Well, we're in Afghanistan. That had something to do with Al Qaeda actually being there. I think we just analyze the situation and see if we really need to go in or not.
Good bet if Harper was PM back then we would be in Iraq though.
Seeing as he argued for us going at the time I believe ya we definitely would have been there. What a nightmare that would have been.
On the other hand, had we gone into the clusterfuck that was iraq, The conservatives would have been shattered in the next election. I'm not even talking losing, I'm talking minority opposition. The green's would consider them to be the "joke party" of canadian politics.
No, they wouldn't have. Because if there's one thing the CPC is excellent at, it's hiding behind "the troops". Not actual soldiers, but "the troops". And they would have positioned a good sounding message that the Liberals are attacking "the troops" by saying they can't do the job "we" sent them to do.
To which the appropriate response would be sending canadian military forces into military action against a second nation for reasons which are internationally derided by our allies without any clear notion of an endgame objective is the very deffinition of disrespect to the canadian armed forces.
Just to be to be clear... Harper is keeping them there but the liberals are the ones who got us in this mess in the first place. Even they seem to forget that sometimes.
Ever poll of the Afghan people I've seen says that a significant majority of them are glad we came and want us to stay. Now, I didn't do the polling, so maybe it's fake, but every poll has been faked in that case.
If they want us to stay, we should stay. We've lost what, 125 troops or so? That's nothing. They knew what they were signing up for. We would have been ECSTATIC to lose 125 troops in WWII. The difference is that we're not fighting for white folk this time.
I don't see it that way. If we left right now, the government would collapse almost immediately. If we leave 10 years from now, my impression is that there would be no change. Western style democracy just doesn't work in that part of the world.
I don't care about the democracy. I care that we are stopping the taliban from blowing some people up, stopping the abuses of women and gays, creating education.
I don't care about the democracy. I care that we are stopping the taliban from blowing some people up, stopping the abuses of women and gays, creating education.
Arguably, the money used in Afghanistan to stop the abuses of women and gays and creating education could be more effectively spent here stopping the abuses of women and gays and creating education. It's really not like we're "done", if you know what I mean, and I'd be rather pleased to have JTF2 tracking down deadbeat dads.
And certainly, if we were to pull Canadians whether the Canadian government should give them $1 million, everybody'd say yes, and it'd still be a horrible idea for the government to hand all that out. People are blowing each other up all over the goddamned planet, abusing women and gays all over the goddamned planet - why are we in Afghanistan and not Darfur, or the Congo, or Liberia, or East Timor? I gotta say, I don't believe it really is to "fight evil" or to "do good", but rather to feel like we're fighting evil and doing good, because if were really were inclined to fight evil and do good, the question would be not, "Should we go to ...?" but rather, "Where should we go?"
I don't care about the democracy. I care that we are stopping the taliban from blowing some people up, stopping the abuses of women and gays, creating education.
Well, I don't think the current government is going to accomplish that either - homosexuality is still a crime in Afghanistan and misogynist legislation continues to crop-up from time to time. That's not to say that it isn't a laudable goal to try and establish a government that is at least "less bad" than the Taliban.
I know I personally had high hopes, but I think we have to re-assess what can be accomplished and focus on the original, unglamourous and less idealistic purpose of the mission - removing a regime that was at best uncooperative with the international community and simply unable to control its own territory, at worst (and more likely) directly complicit in supporting terrorism; and replacing it with a government that will control its own territory and deny terrorist organisations a safe-haven, and end the constant state of civil war the country has been under for some thirty years. Even that seems to be of questionable feasibility lately.
I don't care about the democracy. I care that we are stopping the taliban from blowing some people up, stopping the abuses of women and gays, creating education.
Arguably, the money used in Afghanistan to stop the abuses of women and gays and creating education could be more effectively spent here stopping the abuses of women and gays and creating education. It's really not like we're "done", if you know what I mean, and I'd be rather pleased to have JTF2 tracking down deadbeat dads.
And certainly, if we were to pull Canadians whether the Canadian government should give them $1 million, everybody'd say yes, and it'd still be a horrible idea for the government to hand all that out. People are blowing each other up all over the goddamned planet, abusing women and gays all over the goddamned planet - why are we in Afghanistan and not Darfur, or the Congo, or Liberia, or East Timor? I gotta say, I don't believe it really is to "fight evil" or to "do good", but rather to feel like we're fighting evil and doing good, because if were really were inclined to fight evil and do good, the question would be not, "Should we go to ...?" but rather, "Where should we go?"
Yes, but we're already there, and if we leave the place will blow up. There's no point discussing going somewhere else (which I believe we should do if we were to leave Afghanistan) when we're already somewhere that needs us (or something... perhaps someone else could do better, but they aren't).
psyck0 on
Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Industry Minister Tony Clement says that on the “Richter scale of upset” his constituents just are not that concerned about his boss shutting down Parliament for five weeks.
Mr. Clement has outraged the Twittering classes opposed to prorogation with these sorts of comments today, especially with his earlier statement that only the “elites” and “chattering classes” care about prorogation.
“I know it’s a big issue with the Ottawa media elite and some of the elites in our country, but I got to tell you if reaction in my constituency is any indication, I’ve had maybe three dozen emails,” he said.
Mr. Clement made the controversial remarks earlier today at the Detroit auto show, where he has been meeting with car makers and executives. This afternoon he called The Globe to explain more about his thoughts on prorogation:
“I guess my point was, yah, I know this is a big issue in Ottawa. I know that a lot of people are running around with their hair on fire in Ottawa. All I can say is, in my riding so far, there are some people who are upset – I am not belittling that, I am not denying that – but on the Richter scale of upset, it’s somewhat different from last year,” he said.
“That’s the way I should have said it, I guess.”
Yup, it's just an elite phenomenon. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Edit: Also, seems the Liberals have launched the first Prorogation-related ads. I'm honestly surprised that the CPC didn't beat them to the punch:
I don't care about the democracy. I care that we are stopping the taliban from blowing some people up, stopping the abuses of women and gays, creating education.
Actually we are mostly propping up corrupt, ineffectual local governments that everyone hates and will collapse the minute we leave (which apparently is never if you have your way)
Serious question: do you support extending the afghan mission beyond 2011? And don't give me some happy horseshit like "only if necessary" because you know damn well that it'll be "necessary"
That is, unless Harper's focus groups say otherwise
The CPC are just going to keep saying "nobody cares", because dumping money on ads would be an implicit suggestion that people do in fact care.
They don't say "nobody cares". They say "our constituents don't care, only the educated, intellectual elite cares." Which gives you a good idea of what the CPC thinks of their voter base.
The CPC are just going to keep saying "nobody cares", because dumping money on ads would be an implicit suggestion that people do in fact care.
They don't say "nobody cares". They say "our constituents don't care, only the educated, intellectual elite cares." Which gives you a good idea of what the CPC thinks of their voter base.
There has long been a trend towards this idea that "smart" people aren't actually as smart as some handsome scoundrel. There was this great article on Cracked.com about some myths popular culture likes to display about mental illnesses, like how they need a guy in a leather jacket to shake things up, or how people can have simple, singular 'triggers' that unlock normal function.
I don't care about the democracy. I care that we are stopping the taliban from blowing some people up, stopping the abuses of women and gays, creating education.
Actually we are mostly propping up corrupt, ineffectual local governments that everyone hates and will collapse the minute we leave (which apparently is never if you have your way)
Serious question: do you support extending the afghan mission beyond 2011? And don't give me some happy horseshit like "only if necessary" because you know damn well that it'll be "necessary"
That is, unless Harper's focus groups say otherwise
If the Afghanis want us there, we should stay. That has been my position since we went in. I was uncertain about going in in the first place, but now that we are there we can't abandon them if they don't want us to leave. Obviously I am not in a position to judge if they want us there, not being in that country.
I don't care about the democracy. I care that we are stopping the taliban from blowing some people up, stopping the abuses of women and gays, creating education.
Actually we are mostly propping up corrupt, ineffectual local governments that everyone hates and will collapse the minute we leave (which apparently is never if you have your way)
Serious question: do you support extending the afghan mission beyond 2011? And don't give me some happy horseshit like "only if necessary" because you know damn well that it'll be "necessary"
That is, unless Harper's focus groups say otherwise
If the Afghanis want us there, we should stay. That has been my position since we went in. I was uncertain about going in in the first place, but now that we are there we can't abandon them if they don't want us to leave. Obviously I am not in a position to judge if they want us there, not being in that country.
The "Afghanis" (which Afghanis?) have been blowing up our soldiers since we've been in Kandahar. I think that's a pretty strong indication that they don't want us there. And yet we stay, and continue to send people out beyond the wire to get blown up.
I don't care about the democracy. I care that we are stopping the taliban from blowing some people up, stopping the abuses of women and gays, creating education.
Actually we are mostly propping up corrupt, ineffectual local governments that everyone hates and will collapse the minute we leave (which apparently is never if you have your way)
Serious question: do you support extending the afghan mission beyond 2011? And don't give me some happy horseshit like "only if necessary" because you know damn well that it'll be "necessary"
That is, unless Harper's focus groups say otherwise
If the Afghanis want us there, we should stay. That has been my position since we went in. I was uncertain about going in in the first place, but now that we are there we can't abandon them if they don't want us to leave. Obviously I am not in a position to judge if they want us there, not being in that country.
The "Afghanis" (which Afghanis?) have been blowing up our soldiers since we've been in Kandahar. I think that's a pretty strong indication that they don't want us there. And yet we stay, and continue to send people out beyond the wire to get blown up.
It's pretty difficult to nail down what the Afghanis want. You only need a few extremely committed individuals to have a suicide bombing campaign, so that alone isn't evidence that the Afghanis as a group want us to leave. On the other hand, their government is notoriously corrupt, so you can't argue that they're representative of the people and gauge the sentiment of the people based on the sentiment of the government. This is complicated by the fact that any attempt to interact directly with the people of Afghanistan needs to be supported by the occupying military forces (for security purposes if nothing else) and so any result is potentially tainted by respondents simply giving the answer they think you want to hear.
Yeah, that's right. Everything would run so much smoother if we just sent those pesky MPs home permanently. So why don't we?
Well, it's well documented that autocracies with long serving rulers are consistently economic powerhouses, whereas liberal democracies are among the poorest countries on Earth. There's simply no comparison between the sort of favorable business climate one sees in Zimbabwe, which has had consistent government since 1987, when compared to a country plagued with political instability, like New Zealand, which is plagued by frequent elections and coalition governments.
Yeah, that's right. Everything would run so much smoother if we just sent those pesky MPs home permanently. So why don't we?
Well, it's well documented that autocracies with long serving rulers are consistently economic powerhouses, whereas liberal democracies are among the poorest countries on Earth. There's simply no comparison between the sort of favorable business climate one sees in Zimbabwe, which has had consistent government since 1987, when compared to a country plagued with political instability, like New Zealand, which is plagued by frequent elections and coalition governments.
Can't... determine... sarcasm... level... Wasn't Zimbabwe under Mugabe one of the more economically successful African nations... before he lost his mind?
Yeah, that's right. Everything would run so much smoother if we just sent those pesky MPs home permanently. So why don't we?
Well, it's well documented that autocracies with long serving rulers are consistently economic powerhouses, whereas liberal democracies are among the poorest countries on Earth. There's simply no comparison between the sort of favorable business climate one sees in Zimbabwe, which has had consistent government since 1987, when compared to a country plagued with political instability, like New Zealand, which is plagued by frequent elections and coalition governments.
Can't... determine... sarcasm... level... Wasn't Zimbabwe under Mugabe one of the more economically successful African nations... before he lost his mind?
In serious mode: Zimbabwe had consistently low to moderate levels of economic growth until around 1998 (when international aid was cut off) but even in the years with the highest levels of growth, they were growing more slowly than countries like South Africa, much less developed countries, so the relative levels of poverty have been increasing. They had a few years of massive public spending in the late 1980s which was followed by years of austerity programs. These all look relatively good, though, because their economy has been shrinking, year over year, for the past decade.
Bush was right, this job is easier if you're a dictator.
Robman on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
In fact, he said it's when Parliament is sitting that Canada's stability comes into question. That's when "the games begin," he said, and his minority Conservative government faces the constant threat of defeat and an election.
"As soon as parliament comes back, we're in a minority Parliament situation and the first thing that happens is a vote of confidence and there will be votes of confidence and election speculation for every single week after that for the rest of the year," he said.
"That's the kind of instability I think that markets are actually worried about. But you know the government will be well-prepared and I think Canadians want to see us focus on the economy. So that's what we're going to be doing."
The CN Engineer legislation kind of foreshadowed this. None of the inconveniences of Canada being a 'free' country will be allowed to risk our economic recovery.
In fact, he said it's when Parliament is sitting that Canada's stability comes into question. That's when "the games begin," he said, and his minority Conservative government faces the constant threat of defeat and an election.
"As soon as parliament comes back, we're in a minority Parliament situation and the first thing that happens is a vote of confidence and there will be votes of confidence and election speculation for every single week after that for the rest of the year," he said.
"That's the kind of instability I think that markets are actually worried about. But you know the government will be well-prepared and I think Canadians want to see us focus on the economy. So that's what we're going to be doing."
Really? Really?
Yeah it seems someone forgot to mention the him THAT'S WHATS SUPPOSED TO FUCKING HAPPEN.
In fact, he said it's when Parliament is sitting that Canada's stability comes into question. That's when "the games begin," he said, and his minority Conservative government faces the constant threat of defeat and an election.
"As soon as parliament comes back, we're in a minority Parliament situation and the first thing that happens is a vote of confidence and there will be votes of confidence and election speculation for every single week after that for the rest of the year," he said.
"That's the kind of instability I think that markets are actually worried about. But you know the government will be well-prepared and I think Canadians want to see us focus on the economy. So that's what we're going to be doing."
Really? Really?
Yeah it seems someone forgot to mention the him THAT'S WHATS SUPPOSED TO FUCKING HAPPEN.
Conservatives always want some credit for shit they're supposed to do. For some shit they're just supposed to do: A Conservative will brag about some shit a normal Prime Minister just does. Harper will say some shit like: "I appointed a Senator."
You're supposed to, you dumb motherfucker. What are you talking about? What are you bragging about? What kind of ignorant shit is that?
"I ain't never covered up a war crime!"
What do you want? A cookie? You're not supposed to cover up war crimes, you low expectation having motherfucker.
If Harper feels like Canada is more stable with no sitting parliament, and if stability is something to strive for, then it only leads me to believe that parliament never sitting ever again is the best thing for Canada.
If Harper feels like Canada is more stable with no sitting parliament, and if stability is something to strive for, then it only leads me to believe that parliament never sitting ever again is the best thing for Canada.
This is why I'm scared of this man.
What is even scarier is how the regional MP basis for parliament means that the CPC won't lose nearly as many seats as they deserve to.
Robman on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
I like This link that was passed along to me by a friend. It looks at a regarded constitutional scholar and his crusade of debunking constitutional 'myths' that apply quite well right now.
I like This link that was passed along to me by a friend. It looks at a regarded constitutional scholar and his crusade of debunking constitutional 'myths' that apply quite well right now.
It blows my mind that these myths could be believed by anyone. The fact that they are makes me sad and enraged.
In fact, he said it's when Parliament is sitting that Canada's stability comes into question. That's when "the games begin," he said, and his minority Conservative government faces the constant threat of defeat and an election.
"As soon as parliament comes back, we're in a minority Parliament situation and the first thing that happens is a vote of confidence and there will be votes of confidence and election speculation for every single week after that for the rest of the year," he said.
"That's the kind of instability I think that markets are actually worried about. But you know the government will be well-prepared and I think Canadians want to see us focus on the economy. So that's what we're going to be doing."
Really? Really?
It's like a house is going to fall over, and Harpers' call is to just knock it over, because then it can't fall!
Meissnerd on
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
In fact, he said it's when Parliament is sitting that Canada's stability comes into question. That's when "the games begin," he said, and his minority Conservative government faces the constant threat of defeat and an election.
"As soon as parliament comes back, we're in a minority Parliament situation and the first thing that happens is a vote of confidence and there will be votes of confidence and election speculation for every single week after that for the rest of the year," he said.
"That's the kind of instability I think that markets are actually worried about. But you know the government will be well-prepared and I think Canadians want to see us focus on the economy. So that's what we're going to be doing."
Really? Really?
Yeah it seems someone forgot to mention the him THAT'S WHATS SUPPOSED TO FUCKING HAPPEN.
Conservatives always want some credit for shit they're supposed to do. For some shit they're just supposed to do: A Conservative will brag about some shit a normal Prime Minister just does. Harper will say some shit like: "I appointed a Senator."
You're supposed to, you dumb motherfucker. What are you talking about? What are you bragging about? What kind of ignorant shit is that?
"I ain't never covered up a war crime!"
What do you want? A cookie? You're not supposed to cover up war crimes, you low expectation having motherfucker.
This is twice as good because I get the reference.
In fact, he said it's when Parliament is sitting that Canada's stability comes into question. That's when "the games begin," he said, and his minority Conservative government faces the constant threat of defeat and an election.
"As soon as parliament comes back, we're in a minority Parliament situation and the first thing that happens is a vote of confidence and there will be votes of confidence and election speculation for every single week after that for the rest of the year," he said.
"That's the kind of instability I think that markets are actually worried about. But you know the government will be well-prepared and I think Canadians want to see us focus on the economy. So that's what we're going to be doing."
Really? Really?
Yeah it seems someone forgot to mention the him THAT'S WHATS SUPPOSED TO FUCKING HAPPEN.
Conservatives always want some credit for shit they're supposed to do. For some shit they're just supposed to do: A Conservative will brag about some shit a normal Prime Minister just does. Harper will say some shit like: "I appointed a Senator."
You're supposed to, you dumb motherfucker. What are you talking about? What are you bragging about? What kind of ignorant shit is that?
"I ain't never covered up a war crime!"
What do you want? A cookie? You're not supposed to cover up war crimes, you low expectation having motherfucker.
This is twice as good because I get the reference.
Posts
Just to be to be clear... Harper is keeping them there but the liberals are the ones who got us in this mess in the first place. Even they seem to forget that sometimes.
If they want us to stay, we should stay. We've lost what, 125 troops or so? That's nothing. They knew what they were signing up for. We would have been ECSTATIC to lose 125 troops in WWII. The difference is that we're not fighting for white folk this time.
Arguably, the money used in Afghanistan to stop the abuses of women and gays and creating education could be more effectively spent here stopping the abuses of women and gays and creating education. It's really not like we're "done", if you know what I mean, and I'd be rather pleased to have JTF2 tracking down deadbeat dads.
And certainly, if we were to pull Canadians whether the Canadian government should give them $1 million, everybody'd say yes, and it'd still be a horrible idea for the government to hand all that out. People are blowing each other up all over the goddamned planet, abusing women and gays all over the goddamned planet - why are we in Afghanistan and not Darfur, or the Congo, or Liberia, or East Timor? I gotta say, I don't believe it really is to "fight evil" or to "do good", but rather to feel like we're fighting evil and doing good, because if were really were inclined to fight evil and do good, the question would be not, "Should we go to ...?" but rather, "Where should we go?"
I know I personally had high hopes, but I think we have to re-assess what can be accomplished and focus on the original, unglamourous and less idealistic purpose of the mission - removing a regime that was at best uncooperative with the international community and simply unable to control its own territory, at worst (and more likely) directly complicit in supporting terrorism; and replacing it with a government that will control its own territory and deny terrorist organisations a safe-haven, and end the constant state of civil war the country has been under for some thirty years. Even that seems to be of questionable feasibility lately.
Yes, but we're already there, and if we leave the place will blow up. There's no point discussing going somewhere else (which I believe we should do if we were to leave Afghanistan) when we're already somewhere that needs us (or something... perhaps someone else could do better, but they aren't).
Yup, it's just an elite phenomenon. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Edit: Also, seems the Liberals have launched the first Prorogation-related ads. I'm honestly surprised that the CPC didn't beat them to the punch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyU_Y52ro_c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QbXftg3Iu8
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Serious question: do you support extending the afghan mission beyond 2011? And don't give me some happy horseshit like "only if necessary" because you know damn well that it'll be "necessary"
That is, unless Harper's focus groups say otherwise
Republican play-book, chapter 1.
There has long been a trend towards this idea that "smart" people aren't actually as smart as some handsome scoundrel. There was this great article on Cracked.com about some myths popular culture likes to display about mental illnesses, like how they need a guy in a leather jacket to shake things up, or how people can have simple, singular 'triggers' that unlock normal function.
If the Afghanis want us there, we should stay. That has been my position since we went in. I was uncertain about going in in the first place, but now that we are there we can't abandon them if they don't want us to leave. Obviously I am not in a position to judge if they want us there, not being in that country.
The "Afghanis" (which Afghanis?) have been blowing up our soldiers since we've been in Kandahar. I think that's a pretty strong indication that they don't want us there. And yet we stay, and continue to send people out beyond the wire to get blown up.
It's pretty difficult to nail down what the Afghanis want. You only need a few extremely committed individuals to have a suicide bombing campaign, so that alone isn't evidence that the Afghanis as a group want us to leave. On the other hand, their government is notoriously corrupt, so you can't argue that they're representative of the people and gauge the sentiment of the people based on the sentiment of the government. This is complicated by the fact that any attempt to interact directly with the people of Afghanistan needs to be supported by the occupying military forces (for security purposes if nothing else) and so any result is potentially tainted by respondents simply giving the answer they think you want to hear.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Yeah, that's right. Everything would run so much smoother if we just sent those pesky MPs home permanently. So why don't we?
This cocksucker acts like we haven't had a minority government for years and years and years.
I'm curious what mark Harper got in high school civics was.
Well, it's well documented that autocracies with long serving rulers are consistently economic powerhouses, whereas liberal democracies are among the poorest countries on Earth. There's simply no comparison between the sort of favorable business climate one sees in Zimbabwe, which has had consistent government since 1987, when compared to a country plagued with political instability, like New Zealand, which is plagued by frequent elections and coalition governments.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
So, seriously, is that picture not the smarmiest, more dickish he's ever looked?
Can't... determine... sarcasm... level... Wasn't Zimbabwe under Mugabe one of the more economically successful African nations... before he lost his mind?
In serious mode: Zimbabwe had consistently low to moderate levels of economic growth until around 1998 (when international aid was cut off) but even in the years with the highest levels of growth, they were growing more slowly than countries like South Africa, much less developed countries, so the relative levels of poverty have been increasing. They had a few years of massive public spending in the late 1980s which was followed by years of austerity programs. These all look relatively good, though, because their economy has been shrinking, year over year, for the past decade.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Bush was right, this job is easier if you're a dictator.
Really? Really?
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Yeah it seems someone forgot to mention the him THAT'S WHATS SUPPOSED TO FUCKING HAPPEN.
I never finish anyth
I think that needs to go in the OP.
Conservatives always want some credit for shit they're supposed to do. For some shit they're just supposed to do: A Conservative will brag about some shit a normal Prime Minister just does. Harper will say some shit like: "I appointed a Senator."
You're supposed to, you dumb motherfucker. What are you talking about? What are you bragging about? What kind of ignorant shit is that?
"I ain't never covered up a war crime!"
What do you want? A cookie? You're not supposed to cover up war crimes, you low expectation having motherfucker.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
This is why I'm scared of this man.
What is even scarier is how the regional MP basis for parliament means that the CPC won't lose nearly as many seats as they deserve to.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
It's like a house is going to fall over, and Harpers' call is to just knock it over, because then it can't fall!
This is twice as good because I get the reference.
Yeah, I lol'd
I never finish anyth