Well, to keep up on the ongoing debate on our Terror on War, The Harp has come out and made a statement regarding the democratic process known as an open debate in parliament in regards to Canada's role in Afghanistan. Of course, he is against any sort of open debate on sending our troops, but he is still in a firm belief in opening up discussions on limiting the rights of the gay community. The second part has nothing to do with the first but I just wanted to remind everyone about it. The Harp reiterated P-Makkie's statement yesterday that talking about Canada's role in Afghanistan will jeopardize their safety, and in true Con fashion, he did not elaborate in any way.
I just have to say it again. CANADIANS AREN'T AGAINST TROOPS BEING IN AFGHANISTAN, THEY ARE AGAINST CANADA BEING IN A COMMAND ROLE AND BEING THE FOCAL POINT OF THE INSERGENT ATTACKS!!!! We had a duty to help the US and we fulfilled it. We have a duty to the world to be in Afghanistan to stabilize the nation and we were doing it. What we don't have a duty to do is lead the war on terrorism. History has accepted the fact that being part of the mob is fine, only leading the mob is wrong.
Now back to The Harp's comments, the first one is so American, you would think that Dick Cheney himself wrote it. This statement was in response to questions by the press about a debate: "I understand the frustrations," he said. "Perhaps the previous government should have had a vote on the deployment, but that was not their decision. The decision was taken and we can't change our opinion when the troops are in danger." First of all, when the Liberals sent the troops to Afghanistan, it was in a supplementary role (minor role for all the Cons out there) with the US leading the military as per our agreements with NATO. Secondly, I thought free will allowed us to change our mind. If our troops are in danger and there are ways to avoid it, then we should contemplate those ideas as a fall back just in case. Finally, we have no purpose running the show in Afghanistan, the ideal group that should be running the show is the Afghanistan government, however there isn't enough stability in the country yet to safely do so.
These types of statements just blow my mind. "It's not the intention of this government to question the particular commitment when our troops are in danger," he said. "Such a debate or such a lack of strength by any of the political parties in Canada will merely weaken the resolve of our troops and will even put our troops in even more danger." Now, war is a very unpopular thing for most people but is understandable for the most part. If people didn't disagree with opinions, then we wouldn't really need a democracy. As I said earlier, denying democratic debate on our role in Afghanistan is more detrimental than actually debating it. At least if the debate is done, we are showing that democracy works. The troops would be better off knowing that there is still a democracy at home that they are fighting for. I am speaking for a lot of people when I say that we want the troops to stay in Afghanistan, but only to help out the Afghanistan government in a supplementary role. If the current campaign was led by the UN with close input by the Afghanistan government, this would be more acceptable and also less dangerous. Why less dangerous you ask, because our name is not on the front page as the leaders of the infidels invading their country.
The final quote I am going to discuss is a long one but is still ridiculously stupid.
"The exact involvement of our commitment does change every year or so, depending on what obligations we take on or don't take on, and we'll be reviewing those obligations at the appropriate times in the future. "
"But as I say, we will not be in any way backtracking from an obligation which has been undertaken."
To do so, he said, "would not only not be in the best interests of Canada's international reputation or of our obligation to the people of Afghanistan and to the international community, it would be a betrayal of the men and women, the brave men and women we have in the field, who are danger.
"So we will not be revisiting any decisions until the time when those decisions would normally come up for review."
So what The Harp is saying is this, there are times and places for opinions to change and that is called an election campaign. If your decisions do not change while the situations do, you will die. It is as simple as that. Analyzing and adjusting is the basis of strategic military planning. If you do not follow this, you will get another Vietnam/Iraq on your hands. I am unsure who gave the okay to let Canadian forces lead the Afghanistan forces and if anyone does know, can you let me so I can bash them on my blog. It may be Liberal, but I am not 100% certain. The Harp is just doing one stupid thing after another and Canadians are starting to wake up to what exactly they did on January 23, 2006. If The Harp keeps it up, then that loud thumping noise you will be hearing will be every Canadian bashing their head repeatedly into a wall for voting for this guy.
No comments:
Post a Comment