonest of you to hide behind Canada and dead soldiers to justify staying where we will lose. You can't take any criticism so you invoke empty words. 

So is Karzai a traitor for talking to the Taliban? 

5 years into this "big adventure" and it's going backwards - lovely...


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Another ehMac thread goes "toxic".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> It's quite dishonest of you to hide behind Canada and dead soldiers to justify staying where we will lose. You can't take any criticism so you invoke empty words.


Oh I can take criticism all right. But I am tired of the same old "attack" themes, spewing venom at anything I post. 

We differ in opinions and I will leave it at that. And I do so with the courtesy of not referring to your particular brand of intellect.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Now I see you are using that factious commitment to NATO…. Even old General Mackenzie is bellowing (or is it “scapegoating”) NATO as an excuse as to why we are losing there… Not enough troops from other countries…


So...if "we" are "losing" there because there are not enough troops you wish to accelerate the defeat by pulling out our contribution?



ArtistSeries said:


> So now, SINC resorts to platitudes and other scurrilous reasons to support this “big adventure”. I’d say that this baby is done, stick a fork in it and stop wasting lives – bring them home.


Not that you've done any better. Still repeating what you see on those placards marching past while you sip your latte?



ArtistSeries said:


> So SINC, do you have other meaningless phrases to spout this evening? Because so far, I’ve yet to see a rational excuse for staying in Afghanistan…. Facts are Afghanistan is a narco state run by warlords and drug pushers,


I've looked into this "narco-state" that you keep talking about. Did you know that the Taliban only cut back opium production in the last year of their reign? Look it up.

Of course, if you're so concerned about opium production, maybe you'd like to advocate the usage of Taliban techniques to "persuade" farmers that it would be in their best interests to plant something else in their fields...while they still can. No? I didn't think so...




ArtistSeries said:


> One reason that “we” went there was to get Bin Laden – heck, the Taliban offered him up to the world court but that was not good enough (or maybe someone wanted an excuse). Some say, we have to help – great but that’s only a cheap excuse – look at the abuses in Sudan, and not much is being done…


A. The Americans don't recognize the World Court and I don't believe that the Taliban offered bin Laden to that body. I think they wanted to send him to a panel of three Islamic judges. Justice served? Maybe...maybe not.
B. I'm sure that if we went to the Sudan you'd be right there yelling that it's not worth it. Strawman...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Oh I can take criticism all right. But I am tired of the same old "attack" themes, spewing venom at anything I post.


You take criticism the same way Harper does - you turn into sulking child and become vindictive.
Just as MM is fat, this the reality of being SINC.

This is a rather direct piece on Afghanistan
http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann06052007.html


> The big justification for The Mission is that we are fighting, as the infantile phrase goes, the Bad Guys, the Taliban. There's something criminally dishonest about this.
> 
> I know my strategy will fail. I choose to ignore this, and pretend my efforts are serious. In short I'm trying to hold two obviously clashing beliefs. One is that after much struggle I will succeed; the other is that I've invested much too little in the 'struggle' to succeed. I don't want to relinquish either of them. Academics call this cognitive dissonance.
> 
> ...


http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann06052007.html


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> You take criticism the same way Harper does - you turn into sulking child and become vindictive.
> Just as MM is fat, this the reality of being SINC.


:yawn: Yet more mean spirited venom. Nothing changes. Have a nice day.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Excellent article AS.

I think that expecting people to express their feeling about the dead soldiers and expecting silence on the poor policy that left them that way is unrealistic. Not only unrealistic but also morally bankrupt. Trying to divorce the tragic death of these men from the unrealistic policy that caused them to be killed is like trying to divorce any poor policy from the deaths caused by it. "Respect" for the dead demands that the cause be addressed and hopefully a solution applied. The tragedy of the death of these men is only compounded by the fact that their mission is one that is not winnable.



Ironmac said:


> So...if "we" are "losing" there because there are not enough troops you wish to accelerate the defeat by pulling out our contribution?


My answer: Absolutely. The sooner we admit the truth (that we can't win this conflict) and get out the better. The sooner we are gone the fewer people will be killed. This is important. When we and our allies leave (and we will leave), the powers that be will take over and it is going to be a mess (of course it already is a mess, people are already getting killed.) Only by our absence will Afghanistan ever have a hope of peace and stability.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> Excellent article AS.


Neumann's an idiot.



martman said:


> Only by our absence will Afghanistan ever have a hope of peace and stability.


Under the Taliban? Talk about a morally and ethically bankrupt answer.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> Only fools or cowards would* abandon a commitment to NATO* through 2009. Thankfully Canada is neither.


Most members of NATO have abandoned their commitments at least as regards Afghanistan so you are referring to most of Europe........ correctly, imho...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

rgray said:


> Most members of NATO have abandoned their commitments at least as regards Afghanistan so you are referring to most of Europe........


Yes, let's join the rest of the weak-kneed spineless Western democracies.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

martman said:


> Only by our absence will Afghanistan ever have a hope of peace and stability.


You have been listening to that moron Layton again haven't you.. ?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

rgray said:


> You have been listening to that moron Layton again haven't you.. ?


Not that I like Layton (I *really* don't) but it's better than that moron Harper, right?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Not that I like Layton (I *really* don't) but it's better than that moron Harper, right?


the double entendre didn't escape me


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Just as bad as the fact that Layton left the building.

Side note, notice how ArtistSeries ignored me, he's just out to get Sinc.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Not that I like Layton (I *really* don't) but it's better than that moron Harper, right?


Marginally......... Layton is willing to sell out our soldiers who are doing a very worthy job in Afghanistan because he thinks it is politically expedient. Useful work is being done in Afghanistan and we all receive the credit, if largely undeserved.

It has cost the NDP financially if only from my family's point of view as we refuse to support them further until they stop undermining our soldiers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray said:


> Marginally......... Layton is willing to sell out our soldiers who are doing a very worthy job in Afghanistan because he thinks it is politically expedient. Useful work is being done in Afghanistan and we all receive the credit, if largely undeserved.
> 
> It has cost the NDP financially if only from my family's point of view as we refuse to support them further until they stop undermining our soldiers.


Thank you sir! :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

CBC News In Depth: Afghanistan

In the first four years of the current Afghanistan war Canada lost only 8 soldiers. Just 8.

In the last year and a half Canada has lost 58 soldiers. That's over 7x the soldiers who died in less than half the same amount of time. That's obscene.

Our progress there should be measured by less of our soldiers dying, not more. What caused this skyrocketing increase in casualties? It was the Conservative minority government's decision (backed by some Liberals) to change the nature of the mission and to extend it. As of March 2007 we were supposed to be done with our commitment to Afghanistan. Now, this "easy" war is lasting longer than World War II. It's time to switch from warmaking to peacekeeping.


----------



## Greenlion (Nov 19, 2002)

*Back on the World Stage . . . ain't it Grand?*



Paul O'Keefe said:


> CBC News In Depth: Afghanistan
> 
> In the first four years of the current Afghanistan war Canada lost only 8 soldiers. Just 8.
> 
> ...


Judging by Harper's July 1st remarks, things are going according to plan. Now his chest can swell with maudlin and mawkish pride as the "fallen" are "repatriated". I guess he wasn't feeling like a real man in the company of Bush, Blair and Howard until he could point to some real "sacrifice" on the part of Canadians. Other Canadians.

I wish I could see these deaths as noble or as occurring in the pursuit of some higher ideal that might justify them, but I simply can't. 

In my view there is nothing tragic about the death of a soldier, any soldier. Soldiers kill and are killed when engaged in war, which is what our forces are engaged in now. This is what soldiers do, is it not? This is what these men and women have chosen as a career and trained for, isn't it? Of course their families grieve the loss. This is self evident to the point of banality, yet still somehow warrants headlines in newspapers?

What's tragic is when your infant children are buried under the walls of your mudbrick house as its bombed by soldiers from thousands of miles away, who keep telling you how sorry they are and how their just trying to bring "security" to your homeland.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ian6jul06,0,4449979.story?coll=la-home-center

I'm guessing the irony does little to mitigate the very real tragedy of these circumstances.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

rgray said:


> Marginally......... Layton is willing to sell out our soldiers who are doing a very worthy job in Afghanistan because he thinks it is politically expedient. Useful work is being done in Afghanistan and we all receive the credit, if largely undeserved.
> 
> It has cost the NDP financially if only from my family's point of view as we refuse to support them further until they stop undermining our soldiers.


bringing our soldiers home from a foolhardy mission is "selling out?"
you've just proven you're insane


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> bringing our soldiers home from a foolhardy mission is "selling out?"
> you've just proven you're insane


Let's see:

an elected government is in office
national security forces are maturing
schools are open 
universities are open
women are being educated
among other things.....
None of which was happening under the Taliban.

The Taliban are only operating in the southern section.

Now you and Jack(ass) Layton want to render meaningless the sacrifices of our soldiers and hand it all back to the Taliban...

Shame on you!


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

I remember when the Taliban took power 1995. Most people in the West were oblivious to this.

Music, dancing, kite-flying were all banned. Women and girls were taken out of schools. The West finally took note when giant Buddha statues of Bamiyan were destroyed with artillery shells.










Is someone going to tell me they want this again??

What's the solution if we cut and run? What's the future?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray and gmark get it. :clap: :clap: 

Too bad some others don't.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

dona83 said:


> Side note, notice how ArtistSeries ignored me, he's just out to get Sinc.


Given that you have family in the military, I prefer to avoid saying anything and minimize the risk of offending your delicate sensibilities. 

SINC is only one of the more vocal of the facile, bellicose of the specious warmonger who has this rose tinted view about the democratization of Afghanistan.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Given that you have family in the military, I prefer to avoid saying anything and minimize the risk of offending your delicate sensibilities.
> 
> SINC is only one of the more vocal of the facile, bellicose of the specious warmonger who has this rose tinted view about the democratization of Afghanistan.


Ah, more venom. Spew away. Good job AS. Have a nice day.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

rgray said:


> Let's see:
> 
> an elected government is in office
> national security forces are maturing
> ...


under "other things:"
poppy production at higher levels than under Taliban rule
drug lords rule the country
Karzai is a puppet leader with strings being pulled by U.S.

sounds more and more like Iran under the Shah
and let's just see how that turned out

our soldiers were originally put into Afghanistan as a peace keeping mission until Herr Harper decided that peace making aka search and destroy was the new mission in order to please his burgermeister Herr Bush

sadly our brave soldiers are paying the price for Harper's need to please Bush and and his Pax Amerikana

shame on you for promoting the sacrifice of our soldiers for a mission that doesn't help the security of Canada

chicken hawks love to send other peoples' children to die

chicken hawks like SINC don't get it


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> chicken hawks like SINC don't get it


Ah, more venom. Lowered yourself to his level have you Spec? You have a nice day too.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

rgray said:


> Now you and Jack(ass) Layton want to render meaningless the sacrifices of our soldiers and hand it all back to the Taliban...
> 
> Shame on you!


Karzai is a puppet that basically controls one city. 
Given that it's suppose to be a democracy, why is it that when the West does not get it's way, it decides to kill? That's a little bit of a quandary... 

Your reasoning that just because a few soldiers have lost their lives, we should continue this mission at all costs does not make it just or right. I'm not sure if you are delusional or really believe that little piece of circular logic. 
Quite the reasoning there. Maybe we should extrapolate that thinking to a larger context and see how false it is...

If I remember correctly, this is the same reasoning that Bush has used to justify the staying in Iraq a few years ago - how's that going for them?

Earlier, I wrote about hiding behind dead soldiers bodies to justify staying in Afghanistan - I am a little surprised that you would use that argument... I guess some take great comfort in simple reasoning and not questioning... 


What make you think that we can actually make a difference with the puny forces we have there? There is no true central government and Karzai is negotiating with the Taliban to try and bring peace (maybe we should kill Karzai for being a traitor, yes?)


Hey SINC, how about spewing some more morally bankrupt statements, they really push the point across and are great amusement. Your huffing at the glory of the sacrifice only shows that you don't care about our soldiers - I'd call you a traitor to Canada BUT that would be lowering myself to your level. Your screeching only reminds me why this is a fool's errand and the ineptitude of the Conservative brain trust.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Hey SINC, how about spewing some more morally bankrupt statements, they really push the point across and are great amusement. Your huffing at the glory of the sacrifice only shows that you don't care about our soldiers - I'd call you a traitor to Canada BUT that would be lowering myself to your level. Your screeching only reminds me why this is a fool's errand and the ineptitude of the Conservative brain trust.


Carry on AS. Your insults mean nothing to me. One day however, the rest of the board members may also tire of your vendetta. Have a nice day.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> under "other things:"
> poppy production at higher levels than under Taliban rule
> drug lords rule the country................


Poppy production raises a very interesting point.

Afghans grow poppies because they are good at it and because the land isn't much good for anything else. And yes the Taliban through the 'drug lords' provide a 'market' of sorts.

But this does not have to be.

There is a world wide shortage of opiates. Witness the efforts in Alberta to license opium growth and production as if Alberta needs another lucrative industry. The pharmaceuticals would love to access the Afghan crop but are blocked by the Bush administration who refuse to license the crop. If this crop were licensed then the Afghan farmers would have a legitimate income that would enable them to resist Taliban pressure. Further the Bush administrations refusal results in the opium ending up in the illegal market - just a touch ironic in the face of another American farce, namely the "war on drugs" (since the "war on drugs" began illegal drugs are cheaper, more plentiful and of better quality than ever before).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

rgray - it's too bad that the "powers that be" do not want to pay for their production, but I like your thinking here.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Remember that among those who died on 9/11 there were at least 25 Canadians; the rest, from all over the globe, deserve to be remembered better.


I'm not sure if you are using this as a justification or not?
Israel killed a Montreal family last summer in Lebanon, should we use the same parallel and declare war against Israel? Of course not.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

gmark2000 said:


> The West finally took note when giant Buddha statues of Bamiyan were destroyed with artillery shells.


The destruction of the statues was quite memorable and horrible. 

General stuff:
As for poppies, there's nothing wrong with growing them; using poppies as a measure of lack of progress makes no sense. It just buys into the West's idiotic war on drugs. Form a functioning legal market and help the country out instead of handing it over to the black market. Thus the problem is not the poppies but the treatment of a perfectly reasonable cash crop.

I think the AS-Sinc war is less likely to be resolved than Afghanistan.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> I think the AS-Sinc war is less likely to be resolved than Afghanistan.


But Beej, there is no war, there is but a mental fixation on destroying whatever opinion I have. Perhaps the term "unstable" best describes the practice. 

But war?

Nope. It takes two to make war, and I am not participating.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Okay then to adjust my statement: I think that the AS-Sinc waltz will continue well beyond the Afghanistan war. 

Note that one can be dragged around in a dance if need be.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm not sure if you are using this as a justification or not?
> Israel killed a Montreal family last summer in Lebanon, should we use the same parallel and declare war against Israel? Of course not.


If we use the criteria used to justify the attack on Iraq, namely WMDs and ignoring UN resolutions, we would have ample "reasons" to attack Israel who have many more WMDs than Saddam ever dreamed of and have routinely ignored the UN... Not that I think it would be a good idea.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Okay then to adjust my statement: I think that the AS-Sinc waltz will continue well beyond the Afghanistan war.
> 
> Note that one can be dragged around in a dance if need be.


Only if the unstable fixation continues Beej. I can guarantee you it won't from my side.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Odd how you keep on commenting on something that you claim you are not fixated upon... maybe you should surf over to animee fat semi-porn to distract yourself... http://www.animexpansion.com/


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I wasn't addressing you. Have a nice day.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I feel that it is sad that a simple thread entitled "Sadly, 6 More Soldiers Die In Afghan Bomb Blast", has deteriorated into name calling and insults. Maybe this is the place to discuss this mission, maybe not. But the focus has been lost and I feel that it is disrespectful to these soldiers.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> I feel that it is sad that a simple thread entitled "Sadly, 6 More Soldiers Die In Afghan Bomb Blast", has deteriorated into name calling and insults.  Maybe this is the place to discuss this mission, maybe not. But the focus has been lost and I feel that it is disrespectful to these soldiers.


I'm rather curious why a conscientious objector would seem to support this "big adventure"....

Maybe this will bring the subject back on tract - warning the video is graphic.


> My son chose to be a soldier, but dammit, I'm going to be putting all the energy I can muster into persuading him NOT to remain in the Army when he has to make that decision in a few months. Because I'm sick of the majority of the people in this country sitting on their thumbs while our military is misused, abused, and destroyed by the wrecking crew that has hijacked our government. Slapping a yellow magnetic ribbon on cars is NOT "supporting the troops." Supporting the troops is demanding that they be utilized in a manner consistent with the US Constitution and international law, and common decency. They're not a bunch of little plastic green guys. And if the people of this country can't find it in themselves to stand up and say ENOUGH already, then this country is not one that is worth fighting and dying for. Sorry, General, I think we're going down, and people won't know it until it's gone, unless somebody takes them by the lapels and shakes them hard. And while the American people remain in this stupor, I've decided they're not getting my son, if there's anything I can do about it. They don't deserve him.
> 
> Yes, I've had enough of the corruption, the incompetence, the lawlessness. But what absolutely sends me over the edge is the ongoing needless death. For what? For WHAT? I've had so much ENOUGH that I'm ready to scream, but I'm not sure anyone will hear me.


http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12578


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> I won't be clicking through, but I assume it isn't about Afghanistan?


It's about Iraq. The text is quoted above...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Sure, they're exactly the same. Wow.


I find using the fact that some Canadians died in the terrorist attack on the twin towers to be rather meaningless as an excuse for our involvement in Afghanistan. 

I find that most "excuses" to be in Afghanistan to be quite disingenuous (little girls in school, democracy, stopping the Taliban...). The old excuse that being in Afghanistan will somehow stop the terrorism is a gem... Not that some arguments are not valid, but the execution of what it would take to make a difference is wholly lacking. 

Surprisingly, some of the better arguments come from Esprit de Corps and soldiers themselves.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Not that some arguments are not valid, but the execution of what it would take to make a difference is wholly lacking.


Oh? And what is *YOUR* suggestion/execution?


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Would it be safe to say that some of the posters in this thread won't be exchanging Christmas gifts this year?

View attachment 3394


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I'm rather curious why a conscientious objector would seem to support this "big adventure"...." AS, you don't know what I feel about this mission, so please don't generalize my views. I regret that these soldiers, or any soldiers, died. War is senseless. However, this thread was about the loss of six Canadian soldiers, and I regret that it has gone astray in a variety of ways for various reasons. If you want to paint Sinc in a black and white portrait, then, by all means, go ahead. He is a man who is able to stand up to your comments.

As for me, feel free to paint me in any way you want, but just know that you don't know me or my beliefs, so you look foolish putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. Paix.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

from a link posted above;



> My son chose to be a soldier, but dammit, I'm going to be putting all the energy I can muster into persuading him NOT to remain in the Army when he has to make that decision in a few months. Because I'm sick of the majority of the people in this country sitting on their thumbs while our military is misused, abused, and destroyed by the wrecking crew that has hijacked our government. Slapping a yellow magnetic ribbon on cars is NOT "supporting the troops." Supporting the troops is demanding that they be utilized in a manner consistent with the US Constitution and international law, and common decency. They're not a bunch of little plastic green guys. And if the people of this country can't find it in themselves to stand up and say ENOUGH already, then this country is not one that is worth fighting and dying for. Sorry, General, I think we're going down, and people won't know it until it's gone, unless somebody takes them by the lapels and shakes them hard. And while the American people remain in this stupor, I've decided they're not getting my son, if there's anything I can do about it. They don't deserve him.
> 
> Yes, I've had enough of the corruption, the incompetence, the lawlessness. But what absolutely sends me over the edge is the ongoing needless death. For what? For WHAT? I've had so much ENOUGH that I'm ready to scream, but I'm not sure anyone will hear me.


emphasis mine

ENOUGH | WesPac | Securing America Community


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> "*I'm* rather *curious* why a conscientious objector* would seem to support *this "big adventure"...." AS, you don't know what I feel about this mission, so please don't generalize my views. I regret that these soldiers, or any soldiers, died. War is senseless. However, this thread was about the loss of six Canadian soldiers, and I regret that it has gone astray in a variety of ways for various reasons. If you want to paint Sinc in a black and white portrait, then, by all means, go ahead. He is a man who is able to stand up to your comments.
> 
> As for me, feel free to paint me in any way you want, but just know that you don't know me or my beliefs, so you look foolish putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. Paix.


No I don't know how you feel. Hence the question.

SINC has pretty much defined himself as black and white with his comments. None of that was my doing. He's a cheerleader that regurgitates all the polemic talking points that are copy/pasted and are easily interchangeable with what American leaders have already. Different geographic location, different leaders, same words, same results.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> from a link posted above;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From one of the comments on AS's latest link:
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

Ironmac: The Taliban are not going away and we are not defeating them. This fantasy you have about winning in Afghanistan has no bearing in reality or history. The Russians were familiar with the terrain and had actual spies and contacts in Afghanistan and they failed just like we are (and we don'rt even have the benefit of good covert information form well placed spies). We have no hope of winning as no one is willing to put in the resources necessary to do so. The US has squandered too much of their military on Iraq to ever put enough soldiers in Afghanistan. There is not enough support in USA, UK, Australia or Canada to keep this up indefinatly or to increase troop levels to what would be required. I fail to see how supporting a plan designed to fail is in anyone's interest and believe that the flag waving knee-jerk supports are doing far more harm than good.

I don't like the Taliban but I don't see how what is happening is any better especially when the Taliban will be right back as soon as we pull out. How long can this go on when the majority of Canadians are not on board? Only those in LA LA land honestly believe we can win in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a fools mission and only fools support it.

Ironmac you keep waving the flag but you never answer to the fact the at the will and troop levels are not there. How do you answer to this?

Frankly I have to agree with the Michael Neumann quote that is AS's signature.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> rgray - it's too bad that the "powers that be" do not want to pay for their production, but I like your thinking here.


I already said this earlier on in the other thread on Afghanistan. (Buy up Afghanistan's poppies and put them into legal opiate production to alleviate the medical shortage of legal opiates in the medical industry...
Of course we have to win their hearts and minds by burning their fields and killing their children at weddings...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> From one of the comments on AS's latest link:
> "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison


Interesting, you can flip that around and say the same thing for the Taliban.



martman said:


> Ironmac: The Taliban are not going away and we are not defeating them. This fantasy you have about winning in Afghanistan has no bearing in reality or history. The Russians were familiar with the terrain and had actual spies and contacts in Afghanistan and they failed just like we are (and we don'rt even have the benefit of good covert information form well placed spies). We have no hope of winning as no one is willing to put in the resources necessary to do so. The US has squandered too much of their military on Iraq to ever put enough soldiers in Afghanistan. There is not enough support in USA, UK, Australia or Canada to keep this up indefinatly or to increase troop levels to what would be required. I fail to see how supporting a plan designed to fail is in anyone's interest and believe that the flag waving knee-jerk supports are doing far more harm than good.
> 
> I don't like the Taliban but I don't see how what is happening is any better especially when the Taliban will be right back as soon as we pull out. How long can this go on when the majority of Canadians are not on board? Only those in LA LA land honestly believe we can win in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a fools mission and only fools support it.
> 
> Ironmac you keep waving the flag but you never answer to the fact the at the will and troop levels are not there. How do you answer to this?


First off, the Taliban cannot be defeated if the West decides to pull out because they see a few casualties. As I've said many times before, both I and the enemy know that the West has gotten very soft when it comes to losing personnel.
Second, I suggest you brush up on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Virtually the entire country was up against the Soviets while the West has control of a good part of it and are vastly more welcomed by the population.
Third, I agree that there is not enough support among other countries. Why? That's because too many people have an idiotic notion that it's all tied in to Iraq, they're worried about casualties, they're defeatists, or they have no realization the implications of a Western withdrawal.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> That's because too many people have an idiotic notion that it's all tied in to Iraq, they're worried about casualties, they're defeatists, or they have no realization the implications of a Western withdrawal.


it IS all tied into Iraq
that's why our soldiers are now experiencing 10x the death rate as when the mission under the Liberals

the U.S. needs troops and is taking them from Afghanistan to put them into Iraq for the "surge" aka "one last blast of mega military spending before the U.S. starts to pull out"

after all Dick Cheney and his deferred Halliburton profits need to be as big as possible

implication of a Cdn. withdrawl would mean far fewer dead Canadian soliders
wow, what an horrible idea

and just why hasn't the U.S. led coalition capture USAma bin Laden?
it's only been almost 6 years since 9/11 and they can't find one guy who needs dialysis?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> How many US troops are in Afghanistan, exactly? And exactly how many should they have? That's special.



well since USAma hasn't been caught after almost 6 years since he orchestrated the 9/11 attack, I'd say the U.S. needs a hell of a lot more troops

also, since the U.S. hasn't found ANY WMDs (even though Donald Rumsfeld said he KNEW where the WMDs were) I'd say the U.S. could pull out of Iraq (a country that never attacked Amerika) and put their military might into Afghanistan to rebuild it and find USAma bin Laden


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> That's because too many people have an idiotic notion that it's all tied in to Iraq, they're worried about casualties, they're defeatists, or they have no realization the implications of a Western withdrawal.


What are the implication o' specious one?

I can't wait to hear the inane twaddle - then again you may surprise a few...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> it IS all tied into Iraq
> that's why our soldiers are now experiencing 10x the death rate as when the mission under the Liberals
> 
> the U.S. needs troops and is taking them from Afghanistan to put them into Iraq for the "surge" aka "one last blast of mega military spending before the U.S. starts to pull out"


Once again, confusing the two. Let me enlighten you, the US has approximately 20k troops in Afghanistan which includes an increase earlier this year because they believed that the security situation has worsened.



MACSPECTRUM said:


> implication of a Cdn. withdrawl would mean far fewer dead Canadian soliders


Talk about short-sighted but typical of a mindset that thinks in months rather than decades.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> What are the implication o' specious one?
> 
> I can't wait to hear the inane twaddle - then again you may surprise a few...


First off, it's laughable that you think I'm going to answer YOUR questions when you hardly bother to answer mine over the course of this thread.
Second, if you even bothered reading my other posts you'd already know the implications. Maybe you have but who knows? You seem to only read what you will.


----------



## iLabmAn (Jan 1, 2003)

Tragic.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

IronMac said:


> Once again, confusing the two. Let me enlighten you, the US has approximately 20k troops in Afghanistan which includes an increase earlier this year because they believed that the security situation has worsened.
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about short-sighted but typical of a mindset that thinks in months rather than decades.


perhaps you should forward that comment to the White House as they created the monster known as Al-Qaeda and USAma bin Laden not to mention Saddam Hussein (recall pix of Rummy shaking his hand?)

In the meantime our soldiers die for that short sighted "mindset"

and Harpo looks for U.S. support in his next election for a majority gov't which ain't looking too good for quite some time now

Canadians don't savour war and don't support PMs who do


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Canadians don't savour war and don't support PMs who do


Correction necessary:

_Some_ Canadians don't savour war and don't support PMs who do.

Note I added the period to correct the punctuation too.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Correction necessary:
> 
> _Some_ Canadians don't savour war and don't support PMs who do.
> 
> Note I added the period to correct the punctuation too.


correction; MOST Canadians don't savour war


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Canadians Want to End Afghanistan Mission: Angus Reid Global Monitor

Conservative support dropping in Atlantic Canada


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Canadians Want to End Afghanistan Mission: Angus Reid Global Monitor
> 
> Conservative support dropping in Atlantic Canada





MACSPECTRUM said:


> correction; MOST Canadians don't savour war



Quote:

"50 per cent of respondents think Canada should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan before their mandate ends in February 2009."

I guess that makes it pretty much an even split, so MOST doesn't apply either. I was a lot closer with "some" than your "most".


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Quote:
> 
> "50 per cent of respondents think Canada should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan before their mandate ends in February 2009."
> 
> I guess that makes it pretty much an even split, so MOST doesn't apply either. I was a lot closer with "some" than your "most;.


ah, my hard of reading friend....

let's review;



> Canada should withdraw its troops from
> Afghanistan before their mandate ends in
> February 2009
> 
> ...


so 50% is "a lot closer" to *some* than *most*?
c'mon now SINC, did you really write for the SUN chain of newspapers or are you just kidding?
now, as a talking head for FAUX news you'd be perfect, except that bit about believing in socialized healthcare

and let's not forget this little tidbit of info. on how Herr Harper is doing;



> The Harper government has effectively
> explained the mission in Afghanistan
> 
> Agree 23%
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Odd how that majority seeking minority is starting to see the light (albeith in a slimy vote getting way).


> *Harper won't commit troops past 2009*
> A new mission in Afghanistan with beefed-up NATO support required, he says
> 
> "I don't believe the prime minister. He's given the signal from Day 1 that he wants to extend it," Coderre said in an interview. The government, he noted, has invested billions in new military equipment that won't be delivered until 2009 or later.
> Some political observers have suggested the Harper government has softened its stance in recent weeks on whether to extend the Afghanistan mission due to eroding public support.


http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=3c46ca79-68d8-4f87-a774-3b3a57688f66

Oh what are all the fearmongers, warmongers and general low end of the IQ pool going drone on about? 
What party will SINC vote for now that Harper is ready to "cut and run"?

How will the Connies justify all those no tender military contracts (most to be delivered after 2009)? How will the delusional skew this into their ever imploding optics?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Odd how that majority seeking minority is starting to see the light (albeith in a slimy vote getting way).
> 
> Harper won't commit troops past 2009
> 
> ...



easy, they'll blame it on the Liberals


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

gmark2000 said:


> I remember when the Taliban took power 1995. Most people in the West were oblivious to this.
> 
> Music, dancing, kite-flying were all banned. Women and girls were taken out of schools. The West finally took note when giant Buddha statues of Bamiyan were destroyed with artillery shells.
> 
> ...


I did not intend this to be a rhetorical question. I would like the courtesy of some answers. I do not like the war. I do not like the casualties.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

gmark2000 said:


> I did not intend this to be a rhetorical question. I would like the courtesy of some answers. I do not like the war. I do not like the casualties.


What's your question? I don't like the Taliban either, but I'm not sure how much blood and treasure Canada should be willing to expend getting rid of them. Unless we (Canadians) and our allies agree that we're willing to really commit to a long term take-over in the region (as in decades), whereby the West seizes control, enforces our laws and order for long enough for them to become the norm, and pours enough resources into the region that our rule is perceived by the vast majority of the locals to be much better than the Taliban, we're not going to accomplish anything.

An alternative would be to let the religious fundamentalists have the rockpile, cordon them off and cut off trade (while providing political and religious asylum to all of their best and brightest, and engaging in standard memetic warfare tactics to ensure the populace were aware of what their leadership were preventing them from enjoying). How long do you think they'd last before their own people turned against them?

I'm just not clear on why Canadian soldiers are dying trying to accomplish the herculean task of establishing order in Afghanistan. Aren't there other places in the world where we could accomplish much more with much less cost?

I'm not opposed to our trying to help out other countries, but there's only so much we can do, and I'm not at all sure that our limited resources can do any good in Afghanistan at all.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Do any of you watch TV? ... I mean besides Lost or Battlestar Galactica.

Here's one for you: Frontline: Return Of The Taliban... watch it online and there's tons of maps and other information on the site:

FRONTLINE: return of the taliban: watch the full program | PBS

It becomes clear to me *why* there are so few US troops in Afghanistan... I wonder... how do you plan to win the war and maintain peace there without engaging Pakistan?

I do hope y'all understand why engaging Pakistan would not be a wise move.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Thanks for that link. It's so depressing and hopeless. The West cannot help this area. The Jihadists will spread their hate no matter what. We can only protect so few. Canada is practically in a no-win situation.

If Pakistan falls to these extremists, they may start a nuclear war against India.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Dreambird said:


> how do you plan to win the war and maintain peace there without engaging Pakistan?
> 
> I do hope y'all understand why engaging Pakistan would not be a wise move.


Maybe you should have a look at what's happened to the Red Mosque?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

gmark2000 said:


> Thanks for that link. It's so depressing and hopeless. The West cannot help this area. The Jihadists will spread their hate no matter what. We can only protect so few. Canada is practically in a no-win situation.
> 
> If Pakistan falls to these extremists, they may start a nuclear war against India.


Why should you be concerned if Pakistan starts a nuclear war with India? I mean, if we can't hope to influence events in that area...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Let the propaganda (and lies begin)*



> The Harper government has been told to stop referring to “fighting terrorism” and the Sept. 11 attacks, and to banish the phrase “cut and run” from its vocabulary if it is to persuade a skeptical public that the military mission in Afghanistan is worth pursuing.
> 
> A public-opinion report says only 40 per cent of respondents across Canada, and almost none in Quebec, support the deployment. To change the perceptions, it recommends putting the emphasis on “rebuilding,” “enhancing the lives of women and children,” and “peacekeeping.”
> 
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070713.wafghanpr13/BNStory/National/home
Sure you can fool some of the people some of the time...


Now I'll know that these words are b.s. if they are uttered from Government talking heads...



> This is an excerpt of key messages: - We are there as part of our commitment to the UN and NATO.
> 
> - We are there with 36 other nations.
> 
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070713.afghan-prblurb13/BNStory/Front
I guess all will soon to be appearing in the media.... :yawn:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> globeandmail.com: Change tune on war, PM told
> Sure you can fool some of the people some of the time...
> 
> 
> ...


from the 1st article;


> Only 40 per cent of Canadians support the mission, according to Strategic Counsel data.


I guess in Alberta, home of our resident scribe; SINC, the "majority" must mean less than 50%
That explains how Ralph Klein was re-elected all those years.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

IronMac said:


> Maybe you should have a look at what's happened to the Red Mosque?


OK... ya, that's nice, however it's mainly an internal affair even "if" the US might have been involved on the sly, which I'm not sure of and it's all in what I'll call "Pakistan proper" for lack of a better term. 

The Tribal Areas lodged between Afghanistan and Pakistan are a different matter... I believe they belong to Pakistan however:



> A Critical Part of the World
> For centuries the wild Pakistani tribal area -- stretching 500 miles along the Afghan border -- has been lawless, violent and remote. Today it is a breeding ground for jihad. Taliban and Al Qaeda militants use this area as a launching pad for attacks against neighboring Afghanistan -- and a training ground for terrorist attacks worldwide. It is an area of Pakistan the government doesn't control and it is off limits to the U.S. military and the CIA.


Read:

FRONTLINE: return of the taliban: inside the tribal areas | PBS

Musharraff says he won't negotiate with terrorists when addressing the Pakistani people but he DOES negotiate with these!


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> What is the current situation in Afghanistan?
> 
> The Taliban have had a very successful spring and summer. They are demonstrating military and political strength that they have not been able to demonstrate since Sept. 11.
> 
> ...


That was spring/summer of 2006... read for yourself:
FRONTLINE: return of the taliban: pakistan: can afghanistan be saved? | PBS

Today I hear Chertoff on TV proclaiming to anyone who wants to listen that everything the US knows suggest that Al Qaeda has rebounded and is likely stronger today than it was at the time of 9/11. 

Meanwhile Harper has some sort of "sugar plum fairies" dancing around in his head about how Canada is going set Afghanistan on the straight and narrow and Canada will take it's place as some sort of world leader. Give me a break! 

I am sick of Canada's young people coming home in boxes from a war we clearly can not win... 

I support them alright... bring them home... NOW! While they are alive and can raise their families.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Here's another good read for ya:

Time For a strategic re-think in Afghanistan?

Pisses me off to no end that NATO pisses around while Canada and Britain "hold the bag" in the most volatile regions of Afghanistan... in other words where the others don't want to go...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Third, I agree that there is not enough support among other countries. Why? That's because too many people have an idiotic notion that it's all tied in to Iraq, they're worried about casualties, they're defeatists, or they have no realization the implications of a Western withdrawal.


 Makes no difference why they have these beliefs. This is the point you keep neglecting. So what if people are defeatists etc. The fact of the matter is they are not on board and are never going to be. It doesn't mater how altruistic Canada's motives may be (something I strongly doubt anyway). WITHOUT POPULAR SUPPORT WE ARE PISSING IN THE WIND. 
As for the "implications of a Western withdrawal", you have utterly failed to show how under these circumstances the mission has any hope of any positive results. I'd say the implications of the west staying are far worse than a withdrawal.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Now I'll know that these words are b.s. if they are uttered from Government talking heads...
> 
> 
> globeandmail.com: The war of words


So, which parts are lies?



> This is an excerpt of key messages: - We are there as part of our commitment to the UN and NATO.
> 
> - We are there with 36 other nations.
> 
> ...


Let's go, AS...let's go through every point if you dare.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Dreambird said:


> which I'm not sure of and it's all in what I'll call "Pakistan proper" for lack of a better term.


The Red Mosque is in Islamabad...the capital of the country.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> I'd say the implications of the west staying are far worse than a withdrawal.


And what are the implications of the West staying? Money spent and lives lost? I think it goes way beyond that; a Western withdrawal will show that the West can be frightened off which is a direct result of the Soviet Afghan debacle. The Islamic fundamentalists took heart from their defeat of the Soviets and that allowed them to believe that they can take on the West.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> So, which parts are lies?
> 
> 
> 
> Let's go, AS...let's go through every point if you dare.


Obviously you miss the point entirely yet again.


As stated: Now I'll know that these words are b.s. i*f they are uttered from Government talking heads...*

Given that Harper once famously stated:


> This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion.


The harperpocrisic Harper is amusing. 
So we can expect a War of words being using in the media to try and change popular opinion in a loosing war. I expect many "positive" spin stories...
Added that we will not be getting key information (such as how we are handling prisoners)....

So if you really enjoy this farce that is the "war on terror" go ahead, but given that we now have to go into "full propaganda" mode (five years after invading the country) something has to be wrong and this whitewash certainly will not be the cure.

If you enjoy being lied to, and I suspect you do, because it's what you want to believe, that fine. I'm quite sure that you'll be eating corneille soon enough.


Let the "peacebuilding" and pretzel logic start.... 

ps - I wonder if Canadian taxpayers paid for that little report on how to lie to Canadians?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Robert Fisk has a few words about some in power...



> Hands up those readers who know that Canada's Defence Minister, Gordon O'Connor, actually sent a letter to Rumsfeld two days before his departure in disgrace from the Pentagon, praising this disreputable man's "leadership". Yes, O'Connor wanted "to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your many achievements (sic) as Secretary of Defence, and to recognise the significant contribution you have made in the fight against terrorism". The world, gushed the ridiculous O'Connor, had benefited from Rumsfeld's "leadership in addressing the complex issues in play".
> 
> O'Connor tried to shrug off this grovelling note, acquired through the Canadian Access to Information Act, by claiming he merely wanted to thank Rumsfeld for the use of US medical facilities in Germany to ferry wounded Canadian soldiers home from Afghanistan. But he made no mention of this in his preposterous letter.* O'Connor, it seems, is just another of the world's illusionists who believe they can ignore the facts - and laud fools - by stating the opposite of the truth. Bush, of course, is among the worst of these meretricious creatures. So is the late Tony Blair.*


Robert Fisk: TE Lawrence had it right about Iraq - Independent Online Edition > Robert Fisk

Birds of a feather...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

IronMac said:


> The Red Mosque is in Islamabad...the capital of the country.


Yes, I KNOW where and what Islamabad is... nice trick though quoting someone out of context in an attempt to make them look silly all the while ignoring the true meaning of the original post. The full post is #107... if you take the time to read the whole thing I think it will be apparent to you that I meant such a thing could not happen in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Dreambird said:


> Yes, I KNOW where and what Islamabad is... nice trick though quoting someone out of context in an attempt to make them look silly all the while ignoring the true meaning of the original post. The full post is #107... if you take the time to read the whole thing I think it will be apparent to you that I meant such a thing could not happen in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan...


Here is what you said:



Dreambird said:


> and it's all in what I'll call "Pakistan proper" for lack of a better term.


Putting quotes around the words _Pakistan proper_ makes it seem that there was some dispute as to what is really Pakistani territory.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Obviously you miss the point entirely yet again.
> 
> 
> As stated: Now I'll know that these words are b.s. i*f they are uttered from Government talking heads...*


But, they are not lies are they? The truth of the matter is, you're simply unwilling/unable to acknowledge a fact when it does not fit into your world-view. One wonders whether or not your concern about Western troops losing their lives is tainted by your political views?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> One wonders whether or not your concern about Western troops losing their lives is tainted by your political views?


I have very little concern about soldiers loosing their lives. 
I've always maintained that while it is tragic, this is the a risk associated to their job. One that I'd think they knew very well signing up for the army. 


As for the situation there:


> In rare public criticism of the Karzai's leadership by a senior official, the governor of Kapisa province, Abdul Sattar Murad, also said Pakistan intelligence officers promoted the Taliban.
> 
> "In terms of internal factors, the government cannot deliver, and this is a problem," Murad said in an interview with Newsweek magazine in its latest issue.
> 
> ...


http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/ne...0_NEWS-AFGHAN-GOVERNOR-COL.XML&archived=False

That's winning the war, right?

And in shades of Iraq, where everyting seems outsourced...


> A roadside bomb killed six Afghans working for a *Western security company *in the east of the country on Sunday, the provincial governor said.


http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/ne...5845_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-AFGHAN-VIOLENCE-COL.XML


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> And what are the implications of the West staying? Money spent and lives lost? I think it goes way beyond that; a Western withdrawal will show that the West can be frightened off which is a direct result of the Soviet Afghan debacle. The Islamic fundamentalists took heart from their defeat of the Soviets and that allowed them to believe that they can take on the West.


This is just a bunch of right wing talking points nothing more.
You still have failed to even attempt to explain how we are able to promote POSITIVE CHANGE in Afghanistan when there is no public support and there is going to be no public support. How is a half measure going to do anything other than make the Taliban's point for them? As for the final sentence above: Come on! The Soviet defeat had nothing to do with the attack on 9-11. The Taliban never attacked the US (till the US invaded), and Al Qaeda never fought the Soviets (till after 9-11 and their connections to the Chechnyens have never been made clear since then). Now who's stretching history?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> That's winning the war, right?


<sarcasm>Don't worry so long as we kill some of them, we can win the hearts and minds and the conflict. By not backing down (for a couple of years) we will defeat those who actually come from Afghanistan and those harbored by those who live there. Hell, even though they aren't going anywhere and we are going to leave, pegging off a few of them will win the day. Politics and rhetoric ARE enough!</sarcasm>


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> You still have failed to even attempt to explain how we are able to promote POSITIVE CHANGE in Afghanistan when there is no public support and there is going to be no public support. How is a half measure going to do anything other than make the Taliban's point for them? As for the final sentence above: Come on! The Soviet defeat had nothing to do with the attack on 9-11. The Taliban never attacked the US (till the US invaded), and Al Qaeda never fought the Soviets (till after 9-11 and their connections to the Chechnyens have never been made clear since then). Now who's stretching history?


First off, running out on Afghanistant is zeroing-out any sort of option of a positive change.

Second, I strongly suggest you read "The Looming Tower" for a bit more background on the Taliban and al-Qaeda.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

IronMac said:


> First off, running out on Afghanistant is zeroing-out any sort of option of a positive change.
> 
> Second, I strongly suggest you read "The Looming Tower" for a bit more background on the Taliban and al-Qaeda.


straight out of Tony Snow's talking points


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> straight out of Tony Snow's talking points


No idea of who he is but does it make it any less valid?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> No idea of who he is but does it make it any less valid?


Snow is (was?) the White House spokesman. It may not make it less valid but the implication is that information from Snow is incredibly biased and the reputation of the white house for truth is pretty bad these days...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

martman said:


> Snow is (was?) the White House spokesman. It may not make it less valid but the implication is that information from Snow is incredibly biased and the reputation of the white house for truth is pretty bad these days...


and let's not forget Snow was a FAUX news anchor before moving to the White House


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and let's not forget Snow was a FAUX news anchor before moving to the White House


Careful 'Spec.

There are a lot of "FAUXs" out there. Some of 'em are even computer wizards and techno type guys.

Checked your mirror lately?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> Snow is (was?) the White House spokesman. It may not make it less valid but the implication is that information from Snow is incredibly biased and the reputation of the white house for truth is pretty bad these days...


Maybe it would be better to view the argument and its points rather than who said it?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Maybe it would be better to view the argument and its points rather than who said it?


The argument is lame. There is no chance of a positive outcome because there is no popular or international support. Even Harper is admitting this. So what you are supporting is a futile action that will cause harmful reactions which are sure to cause more strife and death. By your own admission there is not enough will to accomplish the "goals" but you keep clinging to "its the only chance". I put it to you that it is not a chance and you are supporting the pointless killing of people (largely civilians) to bolster some unrealizable fantasy of a progressive democracy in Afghanistan. It isn't going to happen that way and deep down you know it. As far as I can see you are afraid to admit you are wrong and are willing to see strangers in a far away place killed to support this fear.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> The argument is lame. There is no chance of a positive outcome because there is no popular or international support. Even Harper is admitting this. So what you are supporting is a futile action that will cause harmful reactions which are sure to cause more strife and death. By your own admission there is not enough will to accomplish the "goals" but you keep clinging to "its the only chance". I put it to you that it is not a chance and you are supporting the pointless killing of people (largely civilians) to bolster some unrealizable fantasy of a progressive democracy in Afghanistan. It isn't going to happen that way and deep down you know it. As far as I can see you are afraid to admit you are wrong and are willing to see strangers in a far away place killed to support this fear.


That's a self-defeating argument. Everyone talks about the lack of support and assume that it's a foregone conclusion. Everyone is fixated on the defeatist notion that Afghanistan is the "graveyard of empires" and so it can't be done. Next thing you know, a few people are killed and everyone's running scared.

As for supporting the killing of innocent people...sorry bud but I've never supported that and I've never said anything about a progressive democracy.

What I see is yet another example of how weak the Western democracies have become and it's truly pathetic. No wonder some religious fundamentalist is laughing his head off in a Pakistani compound.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> That's a self-defeating argument. Everyone talks about the lack of support and assume that it's a foregone conclusion. Everyone is fixated on the defeatist notion that Afghanistan is the "graveyard of empires" and so it can't be done.


And you have what evidence that Afghanistan is not the "graveyard of empires"?
It's not just a self-defeating argument it is called * REALISM*. We don't have the support of our people and the main players don't have the support of their people. Most of the players are not even willing to go into actual combat, but somehow we are going to win in Afghanistan?
What the hell are you smoking? I want some.


edit: added bold and fixed typo, punctuation and spelling errors


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

martman said:


> What the hell are you smoking? I want some.


The record crop of opium?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> And you have what evidence that Afghanistan is not the "graveyard of empires"?
> It's not just a self-defeating argument it is called * REALISM*. We don't have the support of our people and the main players don't have the support of their people. Most of the players are not even willing to go into actual combat, but somehow we are going to win in Afghanistan?


I said everyone is fixated on that idea. I never said it was not true but it's not a foregone conclusion. With that sort of attitude and logic, the human race would still be sitting in a tree telling itself that there are lions on the ground who ate the first two to venture down.

The majority of Afghans support the NATO mission and that's a fact. If you want to see what it means for Afghans to NOT support the mission then I suggest you look at the Soviet experience. Go on, you show me where the West is experiencing what the Soviets experienced and then I will admit that the West has to get out.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Go on, you show me where the West is experiencing what the Soviets experienced and then I will admit that the West has to get out.


You mean the road side bombs? Or the dead soldiers?


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

or the killing of innocent civilians...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CamCanola said:


> or the killing of innocent civilians...


or the killing of hundreds of thousands MORE innocent civilians by the Taliban if we abandon them?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> or the killing of hundreds of thousands MORE innocent civilians by the Taliban if we abandon them?



i see SINC is now in the clairvoyance business


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So Michael, you somehow know that if we left, no Afghan civilians would suffer at the hands of the Taliban? Not even the women?

Enlighten us please as to how that would happen in YOUR crystal ball.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> So Michael, you somehow know that if we left, no Afghan civilians would suffer at the hands of the Taliban? Not even the women?
> 
> Enlighten us please as to how that would happen in YOUR crystal ball.


you were the one quoting "hundreds of thousands"

saying you are wrong doesn;t mean i say ZERO deaths
unless of course you're using that ralph klein logic again

interesting how AB was run for years by a "reformed" alcoholic and now one sits in the white house

boozing and oil seem to go hand in hand

/end hijack my own post


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you were the one quoting "hundreds of thousands"
> 
> saying you are wrong doesn;t mean i say ZERO deaths
> unless of course you're using that ralph klein logic again
> ...


:yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: 

Same old same old.

Ralph's been gone for nearly a year. Run out of facts or what?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:
> 
> Same old same old.
> 
> Ralph's been gone for nearly a year. Run out of facts or what?


and yet his legacy in AB lives on with the fact you mentioned of AB's crime rate UP over the past 5 YEARS 

years of ralph


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> You mean the road side bombs? Or the dead soldiers?


Show us whether or not we are experiencing the same as the Soviets did. That will give some credence to your claim that the Afghans don't want us there.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and yet his legacy in AB lives on with the fact you mentioned of AB's crime rate UP over the past 5 YEARS
> 
> years of ralph


Criminal code crimes are up. That's a federal problem, nothing to do with Ralph. Federal laws are not tough enough to curb crime is the problem. You know, punks packing handguns and shooting up the city is why crime is up. Ralph served this province well during his time.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Criminal code crimes are up. That's a federal problem, nothing to do with Ralph. Federal laws are not tough enough to curb crime is the problem. You know, punks packing handguns and shooting up the city is why crime is up. Ralph served this province well during his time.



the only thing ralph served well was the bourbon
the man was a self admitted alcoholic for most of his time as permier
do you think alcoholics do better or worse jobs than their sober counter parts?
or is it only alcoholic conservative permiers that are better than their sober counter parts?
oye

social programs are provincial responsibilities
laws don't need to be tougher
social programs need to be better

pro active as opposed to re-active

old business acumen; "takes 10% of energy to avoid the problem as it does to fix it"

yeah, just keep blaming everything on the Liberals
that dog just don't hunt no more

u got 36+ years of con artists
now the con meister himself in ottawa and crime is going up

ah, give me the days of trudeau 

a proper NEP would have our energy woes and social programs in much better shape


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

'Spec, you are sounding like Klein on a bad day. Take a rest and, perhaps, slow down on the bourbon.

By the way, homicides are up from a few years ago in MB and SK...care to blame any randomly selected politicians? How about some more lies about AB ending "socialised medicine" like most of the rest of the developed world has done, by such standards? Or do you seriously think that it is just us and them (Canada and the U.S.) regarding health care systems? You're 'special, but not that simple, I hope.

And now NEP, whereby some provinces take the resources of others. Does the West get discount cars and financial services or is this just about energy-hungry easterners taking what they can? I think that they may try, with people such as yourself who think that you have a right to provincially owned resources in another province.

'Spec, you're playing your standard Fox game and making O'Reilly look honest relative to yourself. You are 'special.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

BJ you are evil, pretending to be neutral when in fact you're a wanna be(J) neo con.

Perhaps that oil patch teat you've been sucking on has rotted your brain.

once again for the hard of reading, MB and SK are "have not" provinces with far, far less money than AB and yet similar crime rates

one day you;ll realize that money is not as important as helping your fellow human, but you've been trained to think of that as socialism


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> BJ you are evil, pretending to be neutral when in fact you're a wanna be(J) neo con.
> 
> Perhaps that oil patch teat you've been sucking on has rotted your brain.
> 
> ...


Wow. You seem to have lost your limited ability to reason. Bourbon, gin, whiskey? Maybe you will feel better if you list all of your charitable contributions for us so that you can brag.

I already tried to explain to you that the Prairie provinces are, despite wealth differences, experiencing the homicide rate increase (incl. SK-MB change in wealth), and the data show a lower homicide rate for AB than SK or MB, but perhaps you have a magic number to be politically acceptable to a hack. Of course, you ignore all complex considerations, as per Fox guidelines. Then there's the labeling as "evil" (good neocon, 'spec) and other strange neocon tactics. There is also your trying to cover the previous post that was wistfully looking back at a have province stealing from another, but trying to call that helping out. Of course, there's ignoring any prior notion that I support universal optical, dental and basic income.

'Spec, the lies and mistakes embedded in your posts, either by intention or omission, keep piling up. I'll blame your current state and hope that, despite your tendency to act like Fox, you are not quite this extremely dishonest when faced with your failure. 

I actually do not wish you ill, but suspect that you may not feel the same way about me.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> the only thing ralph served well was the bourbon
> the man was a self admitted alcoholic for most of his time as permier
> do you think alcoholics do better or worse jobs than their sober counter parts?
> or is it only alcoholic conservative permiers that are better than their sober counter parts?
> oye


To tell you the truth Michael, I am much more worried about YOUR present state than I ever was about Ralph.

Get some help. Please?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> To tell you the truth Michael, I am much more worried about YOUR present state than I ever was about Ralph.
> 
> Get some help. Please?


keep on sticking your head in the sand and avoiding the truth that ABers elected and re-elected a known alcoholic

ralphie's staff (the ones that had brains) left after ralphie stopped drinking and started thinking of himself a philosopher king

as for dismantling socialized medicine in Canada, wasn't it Ralph that announced on the day of an election past that he would announce something that might contravene the Canada Health Act? and very possibly costing harpo a minority gov't


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

'Spec, I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

On the topic of health care, I think we have in the past covered how "socialised" medicine exists in most developed nations with two tiers and that Canadians are actually offered two tiers because they can always just take their money out of the country for care (sometimes to a country that hires Canadian doctors). So skip the dishonesty. It does not become you nor Shouldice.

Let it go and you'll find that tomorrow, perhaps, there is an interesting discussion in dissecting the factors behind violent crimes and/or in the numerous approaches to socialised medicine.


----------

