I opened my mail box and found this flyer. When I put it under the scanner, the hidden message (Agenda) showed up ;) Look at some of his scandals:
In and out election-gate
Mulroney-Schreiber-gate
Income Trust-gate
Afghanistan-gate
Cadman-gate
In order to please his master, Harper has put our soldiers in the jaws of death. We have also become part of the atrocities against Afghan civilians thanks to Bush's ruthless policies. Harper's speeches and agenda seem to come straight out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington D.C.
Watch out Canada! It is all on Canada's back!
Recommend this post
How terrible! Harper (with Dion's support) has continued the NATO led, UN authorized mission to support the democratically elected government of Afghanistan - thus continuing the policy of the Liberals since 2001.
ReplyDeleteYou'd better add Obama to your list of Bush poodles since he's a vocal supporter of the Afghan mission and Canada's role in it.
Ok, I am not impressed with Martin for starting it but Harper could have put an end to it or ask for proper deployment of NATO countries including US. Dion, I agree must have not gone along. However, Harper played the dirty trick of confidence vote. Still I think Dion should have voted against it.
ReplyDeleteObama says that instead of wasting lives in Iraq and resources deploy troops in Afghanistan and finish the mission. Nothing wrong with that.
As far as Karzai being democratically elected government? Baloney. He is a leader of one tribe and only controls parts of Kabul and that is in doubt too
"Obama says that instead of wasting lives in Iraq and resources deploy troops in Afghanistan and finish the mission. Nothing wrong with that."
ReplyDeleteOh I see. So when Obama wants to sent troops to "finish the mission" it's cool. When Harper does it, its high treason.
I love the smell of partisan hypocracy in the morning.
Ben Hicks, I knew you would miss the point. Bush has been screwing around in Afghanistan for over 7years and oilmen went after Iraq to control oil wells and killed everybody who could have been in their way and may be million more and still mission not accomplished. That is what I am talking about. The mission in Afghanistan would have ended in 2002 if properly handled.
ReplyDeleteNow with few troops in Afghanistan and Bush and gang are stuck in the thick oil of Iraq, it is nothing more than jaws of death in Afghanistan.
I agree with you on Iraq, so let's stick to Afghnistan.
ReplyDelete"Now with few troops in Afghanistan and Bush and gang are stuck in the thick oil of Iraq, it is nothing more than jaws of death in Afghanistan."
Is that what you think? Interesting. Let's ask Obama for his opinion:
"This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO's first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now."
Sounds like he's specifically requesting that we do what we have already been doing in Afghnistan: our fair share.
I agree with Obama. Iraq was a misstep that took attention away from the real struggle of our time: the war in Afghanistan. What I don't understand is how you can disagree with Harper and Dion's brave decision to stay the course in Afghanistan, and then claim to support a presidential candidate who calls for the same.
No, actually I do understand. You're a hypocrite.
"...Dion's brave decision to stay the course in Afghanistan.." At least you cannot call me a partisan. I do not think it was a brave decision. It was a political game that Harper successfully played. Why Harper? Because he is the Prime Minister and not Dion.
ReplyDeleteI am not a hypocrite. You're missing the point and I think you're doing it on purpose. There would have been no need for troops by now and matter would have been settled many years ago if Bush and gang would have not gone after Iraq. It is clear that is what Obama is saying.
Without proper number of boots on the ground and without proper equipment it is nothing more than walking into a valley of death.
"There would have been no need for troops by now and matter would have been settled many years ago if Bush and gang would have not gone after Iraq. It is clear that is what Obama is saying."
ReplyDeleteNo question the situation would be better now in Afghanistan if not for Dubya's adventure in Iraq. But completely troop free? Keep dreaming. Obama has has no such thing. Probably because it's a pretty dumb thing to say given the phenomical challenges in Afghanistan.
Regardless, nothing can change the fact that "Bush and his gang" DID go to Iraq. But that doesn't deminish the need for NATO nations to do the right thing in AFGANISTAN - something Obama understands.
"Without proper number of boots on the ground and without proper equipment it is nothing more than walking into a valley of death."
I agree that NATO countries should send more troops and equipment to Afghanistan. As it happens, so do Harper and Obama. The thing is, you can't condemn Harper's Afghanistan policy while cheering for Obama's. Because they are IDENTICAL.
"No question the situation would be better now..". That is a gross understatement.
ReplyDeleteIf Bush's priority is Iraq then why should we send our troops to get killed in Afghanistan? Undoubtedly it is challenging place but when the principal in the conflict (US) does not give a hoot then why bother.
I think, Ben Hicks, you're primarily agreeing with me but you do not want to admit it.
"If Bush's priority is Iraq then why should we send our troops to get killed in Afghanistan?"
ReplyDeleteBecause it's despicable to punish the people of Afghanistan for Bush's idiocy. Because Canada has always supported human rights and democracy in foreign lands. And because 9-11 was just as much an attack against Canadians as it was Americans.
"Undoubtedly it is challenging place but when the principal in the conflict (US) does not give a hoot then why bother."
As I'm sure you're aware, Bush's approval ratings are the lowest of any United States president in history. The American people don't agree with his policies. Where do you get off saying that the United States "does not give a hoot" about the Afghan mission?
"I think, Ben Hicks, you're primarily agreeing with me but you do not want to admit it."
-LeDaro 6:25 PM
"I agree with you on Iraq, so let's stick to Afghnistan."
-Ben Hicks 4:12 PM
"I agree that NATO countries should send more troops and equipment to Afghanistan."
-Ben Hicks 5:54 PM
Oh, I'm terrified LeDaro, completely terrified. You've got me figured out all right.
LoL, ok we do agree. However, friend you are wrong on two issues.1) There is no such thing as democracy in Afghanistan. Karzai is nothing more than a puppet of Bush and only in charge of one of many tribes in Afghanistan.2)Unfortunately Bush makes the decisions despite that 80% of Americans disagree with him. Moreover, he is the president and not Obama. Obama is just one of the two candidates.
ReplyDelete