I just found it interesting and naturally it remains to be proven.

if there is substance to the allegation that the military pretty much wrote the speech, it implies a case of it saying "look, we want to stay...you want us to stay...so here's what you're gonna say to drum up support for us back home".

I suspect that this would be interpreted, at the very least, as being highly unethical behaviour by the military (and I wonder if it could be linked back to the gov't).

The function of the military is to carry out a specific mission/mandate, not write speeches for foreign heads of state which are then used to ligitimize the current mission/mandate.

interesting...of course the NDP doesn't hide it's position on the mission, so we'll see what comes of this.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I just found it interesting and naturally it remains to be proven. if there is substance to the allegation that the military pretty much wrote the speech, it implies a case of it saying "look, we want to stay...you want us to stay...so here's what you're gonna say to drum up support for us back home".

General consensus within the CF community (well, from the guys who've been to afghanistan) is that this mission is worth doing. But then again, military is not suppose to have an opinion when in uniform.

But people forget that soldiers, sailors, airmen are still citizens of Canada and entitled to own opinion

quote:

I suspect that this would be interpreted, at the very least, as being highly unethical behaviour by the military (and I wonder if it could be linked back to the gov't).

Politicians will jump on every scrap to try to make the opposition look bad. Funny thing is, current CDS Gen Hillier has been the most outspoken general in years, but he haven't got much flak for speaking his views. (he started under Martin govt)

quote:

The function of the military is to carry out a specific mission/mandate, not write speeches for foreign heads of state which are then used to ligitimize the current mission/mandate.

Heh. CF has few officers as advisors to Karzai. But I really doubt CF wrote a speech for Karzai, considering everything in that speech is what Karzai wanted anyways. He wants Canada to stay in Afghanistan.

Though I agree. CF shouldn't be go writing speeches for foreign govts.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

And here's what some Afghans have to say about Canada's supposed withdrawal from Afghanistan

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen...fa-08671c172e51

quote:

Talk of pullout draws scorn from Afghans 'If they leave, we all know the Taliban will come back' Matthew Fisher, The Ottawa Citizen Published: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 KABUL - For residents of the bustling Afghan capital, the prospective departure of Canada's soldiers by February 2009 produces mostly quizzical looks. It seems inconceivable that NATO's International Security Assistance Force would withdraw its troops, leaving these war-weary people to the mercy of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Even the more benign alternative to a complete withdrawal -- training Afghan soldiers and police to look after security while western nations focus on humanitarian and development work -- is, at best, undesirable. "What is the point of sending your army to Afghanistan if it isn't going to fight?" demands Muhammad Noor Sahak, director of the OMAR war museum and a graduate student in Pushtun literature. "Given Afghanistan's famous warrior culture, most Afghans like ISAF, but they will only continue liking ISAF if they think it is making their lives more secure. And the only way to do that is to fight. If ISAF fails, the Russians, who don't want NATO here, could interfere. So will Iran. Pakistan is already interfering." For Afghans, an equally pressing question is whether the U.S.-backed government of President Hamid Karzai will accept a Taliban offer to begin peace talks. The answer is an overwhelming yes, although not if it means accepting the Taliban's condition that ISAF's 36,000 troops must leave the country first. Mr. Karzai has already flatly rejected that proposal. "I don't like ISAF. I love them. They are good people," Balyaly, a 22-year-old carpet salesman, said. Using a variety of obscene hand gestures, Balyaly, who, like many Afghans, uses only one name, denounces the Taliban as "very dirty." He seemed genuinely shocked that Canada is considering withdrawing its 2,500 troops from the volatile south of Afghanistan and that the Netherlands is contemplating a similar pullout. Mukhtar Subur, 19, who, like many young Afghans, does not have a job, was also adamant that the NATO forces must remain and continue to fight. "Our whole country profits from the gifts of ISAF," Mr. Subur says. "If they leave, we all know the Taliban will come back and the Afghan people will have trouble again." Hamid Fahim, who collects ancient Enfield rifles used by the mujahedeen in their holy war against the Red Army during the 1980s, observes that Afghanistan has been in a state of perpetual war for nearly three decades. By contrast, the Canadians, who first fought on the front lines in Kandahar in 2002, are relative newcomers. Seventy Canadian soldiers have died here -- about the number of Afghans who die fighting on many days. "They are not like the Russians who tried to take our whole country," Mr. Fahim said. "ISAF comes to fight beside us, not against us. It is much better for us if they stay." Flush with aid money and cash from this year's bumper crop of illegal opium, Kabul appears far more prosperous and liberal than it was. Every day, more and more women shed the all-encompassing burqa and show their faces, something that always led to a beating when the Taliban ruled the capital. But Kabul's confidence has been shaken by recent suicide bombings and a spate of kidnappings of businessmen. The government and ISAF seem unable to do anything about it. Again and again, Afghans mentioned that many ISAF countries, such as Germany and Italy, have seemed more concerned with protecting themselves than sending out troops to attack the Taliban. "If all the money being spent by those ISAF countries that don't fight here was spent on us, we would already have a bigger and better army," Sahak says as he shows a visitor around his museum. "We would also have better schools and more doctors and nurses and engineers."

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

Refreshing change from the usual articles about Afghanistan mission...

http://ottawasun.com/News/Afghan/20...576954-sun.html

quote:

Is It Time To Pull Out? The truth about Canada's mission in Afghanistan By MICHAEL DEN TANDT, SUN MEDIA KANDAHAR -- The Afghan war is not one conflict but three -- a guerrilla war, a development war, a communications war. Canada is gaining ground in the first, slowly winning the second and losing the third. The military and the media deserve some measure of blame for this. Mainly though, responsibility falls to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Even as he struggles to sell the Afghan mission to an increasingly uneasy public, his mania for control is stifling the truth about what's happening here. On Friday, Harper announced he has tasked a blue-ribbon team to study Canada's future role in Afghanistan. Led by former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley, the five-member group will begin by meeting with troops and development workers in Kandahar. The panel is expected to report back in February 2008. The truth of what is happening in Afghanistan is extraordinary: It's a story of courage and grit and idealism that, if more Canadians only knew it, would make them very proud. PLEASE DON'T GO But most don't know it, because the people best positioned to tell it have been gagged. I came back to Afghanistan to find answers to two questions: Is Canada's deployment here still worthwhile, despite the rising toll in lives? And if it is, then why do so many people back home think it isn't? In the past week I've spoken to dozens of Canadian soldiers, non-governmental aid workers, and Afghans, some who are very critical the U.S.-led international effort here, and of the Karzai regime. Their message was clear: Please, Canada, don't go. Our country has an influence and a reputation here that is vastly disproportionate to the number of troops we have on the ground. That's partly because we are spending money -- a great deal of money, $1.2 billion committed over 10 years -- on rebuilding and redevelopment. Your tax dollars are helping pay for a vast national de-mining project, led by Canada but in partnership with the United Nations. Every day on a mountain top in Kabul, Afghans mentored by Canadians carry on the painstaking and dangerous work of removing and destroying the thousands of pieces of unexploded ordnance that litter this country. Canada is the single largest donor, contributing $20 million annually. Your tax dollars are paying for a project that will help 3,000 war widows in Kabul start micro-businesses this year. Often, the aid begins with a single cow or goat. Your tax dollars are paying for the training of a professional Afghan National Army, which is increasingly imposing order in the volatile south. Thirty-four thousand troops are already trained. A thousand new troops a month are graduating from the Afghan National Training Centre in Kabul. Canadians are in the forefront of the training effort. Your tax dollars are paying for 200 small aid projects in Kandahar City, all geared to stimulating local business and trades, and developing a functioning local economy. These efforts are not being carried out on your behalf at arms' length. They're led, supported and protected by a Canadian military that has learned, through half a century of peacekeeping, how to properly and modestly engage with a foreign culture. You may have heard that no one can tell Canadians and Americans apart any longer. In Afghanistan, everyone knows the difference. Canadians are leaders here in the delicate trick of combining military power with aid. Other nations in the 37-member international coalition come to our Provincial Reconstruction Team base in Kandahar City, to study our methods. The PRT, Camp Nathan Smith, is a model, an experiment in a new kind of military engagement: Soldiers, working hand in hand with RCMP officers, diplomats, lawyers, doctors, specialists in governance and foreign aid workers helping the Afghans manage their own affairs, raise their standard of living and establish a functional state. You've heard about the 71 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat who've lost their lives in Afghanistan. You've heard about the CBC journalist and cameraman whose armoured vehicle was blown up by a roadside bomb. What you haven't heard, perhaps, is that the vast majority of the casualties and injuries in this civil war are Afghan. Mentored and supported by Canadian officers. The Afghans are in the forefront of every combat operation in the south and 85% of the casualties treated for war injuries at Kandahar Air Field, the main coalition base in the south, are Afghan army or Afghan police. It follows from this that our deployment here is not an occupation: It's a support mission. But few people back home appreciate this, because nobody's covering the Afghan side of the war. Afghan casualties, even mass casualties, get short shrift. The leading edge of Canada's humanitarian engagement here is the PRT, Camp Nathan Smith. But for reasons that defy explanation, only the soldiers stationed there are allowed to speak publicly about their work. The five officials from foreign affairs, the 10 RCMP officers engaged in training Afghan police, the head of the CIDA mission in the province (with a budget of $39-million this year alone), are not allowed to speak to the media. According to multiple sources here, they have been gagged by the Prime Minister's Office. Figure that one out. The very people who could best spread the word about the good works Canada is carrying out beneath the security umbrella provided by our troops, can't talk about it. This translates into a distorted portrait of the mission at home. The military can't get off scot-free either. The Canadian army's communications resources in Kandahar province are located at the Kandahar Air Field -- the centre of combat operations. Reporters at the airfield are supported by satellite and media tents with sophisticated communications equipment. At the PRT, there's a single media tent. It has no reliable, permanent Internet hookups. There's no satellite for television transmissions. As a result, most reporters choose to stay at the airfield -- where they don't hear a lot about development work, because it's all based at the PRT. The media? We're at fault too. Reporters driven by competition and the demands of editors back home, are hell-bent on covering Canadians in combat. That's a good thing, as far as it goes: Canadians need a public witness to the exercise of lethal force by their representatives abroad. Combat stories are dramatic and gripping and the tales we hear about soldiers at war can inspire and move us the way few other stories can. But the entire mission stands or falls on whether development can succeed. For media to ignore the tangible evidence of progress simply because these stories aren't as dramatic as combat, is beyond belief. Here's why all this matters so much: The Taliban are not fighting a conventional guerrilla war. All their efforts are geared towards forcing Western governments to pull their soldiers out of Afghanistan. DISTORTED VIEW Every suicide bombing and IED attack is about hurting Western troops, but it's even more about causing fear and uncertainty back home. This is why there's such frustration, among soldiers here, about the posturing and chest-beating in Ottawa each time a Canadian dies in combat. Each cluster of front-page stories is, in effect, a tactical victory for the insurgents. What happens if we pull out? Some say it would make no difference. The Americans could easily replace us. But it's not nearly that simple. The Afghans don't trust the Americans. Their approach is different from ours -- much more blunt, less culturally sensitive. Canada has an institutional memory now in Kandahar, won by five years of hard work on the ground. Canada has the aid projects, just now beginning to bear fruit. Canada has credibility with the Afghans, won by our soldiers' willingness to fight and die on their behalf. If we pull out, much of that will be lost. The mission will continue but the setback will be huge and Canada's standing in Afghanistan, and the world, will suffer immeasurably.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

^^^Intriguing article. Thanks for the update.

___________________
"I don't judge anyone except myself; you shouldn't either."

interesting read, thanks. My own issues with the mission mirror what this articles tells us...i.e. that we DON'T know exactly what is going on over there. The current gov't has been woefully negligent in communicating with Canadians on EXACTLY what we're doing over there and HOW LONG we'll be doing it.

then again...effective communication through the media is the LAST thing the CPC cares about (note their plan to spend a couple million on their own, PMO-controlled media centre instead of using the one that's been in use for decades that they've shunned since taking office, since the CPC can't fully control it's use).

I love this part too:

quote:

The five officials from foreign affairs, the 10 RCMP officers engaged in training Afghan police, the head of the CIDA mission in the province (with a budget of $39-million this year alone), are not allowed to speak to the media. According to multiple sources here, they have been gagged by the Prime Minister's Office. Figure that one out. The very people who could best spread the word about the good works Canada is carrying out beneath the security umbrella provided by our troops, can't talk about it. This translates into a distorted portrait of the mission at home.

what? The CPC is controlling info? The gov't that campaigned on transparency and accountability?

I'm stunned, lol.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT interesting read, thanks. My own issues with the mission mirror what this articles tells us...i.e. that we DON'T know exactly what is going on over there. The current gov't has been woefully negligent in communicating with Canadians on EXACTLY what we're doing over there and HOW LONG we'll be doing it.

I don't think the Conservatives KNOW how to put their own spin on their stories, which the Liberals perfected during their many years in office. So, the Conservatives think best result they're going to get is if they try to control the flow of info, and give as little as possible for their opponents to bash them.

Of course, the opposite has happen. And the leading Conservative spokesmen to sell the Afghanistan mission has been former Defence Minister O'Connor who is about convincing as a dead potato and put his foot in his mouth a few times. Mackay is smarter and hopefully he'll be better, but the best guy the Conservatives have to sell the mission right now is Chief of Defence Staff Gen Hillier, but Hillier comes with his own baggage, not to mention what seems to be a lot of people distrusting whatever that comes from a general.

quote:

then again...effective communication through the media is the LAST thing the CPC cares about (note their plan to spend a couple million on their own, PMO-controlled media centre instead of using the one that's been in use for decades that they've shunned since taking office, since the CPC can't fully control it's use). I love this part too: what? The CPC is controlling info? The gov't that campaigned on transparency and accountability? I'm stunned, lol.

I think the Conservatives are still learning.

Just my speculation, but Harper is playing a waiting game to see if the opposition parties make the mistake that he can pounce on. Libs gotta overcome a bit of paradoxical fact that it's Cretin and Martin that committed Canada to Afghanistan. Bloc is irrelevant outside of Quebec and they have a lot more important things to worry about than Afghanistan mission considering the fact that they are losing support in Quebec. NDP, Layton and esp. their defence critic Dawn Black (I'm curious. what qualification does she have to make her an expert on defence issues?) is about one step short of raving lunacy.

It's very hard to overcome the Canadian impulse to flinch at anything that smacks of pro Americanism, actual warfighting and doing something other than peacekeeping with the military. It doesn't help the fact that a lot of media does report a lot of negativity about the Afghanistan mission.

But I also think that a lot of Canadians does support the soldiers on the individual level, and they are about frustrated with Harper govt about failing to communicate properly about the Afghanistan mission. Because they don't know enough, they can't support the mission based only on vagueness.

Should be interesting what the Throne Speech says tomorrow

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree ... But I also think that a lot of Canadians does support the soldiers on the individual level, and they are about frustrated with Harper govt about failing to communicate properly about the Afghanistan mission. Because they don't know enough, they can't support the mission based only on vagueness. Should be interesting what the Throne Speech says tomorrow

I think you hit it on the head there.

Canadians DO support our troops...but many, myself included, get *really* pissed off when people try to equate support for the troops with needing to blindly accept that the gov't knows best with regard how to use them and what info they give us (or don't give us) via the press.

I think it's pefectly legitimate to withold info that negatively impacts the mission...but I also feel that Canadians are entitled to FAR more info than they're getting if they're expected to continue to support this mission (especially with no end in sight).

Harper needs to get over this muzzling mentality...and not just to avoid criticism and the opposition pouncing upon fuckups...but also to allow the "good stuff" to get out too.

To be honest, I'm disappointed in Harper and the Conservatives with respect to the military especially. The CPC won the federal election precisely because they put so much effort into communicating their platform. That openness seems to have gradually declined over the past few months, to the point where we hardly hear a peep from Ottawa anymore.

If you bother to really dig into the info available, you'll see that Canada really is making a difference there. But instead of trumpeting our victories, the government is wallowing in terror over the possibility of citizens not supporting the war and keeping quiet in order to avoid any potentially negative PR.

Mind you, they may not be entirely wrong about that. But it's a PR problem anyway, since Canadians all know we still have troops there, and no news in a war/occupation is generally bad news. They should have this stuff plastered all over the CBC.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut If you bother to really dig into the info available, you'll see that Canada really is making a difference there. But instead of trumpeting our victories, the government is wallowing in terror over the possibility of citizens not supporting the war and keeping quiet in order to avoid any potentially negative PR. Mind you, they may not be entirely wrong about that. But it's a PR problem anyway, since Canadians all know we still have troops there, and no news in a war/occupation is generally bad news. They should have this stuff plastered all over the CBC.

You're spot on. With a little digging, there are enough info out there.

But it's just most Canadians want stuff spoonfed to them. And since anti war loonies make it their business to have their views heard (and a lot of it is based on vague facts and some of them outright false. c'mon. war crimes? give me a break), it's the only views that a lot of Canadians see on CTV and CBC.

What I'm afraid is that the Conservatives are too worried protecting their minority government. Or even worse, they don't know how to communicate in which case what the heck are they doing in power?

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

^^^^^

Great point,the "anti-war loonies" do seem to act as if it is their god given right to let their voices be heard. Whats even worse is in their minds, anyone who supports the mission is a conservative redneck or "uninformed", as they think they are. ahaha.

To be honest, Canadian "anti-war" protesters really infuriate me. I feel as though it is just a bunch of hippies who wanted to be able to protest a "war" like the americans have been. I hate hearing their ridiculous rhetoric. I was talking to one of them once and she was telling me, "Canadian soldiers have no humanity in them, they are just over there to kill people." And that is a direct quote.

As for the portrayal in the media, I agree that they need to start showing coverage of the good things that have been accomplished. Because these definatly do outwiegh the negatives. It's sad to see the conservative government not trying to promote patriotism and support for the mission through sharing all the achievements. But as mentioned, it will be interesting to hear the throne speech tommorow as it could change a lot.

Now back to the hippies. hahaha. I noticed a bunch of "Canada out of afghanistan" flyers up recently. I think it said they were going to have a protest coming up sometime. Hopefully they hold a support our troops rally the same day, time and place. If they did I would definatly go.

Here's something for the anti war crowd to chew on

Life is keeping me busy atm, but I just came across these two articles

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...al_gam_mostview

quote:

Poll shows Afghans want NATO troops to stay ALAN FREEMAN October 18, 2007 at 8:34 PM EDT OTTAWA — A strong majority of Afghans approve of the presence of NATO-led troops in their country, including from Canada, and want the foreign soldiers to remain to fight the Taliban and support reconstruction efforts. In a public opinion poll of Afghans conducted by Environics Research on behalf of The Globe and Mail, the CBC and La Presse, respondents expressed optimism about the future, strong support for the government of President Hamid Karzai and appreciation for the work being done by NATO countries in improving security. In Kandahar, where the Taliban is stronger and violence more pervasive, support for the foreign troops was weaker, but respondents still want the soldiers to stay. According to the survey, conducted in person across the country between Sept. 17 and 24 with a representative sample of 1,578 men and women, 60 per cent said that the presence of foreigners in the country was a good thing. Only 16 per cent said it was a bad thing, while 22 per cent said it was equally good and bad. In Kandahar, where the Canadians are centred, Environics added to the number of respondents and asked a series of special questions; there, 61 per cent said the foreign presence was good while 23 per cent responded that it was a “bad thing.” While a majority of Canadians oppose the military mission in Afghanistan and are anxious to see it end in February, 2009, if not sooner, Afghans are considerably more sanguine about the NATO presence and want it to continue. Nationally, 64 per cent of respondents said they believe the foreigners have made a lot of progress or some progress in the fight against the Taliban. In Kandahar, where the insurgency is still raging, 58 per cent still say the foreigners are doing a good job fighting the Taliban. When asked about the future of the foreign soldiers, only 14 per cent said they should leave right away while 11 per cent said they should leave within a year. Another 27 per cent said the troops should stay between two and five years but the biggest group by far—43 per cent—thought the foreign military presence should last ``however long it takes to defeat the Taliban and restore order.” In Kandahar, the heart of the Taliban movement, there was less enthusiasm for the foreign presence with 32 per cent saying the soldiers should leave right away or within a year, but 18 per cent said the Canadian and other foreigners should stay for two to five years and 31 per cent for as long as it takes to defeat the Taliban. The survey pointed to a general sense of optimism in the country with 60 per cent of the national sample and 61 per cent in Kandahar saying they were better off than five years ago. When it comes to the status of women, 73 per cent of respondents nationally said that the women are better off now than they were in 2002. “It's the first poll ever done by a Canadian organization (in Afghanistan) and the first one that has asked about the Canadian mission and has focused on Kandahar,” said Keith Neuman, group vice president at Environics. When it comes to Canada's presence in the country, it has a relatively high profile, ranking fourth in public awareness after the United States, Germany and the United Kingdom. Asked which foreign countries are present in Afghanistan with soldiers, aid workers and businessmen, 95 per cent named the U.S., Germany 63 per cent, Britain 52 per cent and Canada 46 per cent. But virtually no Afghans are apparently aware that Canadian soldiers are involved in fighting the Taliban. Asked which foreign counties are involved in battling the Taliban, 89 per cent of Afghans mentioned the United States and none mentioned Canada. Even in Kandahar, 90 per cent said the U.S. was fighting the Taliban while only 2 per cent identified Canada. On the other hand, 25 per cent of respondents in Kandahar said that Canada was providing reconstruction assistance, compared with 27 per cent for Britain and 28 per cent for Germany. Yet when the question was asked differently, awareness of the Canadian role was higher. When respondents in Kandahar were asked what the main purpose of the Canadian presence was in the province, 47 per cent responded that the main goal was to fight the Taliban, while 16 per mentioned reconstruction and 10 per cent answered that Canada was there to support the Karzai government. Mr. Neuman said that because the U.S. has by far the most troops in the country, respondents immediately identified American forces as the major fighters against the Taliban but in Kandahar, awareness of the Canadian presence was high and their role was well-regarded, particularly when it comes to reconstruction work. Support for the Taliban also was surprisingly low, with only 14 per cent of respondents nationally said they had very positive or somewhat positive views of the Taliban. In Kandahar, those positives rose to 20 per cent. Respondents also were overwhelmingly opposed to suicide bombings, with 71 per cent nationally saying they were never justified. Despite the enmity towards the Taliban, 74 per cent said they supported negotiations between the Karzai government and Taliban representatives as a way of reducing conflict. In Kandahar, support for talks jumped to 85 per cent.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded