Obsession Massage

Commitment in Afghanistan

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,716
98
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
assoholic said:
..its a perfectly legitimate question, if someone is asking me to go kill someone why wont he do it if he believes in it so much. Its a very legitimate question, none of you chicken hawks will ever give an answer though.
By the way Goldberg looks like a big soft pussy, a perfect example of a chicken hawk.So of course he whines about it, because he, like you will not answer a simple question. If you think it is life or death why are you chicken hawks not joining up ?
It's an idiotic question. I get to have an opinion and view on all matters, just like you do, I don't need to serve in the military to have a view on our foreign or defense policies. Neither do you.

Interestingly enough, re-enlistment of active military in the US is above target, I guess those who really do know what's going on are supportive.

I'll let Mr. Goldberg defend himself.

I have a greater faith in Canadian fortitude that you do.

OTB
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
..why spend he time to argue with me ?

its pretty obvious Canadian support is low and casualities wll further erode it leading to a withdrawal. You argue like a kid, whats the exact number, how the hell should I know I am not a right winger who hasevery answer.
Just because you know I am right you are all upset, well boo hoo, Canada will not be sending thousands of its sons/daughters overseas to die beside
Americans whos biggest proponents of the war will do none of the tough stuff. Like the actual fighting.
Screech all you want chicken hawk, very few Canadians are listening.
We consider Bush, Cheeney and the rest of them contemptible let along trustworthy.
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
...Canadian fortitude is when we tell the US to go stuff themeselves when we are asked to support their illegal/immoral wars.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,716
98
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Interesting G&M article on the subject:


Majority opposed to Afghan mission

BRIAN LAGHI

From Friday's Globe and Mail

A robust majority of Canadians say they would opt against sending troops to Afghanistan and would like to see parliamentarians have the opportunity to vote on the issue.

The results are included in a Globe and Mail/CTV poll that suggests the new Conservative government may have to be careful when and if it decides to extend the 18-month commitment for the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar. That obligation is in its sixth month and ends a year from now. Moreover, a Canadian general takes command of the NATO forces in southern Afghanistan on March 1.

"I'm very, very surprised at the degree of opposition to something that is not well known by the population," said Allan Gregg, chairman of the Strategic Counsel, which conducted the poll.

"I think you've got a knee-jerk against doing anything with the Americans, especially on the military front, but also part of this distinctiveness and difference with the United States is our unwarlike nature."

The poll found that 62 per cent of Canadians are against sending troops to Afghanistan, while only 27 per cent are in favour. Furthermore, 73 per cent of those surveyed said parliamentarians should have the chance to vote on deployment.

It's unclear at this point whether the Canadian tour of duty will be extended, although some defence officials expect it will be.

Yesterday, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor promised unflagging government support for the deployment of the 2,200 Canadian troops in the country. The soldiers are facing an increasingly dangerous insurgency bent on the downfall of U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai.

"Not only is our deployment to Afghanistan the largest and most important Canadian Forces operation at the moment, it's also quite representative of the type of missions that our military will be called upon to perform in the future," Mr. O'Connor said.

The poll of 1,000 Canadians was taken Feb. 16-19 and is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 95 per cent of the time.

The numbers suggest that Canadians are supportive of increasing the size of the military and like the idea of spending more money on it. But Canadians are still skeptical about taking part in international conflicts that aren't seen as peacekeeping ventures or that are part of a U.S.-led effort.

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien decided in 2003 that Canada would not participate in the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Mr. Gregg said support for the increased spending commitments represents the "table stakes" that Canadians would be willing to pay in order to have a more significant voice in international affairs.

On the question of how Canadians would vote on the issue of sending troops, 76 per cent of Quebeckers were against the idea, while 56 per cent of respondents in Western Canada -- who are seen to be closer in values to the United States -- also do not like the idea.

Quebeckers were also the most likely to want their MPs to have a say in the matter, with 83 per cent saying there should be a vote.

On a related question, the poll found that among those who support sending troops, 31 per cent would change their minds if the operation leads to significant casualties.

The poll also found a split over whether Canada should participate in the war on terrorism. Of those surveyed, 48 per cent supported participation, while 43 per cent were against.

Mr. Gregg said Prime Minister Stephen Harper will have to be cautious in how he manages Canada's relationship with the United States in general.

If the Conservative Leader really is intent on having his party wrest away from the Liberals their traditional role as the party of Canadian nationalism, Mr. Harper cannot be seen to cave in to U.S. requests.

Mr. Gregg said he expects Mr. Harper will have a two-pronged strategy toward the Americans that will try to repair strained relations while being seen to defend Canadians' rights.

He may, for example, discuss such issues as Canadian involvement in ballistic missile defence, while at the same time pushing forward with such issues as Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic.

Polling on Afghanistan

Should a decision to send troops to Afghanistan require parliamentary approval?

Yes: 73%

No: 20%

Don't know: 7%

If you were an MP would you vote in favour of sending troops to Afghanistan?

Yes: 27%

No: 62%

Don't know: 11%

Would your position change if you knew it might lead to significant casualties?*

Yes: 31%

No: 64%

Don't know: 5%

4. Do Canadians think Canada should be participating in the war on terrorism?

Yes: 48%

No: 43%

Don't know: 9%

*This question asked only to those who voted yes to the previous question.

SOURCE: STRATEGIC COUNSEL
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,716
98
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
..you have the right to you opinion OTB, however the first question I ask any-one asking me to do anything,is why arent you doing it yourself ?
A question that was never put to Bush with any real effort.
I know your a white collar guy, so am I, but if it were WW2 I would give up my relatively cushy life and join up, this is not WW2.
If you are supporting this war I dont think its unreasonable to ask why your support does not include your active participation.
I think your honest answer would be you dont really feel that threatened by the terrorist threat and support this war as long as people you dont care about get killed doing it.
With that kind of support any war effort is doomed to fail.
 

red

you must be fk'n kid'g me
Nov 13, 2001
17,569
8
38
since the start of the afghan campaign - 8 cdn soldiers and I diplomat have been killed.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,716
98
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
assoholic said:
..you have the right to you opinion OTB, however the first question I ask any-one asking me to do anything,is why arent you doing it yourself ?
A question that was never put to Bush with any real effort.
I know your a white collar guy, so am I, but if it were WW2 I would give up my relatively cushy life and join up, this is not WW2.
If you are supporting this war I dont think its unreasonable to ask why your support does not include your active participation.
I think your honest answer would be you dont really feel that threatened by the terrorist threat and support this war as long as people you dont care about get killed doing it.
With that kind of support any war effort is doomed to fail.

A more reasonable tone warrants a more reasonable response.

I think you can support an action without taking part in it, there are 300m Americans and 150k troops in Iraq (far fewer in Afghanistan). Is it your suggestion that only the 2m or so active military personal get to support this action? I think that's childish logic.

I don't think in WW2 they wanted 45 yr old guys signing up, believe me, I'd only slow them down.

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,716
98
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
red said:
since the start of the afghan campaign - 8 cdn soldiers and I diplomat have been killed.
It would be nice to be able to quantify the good that came of that sacrifice.

OTB
 

red

you must be fk'n kid'g me
Nov 13, 2001
17,569
8
38
onthebottom said:
It would be nice to be able to quantify the good that came of that sacrifice.

OTB
it would- but we don't give our boys and girls in uniform their due in this country.
 

red

you must be fk'n kid'g me
Nov 13, 2001
17,569
8
38
langeweile said:
looks like Harper is about to change that...good for him
i hope so. but i don't really believe any politician.
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,308
1
38
Earth
assoholic said:
its only in like the last month Canada has begun combat operations.
JTF2 has been conducting combat operations since the Afghan operation started. Moreover, the PPCLI has conducted operations earlier in the Afghan operation. Further, few of the recent so called “peace keeping” operations are really traditional peach keeping operations but are rather in a grey area in between.
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
onthebottom said:
A more reasonable tone warrants a more reasonable response.

I think you can support an action without taking part in it, there are 300m Americans and 150k troops in Iraq (far fewer in Afghanistan). Is it your suggestion that only the 2m or so active military personal get to support this action? I think that's childish logic.

I don't think in WW2 they wanted 45 yr old guys signing up, believe me, I'd only slow them down.

OTB
then the question becomes would you encourage your nieces/nephews/children to join the fight ?
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,716
98
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
assoholic said:
then the question becomes would you encourage your nieces/nephews/children to join the fight ?
Sure, if they wanted to serve, I have friends in the military now and friends who have just left (last 2 years). One was a Marine based at Gitmo, he tells a different story than you hear in the media and read in TOVs posts but their his stories not mine.

OTB
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
..I am not sure how to resond then OTB. I will say I have some respect for you then. However , I will say I wonder if you would have supported theses wars as enthstiatically if you were in your twenties.
When you might have been asked to serve.
War is a horrible thing, somthing you or I can barely comprehend and DQ can
barely explain to us.
It is killing and torture.
If you allow the government to kill and torture other people, sooner or later they will come after you.
Remember the founding fathers, what they gave us was freedom, but mostly freedom from the clutches of government.
We are loseing that.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,716
98
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
assoholic said:
..I am not sure how to resond then OTB. I will say I have some respect for you then. However , I will say I wonder if you would have supported theses wars as enthstiatically if you were in your twenties.
When you might have been asked to serve.
I'm certainly not the guy I was in my 20s - my knees remind me of that on a daily basis. But I was no less a strong supporter of the military in my 20s. I just didn't join, interviewed with the Airforce (had 20/17 vision and wanted John McCain's old job) but didn't pull the trigger if you'll pardon the pun. I've had options that many don't have, some I've made for myself and some have been given to me - I appreciate that.

assoholic said:
War is a horrible thing, somthing you or I can barely comprehend and DQ can
barely explain to us.
It is killing and torture.
If you allow the government to kill and torture other people, sooner or later they will come after you.
My support of this war has always been based on the fact that there was already killing and torture going on, just not here. There is an opportunity cost to not acting, Rwanda is the simplest example - 800,000 black people die, a couple dozen white people - is that a good decision. If the US would have lost 3,000 troops saving 800,000 would that have been a good trade? Sometimes there are no good choices, WWI was a good example.

assoholic said:
Remember the founding fathers, what they gave us was freedom, but mostly freedom from the clutches of government.
We are loseing that.
I don't think we are, I think the fact that there is so much discussion about the Patriot Act and wire tapping of US residents talking to terrorist on the phone that the suspicion of government is alive and well in the US.

OTB
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
..see thats where we differ 3,000 troops dont mean shit and they couldnt have stopped the slaughter. Hell with 160,00 trrops the US cannot control a 2'nd world counry at best. Its not that easy, the US cannot control the rest of the world, its not that strong.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,716
98
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
assoholic said:
..see thats where we differ 3,000 troops dont mean shit and they couldnt have stopped the slaughter. Hell with 160,00 trrops the US cannot control a 2'nd world counry at best. Its not that easy, the US cannot control the rest of the world, its not that strong.
I didn't make myself clear, what I meant was that if the US had sent troops (40-60k, many more than the Canadian General on the ground wanted), saved 800,000 lives and lost 3,000 casualties in the process would that have been a good thing?

OTB
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts