Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Michael Bryant sets up a sock puppet to push for his handgun ban | Main | Canada's superior medicare system »

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Why are we there?

"Why are we there?" is a great reminder posted by the DND about Canada's role and operations in Afghanistan:

Read More...

Posted by Winston on August 18, 2007 in Current Affairs, International Affairs, Military | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54ee108dc8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why are we there?:

Comments

Perhaps so abc, I remember when the PRC decided to take Tibet and there was not enough interest in the West nor any other part of the world to stop them
for one thing, nobody including the left wing international media cared -still don't -once NATO withdraws from Afghanistan US and Canada should deport all supporters of Pakistan and the Taliban to Afghanistan as their first step on the road to Paradise -free egg rolls -on arrival via the PRC's
Liberation Armies -Attaran and Roger the Dodger first on the list. Tut tut, Macleod

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-08-19 7:53:04 AM


Roger,

It would be much appreciated if you would stop attacking the decent folks on this forum and the leaders of this country. Where do you come off attacking retired General O'Connor and Gen. Hillier? Since when are you the authority on Gen. Hillier's job description? Do you have any experience in the CF? I am nearly one-hundred percent sure that I have more experience in the CF than you so why don't you stay in your lane with regards to this issue. In my opinion Gen. Hillier represents the interests of the military and me quite well thank you very much. You call Hillier a puppet but you neglect the fact that he said the government's plan to create reactionary units across the country was unnecessary. In my opinion, that is hardly being a puppet. That kind of action would have scored him a swift kick in the pants from the former Liberal government. How about attacking people's positions for a change rather than attacking the people. Why don't you show some maturity and stick to the issues rather than sticking to attacking the character of people in here. Why not stick to being objective rather than being so incredibly subjective?

Posted by: Andrew | 2007-08-19 9:14:15 PM


To debate Roger/Moron, is like dealing with a spoiled child, and just as productive.

Ignore him.

Posted by: deepblue | 2007-08-19 9:25:09 PM


Roger,

Why do you come here if you feel so abused by others? How do you know why my ideological views are? How can you just put me in their category just like that? I refuse to buy your petty arguments that you are some how better thank the other folks on here. You fail to understand that your posts were most likely deleted due to the unsuitable content of them.
I find your assertion that O'Connor is a war criminal to be laughable. What crimes against humanity has he committed? How about you quote some laws or do you even know what qualifies as a crime against humanity? Is he a war criminal just because you say so? I bet you don't even know what your rights are in this country. Do you know that half the Charter of Rights is about the rights of the disabled and second laguages? Same with Hillier. Do you know why we hand over criminals to the Afghans? We do it because the criminals are criminals in their country! They haven't committed any crimes on our soil so to bring them here would be a waste of taxpayers dollars. The Afghans are responsible for their own prisoners. To remove them from there would be infringing on Afghanistan's sovreignty. You baseless assertions are nothing but slander. Why don't you take your garbage somewhere else? How about you start quoting some credible sources here before you run your tongue again. I have a piece of advice for you. Stick to your own lane. You don't have a good knowledge of international affairs or how the military works and what the duties of its leader are so stop running your mouth about them or I won't be held responsible for the abuse you receive for it.

Posted by: Andrew | 2007-08-19 9:50:59 PM


Roger, just as a side note to my post. Do you know what the military classifies as insubordination? Do you know how much of a fool you look like when you talk about things that you don't know anything about?

Posted by: Andrew | 2007-08-19 9:52:57 PM


Canadian Forces Administrative Orders and Queen's Regulations and Orders provides that it is a mamber's duty to refuse an order if it is immoral. It is not considered insubordination to do that. A court martial might ensue but if JAG can prove that the member is right he/she will be exonerrated. If you were an officer you should know that. It was part of your officer's qualifying course.

Posted by: DML | 2007-08-19 10:45:01 PM


Haha, Roger, why don't you give DML's post a read again. He just proved you wrong. He just showed you that Hillier wasn't be insubordinate if he deemed the order to be immoral. In the military I have the right to disobey an order that is illegal or one that if I carried it out could cause me har. Truman got rid of McArthur because he perceived him as a political threat because he was the Republican's president during the Truman years. McArthur showed Truman to be the fool that he was.

Posted by: Andrew | 2007-08-19 11:00:00 PM


Haha, Roger, why don't you give DML's post a read again. He just proved you wrong. He just showed you that Hillier wasn't be insubordinate if he deemed the order to be immoral. In the military I have the right to disobey an order that is illegal or one that if I carried it out could cause me har. Truman got rid of McArthur because he perceived him as a political threat because he was the Republican's president during the Truman years. McArthur showed Truman to be the fool that he was.

Posted by: Andrew | 2007-08-19 11:01:19 PM


Roger, if I might ask, what was your rank and MOC?

Posted by: Andrew | 2007-08-19 11:02:40 PM


Roger, you tackled the idea of disobeying and order when you shouted your definition of insubordination.

Posted by: DML | 2007-08-19 11:15:37 PM


Truman was a highly respected president? Are you aware that due to the Korean War Truman left office with the lowest approval rating of any president in US history? In February of 1952 his approval rating according to Gallup polling was 22%. That's 4 points lower than Bush's lowest. And he wasn't president for very long after removing McArthur. He relieved McArthur in 1951 and Eisenhower won the presidential elections of 1952. How about checking your facts before you run your mouth off next time.

Quick question: What war crimes has Gen. Hillier committed. Please cite laws and not just your own opinions.

Posted by: Andrew | 2007-08-19 11:15:56 PM


Roger, do you even know what an MOC is?

Posted by: Andrew | 2007-08-19 11:17:17 PM


Roger,

I'll ask you again. Do you know what an MOC is and what was yours. If not you've lied about being a member of the CF which is very insulting to a current member such as me that earned the right to call myself a CF member.

Posted by: Andrew | 2007-08-19 11:28:05 PM


Roger,
You are a liar and impersonator. You have never been in the military. You should be banned from this forum for this as you can't even provide us with your MOC as you don't even know what an MOC is!

Posted by: Andrew | 2007-08-19 11:37:04 PM


How about telling us what an MOC is your impersonator!

Posted by: Andrew | 2007-08-19 11:50:47 PM


Where is this Medicare forum? Link, please?

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-08-20 12:58:54 AM


Nevermind, what you call "forum", I call blog.

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-08-20 1:03:59 AM


Canadian Forces are subject to the National Defence Act which requires serving and in certain cases former members to obey lawful commands -Roger the Dodger would'nt have a clue to what a MOC is. There were no MOC's during the period from the end of WWI and the termination of the Korean War. Why waste any of your valuable time debating a fool and camel driver like Roger the Dodger -who should be subject to a visit with a certified shrink. Roger's knowledge of political history can be engraved on the head of a metric size pin -here on the real East coast we don't pay any attention to Ragheads like Roger -ain't none here anyway, we don't want them. Macleod

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-08-20 4:59:07 AM


Jack MacLeod: If Shotgun Blog management allows the likes of ROGER to monopolize all threads, he'll be bantering with himself and the site will be his fiefdom.
Unless he is banned, not much point posting here.

We are fighting terrorism, the scourge of our world, we can't abide people who support them.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-08-20 5:31:19 AM


Liz I don't see any point whatever in debating a fool and liar like Roger the Dodger - Ezra would be wise to ban Roger, who should stick under his other assumed name to the Globe and Mail. Roger was never an "officer" in any military, which is quite obvious
-but the reason for this post is to point out to all
that BGeneral Gordon O'Connor CF (Ret) accomplished much during his tenure as MND and remains in the New Conservative Government's Caucus where the real decisions focused on the Military are made. Our partners and associates consider O'Connor's abilitiy
to secure heavy lift air transport for the CF as a major accomplishment. We have been actively engaged in projects directly related to air transport capability in the Canadian Military since 1985, and have dealt with several incompetent Liberal Defence Ministers directly, the worst of which was Graham who appeared to be in somewhat of a trance most of the time. Canada has it's C-17's and will soon have their LM C-130J's plus other critical tactical support systems and weapons. Today's Canadian Army is the best I've seen since the Korean War - thoroughly appreciated General O'Connor and are fortunate to have General Hillier as CDS - MacLeod
General Hillier

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-08-20 7:04:24 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.