Elections

LeCaptain wrote:

Ev wrote:wtf are people on about regarding the Conservatives instilling "fear" in Canadians? Who the hell is afraid in Canada? Afraid of what?

So why are we sending troops overseas again and have a full month (coming in 10 days) dedicated to the Army that is supposed to keep us "safe"?
If nobody is afraid, then I guess there's nothing to keep us safe from.

I support the forces so there's no point arguing this.

Sending troops and taking in refugees are two sides of the same coin -- you cannot argue for one while arguing against the other.  Either we get involved or we stay out.

wprager wrote:Sending troops and taking in refugees are two sides of the same coin -- you cannot argue for one while arguing against the other.  Either we get involved or we stay out.

Of course you can. That's just silly. That's like saying that women's shelter employees are required to go and beat up abusive boyfriends. Cause they're involved by helping provide shelter, therefore they must be involved in a militaristic way.

Totally agree Spader. Canada should be providing support in the way that it's best suited to do so. The way to best support is to train and provide the aid required for the country to defend itself. We've seen it over and over again. Countries get ready to pull out and the country can't do it on their own.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Totally agree Spader. Canada should be providing support in the way that it's best suited to do so. The way to best support is to train and provide the aid required for the country to defend itself. We've seen it over and over again. Countries get ready to pull out and the country can't do it on their own.

I miss the days when our involvement in military was through peacekeeping. And even that has left blemishes on our record. The more a country has an aggressive military foreign policy the more they are liable to have it splash back in their face.
I don't buy into that Canadians should be scarred butlers not be surprised when Dung hits in the face. We go into war on our own account. Terrorism is just another name for war against an opponent that we can hardly put a finger on. We wouldn't got involved than we wouldn't have incidents happen.

Ev wrote:

LeCaptain wrote:

Ev wrote:wtf are people on about regarding the Conservatives instilling "fear" in Canadians? Who the hell is afraid in Canada? Afraid of what?

So why are we sending troops overseas again and have a full month (coming in 10 days) dedicated to the Army that is supposed to keep us "safe"?
If nobody is afraid, then I guess there's nothing to keep us safe from.

I support the forces so there's no point arguing this.

It's possible to support the forces without supporting the overseers. By that I mean that you can support the troops, but disagree with the mission.

As someone who served and comes from 2 generations that served I am pretty disgusted and ashamed to be associated with this site right now.  Like I said before, the same people that complain are the sames ones that hide behind people like myself.

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:

LeCaptain wrote:

Ev wrote:wtf are people on about regarding the Conservatives instilling "fear" in Canadians? Who the hell is afraid in Canada? Afraid of what?

So why are we sending troops overseas again and have a full month (coming in 10 days) dedicated to the Army that is supposed to keep us "safe"?
If nobody is afraid, then I guess there's nothing to keep us safe from.

I support the forces so there's no point arguing this.

It's possible to support the forces without supporting the overseers. By that I mean that you can support the troops, but disagree with the mission.

Exactly. Why must people blindly follow in fear of not looking patriotic. The fact that support the troops is even a thing is because they want people to feel like it's either or. Who wouldn't support fellow Canadians. The problem is that people can vary in support of what the government is doing with them.

spader wrote:

wprager wrote:Sending troops and taking in refugees are two sides of the same coin -- you cannot argue for one while arguing against the other.  Either we get involved or we stay out.

Of course you can. That's just silly. That's like saying that women's shelter employees are required to go and beat up abusive boyfriends. Cause they're involved by helping provide shelter, therefore they must be involved in a militaristic way.

There is a huge difference about enforcing *our* laws and morals within *our* borders and doing it elsewhere. One of the arguments against Harper was "his foreign policy". As most complaints about Harper and the Conservatives this one was a little low on specifics, so I pushed. And the reply was that we should not be sending troops to other countries and getting involved in their activities. But the same person was condemning the government for not doing enough in rescuing the refugees. Guess what, those refugees are not showing up on Canada's coast. I am in no-way saying we should not help out, but there is no way you can say that rescuing people from an oppressive regime is not getting involved, and once you are involved you are there, with guns (to protect your own -- there is no other way). You cannot draw the line and say we will do this, but we will not do that. You're either in or you're out.

NEELY wrote:As someone who served and comes from 2 generations that served I am pretty disgusted and ashamed to be associated with this site right now.  Like I said before, the same people that complain are the sames ones that hide behind people like myself.

I don't think anyone here says they don't support the troops, only the decision to send them.

But I still maintain that the decision to send troops, the decision to send aid, the decision to bring in refugees -- they are *all* ways of getting involved.

Flo The Action wrote:

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:

LeCaptain wrote:

Ev wrote:wtf are people on about regarding the Conservatives instilling "fear" in Canadians? Who the hell is afraid in Canada? Afraid of what?

So why are we sending troops overseas again and have a full month (coming in 10 days) dedicated to the Army that is supposed to keep us "safe"?
If nobody is afraid, then I guess there's nothing to keep us safe from.

I support the forces so there's no point arguing this.

It's possible to support the forces without supporting the overseers. By that I mean that you can support the troops, but disagree with the mission.

Exactly. Why must people blindly follow in fear of not looking patriotic. The fact that support the troops is even a thing is because they want people to feel like it's either or. Who wouldn't support fellow Canadians. The problem is that people can vary in support of what the government is doing with them.

Not quite that simple. You can argue all you want up until the decision is made. Once the troops are overseas, you stop. The debate is over, the decision has been made. The men and women in uniform believe that this decision is the correct one. You saying that it's wrong is not going to show then the kind of support they deserve.

wprager wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:

LeCaptain wrote:

Ev wrote:wtf are people on about regarding the Conservatives instilling "fear" in Canadians? Who the hell is afraid in Canada? Afraid of what?

So why are we sending troops overseas again and have a full month (coming in 10 days) dedicated to the Army that is supposed to keep us "safe"?
If nobody is afraid, then I guess there's nothing to keep us safe from.

I support the forces so there's no point arguing this.

It's possible to support the forces without supporting the overseers. By that I mean that you can support the troops, but disagree with the mission.

Exactly. Why must people blindly follow in fear of not looking patriotic. The fact that support the troops is even a thing is because they want people to feel like it's either or. Who wouldn't support fellow Canadians. The problem is that people can vary in support of what the government is doing with them.

Not quite that simple.  You can argue all you want up until the decision is made.  Once the troops are overseas, you stop.  The debate is over, the decision has been made.  The men and women in uniform believe that this decision is the correct one.  You saying that it's wrong is not going to show then the kind of support they deserve.

So you're saying that a country has to fall back into submission over their leader? So once nazi Germany entered the war it was up,to Germany to follow hitler and his decisions? Your reasoning is completely flawed. There is no instance when you are supposed to completely agree with political decisions in terms of military actions that is why we have freedom of expression.
You often also hear of American soldiers questioning their involvement in why they are sent into certain regions.
You absolutely have the right to question any decision a government makes, especially when it comes into putting the lives at risk of the men and women that enlist to defend Canada. anything else falls under authoritarian rule.

Supporting the troops is not putting any of the blame unto them and wishing their well being and their safe return home.

wprager wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:

LeCaptain wrote:

Ev wrote:wtf are people on about regarding the Conservatives instilling "fear" in Canadians? Who the hell is afraid in Canada? Afraid of what?

So why are we sending troops overseas again and have a full month (coming in 10 days) dedicated to the Army that is supposed to keep us "safe"?
If nobody is afraid, then I guess there's nothing to keep us safe from.

I support the forces so there's no point arguing this.

It's possible to support the forces without supporting the overseers. By that I mean that you can support the troops, but disagree with the mission.

Exactly. Why must people blindly follow in fear of not looking patriotic. The fact that support the troops is even a thing is because they want people to feel like it's either or. Who wouldn't support fellow Canadians. The problem is that people can vary in support of what the government is doing with them.

Not quite that simple.  You can argue all you want up until the decision is made.  Once the troops are overseas, you stop.  The debate is over, the decision has been made.  The men and women in uniform believe that this decision is the correct one.  You saying that it's wrong is not going to show then the kind of support they deserve.

That is exactly the tactic that gets started as soon as they want to stop any opposing ideology or opposition to the mission. "Shut up because our troops are there. Absolute media manipulation.

wprager wrote:

NEELY wrote:As someone who served and comes from 2 generations that served I am pretty disgusted and ashamed to be associated with this site right now.  Like I said before, the same people that complain are the sames ones that hide behind people like myself.

I don't think anyone here says they don't support the troops, only the decision to send them.  

But I still maintain that the decision to send troops, the decision to send aid, the decision to bring in refugees -- they are *all* ways of getting involved.  

No one disagrees with that. We just disagree with your earlier statement that you can't separate aid from a military operation.

Whatever. But it's part of foreign policy.

Not asking you to agree with me, just saying you're wrong if you don't. ;-)

wprager wrote:Whatever. But it's part of foreign policy.

Again, no one is going to disagree with you on that. Just because something is part of foreign policy doesn't mean you didn't make a silly statement.

You are welcome to disagree with me, but that doesn't make the statement silly.