The Shotgun Blog
« Below the Legal Limit | Main | The Reason Proroguing Parliament Matters »
Friday, January 08, 2010
How to undermine a democracy in just one year
Conservative pundits have taken to mocking any and all people who dare to question Stephen Harper's decision to prorogue parliament, pointing to the one-hundred-some-odd times that parliament has been prorogued since confederation. But any rational person can see that this is merely an exercise in, well, rationalization.
The legality of prorogation is also not a meaningful discussion, quite simply because government restraint and the checks and balances of our parliamentary system are largely built on mere convention. Not rules written in stone. So when a government engages in a parade of precedent creating behavior, it behooves us to ask critical questions.
Why does this create new precedent? Especially since prorogation has happened so often?
The first and foremost reason is that this is a minority government. Not a majority government. In this sense, the government ostensibly governs because it has the confidence of the house. Not simply because it has the most number of seats.
Last year, when it became clear that the government had de facto lost confidence in the face of an opposition that was united to defeat it, Stephen Harper asked the Governor General to prorogue parliament.
Harper is a shrewd politician and it's obvious to anybody with any sense of political strategy why Harper did this; Harper knew that if he prorogued parliament, it would provide more time to allow the cracks between the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois to widen. And with a few scare tactics and attack ads, the Conservatives could seal the deal on the demise of a united opposition. It worked out perfectly.
The Conservatives got away with it, for the most part, because the general public was outraged at the whole concept of the Bloc Quebecois being part of a coalition government. The prospect of a separatist party having any sort of national power was far more offensive than Stephen Harper's closing of the doors to parliament.
All and all, last year's prorogation of parliament should go down in the history books as one of the most perfectly and shrewdly played political moves in Canadian history. But that didn't make it right.
A year later, Stephen Harper prorogued parliament again. But this time, the reason is ostensibly because MPs need to spend more time in their constituencies to work to focus on the economic recovery. Really. That's the reason given. It didn't have anything to do with the fact that the questioning of the government's knowledge of the potential torture of Afghan detainees was starting to take center stage in the political discourse of this country.
Sarcasm aside, I think we all know that's the real reason.
Let me first start off by saying that if it turns out that Afghan authorities did, in fact, employ torture on prisoners which we handed over to them, I must simply say that we cannot lay blame on the Canadian military or the government. Why? Because we're either occupiers or we're not.
The very idea that angry people on the left are upset that the Canadian military is respecting the national sovereignty of the Afghanistan government to run it's penal system without interference is beyond me. After all, these are the same people who advocated for the sovereignty of Afghanistan under Taliban rule. Now that we're there, the left is advocating that we act like imperialist occupiers. That we should, not respect the sovereignty of the state, and impose our own standards of justice. I just can't get my brain around this.
The left wants us to pull out of Afghanistan immediately, but also wants to hold us responsible for the actions of the sovereign Afghanistan government while we're there, for having the tenacity to respect their sovereignty. Okay. I don't get it.
It just so happens I agree we should probably pull out of Afghanistan. Nation building is a forsaken exercise, and it doesn't seem we're going to overcome the corruption in that country in our lifetimes. But unlike the left, I'm not trying to have it both ways.
I digress.
Even though I would not fault the Conservative government for any torture that has occurred at the hands of Afghan authorities, it doesn't change the fact that using prorogation to avoid transparency and accountability is unacceptable.
Certainly, past governments have used prorogation, but never as a matter of having uncomfortable questioning of the government stop. As far as I know, neither Chretien* or Martin prorogued parliament to avoid the questions around the Sponsorship Scandal. Martin didn't prorogue parliament to avoid the non-confidence motion which ultimately brought down his short-lived tenure in 2006.
The pandora's box that Stephen Harper has opened in this past year goes far beyond the present and extends ominously into the future.
Just as Stephen Harper has in many ways been a mirror-image of Jean Chretien in terms of his governance-style: shrewd, tactical, power-centralizing, etc -- future Liberal governments can be guaranteed to enjoy the inheritance of heavy-handed tools that Mr. Harper has paved the way for using. As such, parliament will become more and more a game for politicians to maneuver through -- pushing procedures and rules to their boundaries -- while the inevitable consequences of corruption through lack of oversight, will go unchecked.
We certainly need democratic reform in this country, as Stephen Harper has himself advocated for. The problem is, Stephen Harper has defined himself as one of the biggest reasons we need democratic reform as opposed to someone we can trust to deliver it to us.
Stephen Harper has become the very enemy to accountable government that he claimed to be fighting against. He has lost almost the entirety of his intelligent, thinking base and is left with nothing more than a voting block on which to chop populist issues, and a chorus of uninspiring partisans cheering on from the bleachers. Harper is bathing in the bath of his own arrogance right now, and he is sowing the seeds for the destruction of the very united right that he shepherded into existence.
Worse, Stephen Harper may -- much like the Republicans in the United States -- have paved the way for a radically left-wing federal government which will rise from the ashes of an imploded right.
Something for all those uncritical partisans to think about, if they truly have any ideological backbone.
* Factual Correction: Jean Chretien did in fact, prorogue parliament for 80 days before the tabling of the report by Sheila Frasier. I stand corrected on this historical oversight.
Update: I've noticed that quite a few people are linking to this article by pre-establishing the context of the Western Standard as being a "conservative" entity, and myself being a "conservative" writer. Neither of these characterizations are true. The Western Standard certainly has conservative contributors, but we are a decidedly libertarian-leaning bunch. Many, if not most of us support marijuana legalization, equal rights for same-sex couples (although most of us would prefer the state not be involved in marriage for anyone), a defensive --not aggressive-- foreign policy, strong property rights, freedom of speech, belief, and association.
Us libertarians do not hold our beliefs for these rights to be contingent on ethnicity, citizenship, race, sex, sexual orientation, political beliefs, cultural practices, social or economic class.
I am not a conservative. I am categorically a libertarian with progressive social views. Yes, it's possible to be a small government, cut-throat capitalist, whilst at the same time being socially progressive. Meet libertarianism. Please do not keep referring to me as a conservative. Thanks.
Posted by Mike Brock on January 8, 2010 | Permalink
Comments
I mostly agree with everything you say except with regard to the Afghan issue. Those who are aghast at what could be our (Canadian) complicity in torture are so, not because of politics, but because of humanity. We are not blaming the troops (as per the CPC talking points). It comes smack dab down on the government - first the Liberals and now the CPC. It is they who give the orders.
We, as a country, engaged anywhere in the world, must ensure that we don't undermine our own morality and credibility even when doing what needs to be done. When we become no better than those we fight, we have effectively lost the fight.
Posted by: YukonGal | 2010-01-08 11:24:00 AM
Some valid points, perhaps not the best idea from harper but then what is the point with such a screwed up senate! The most undemocratic institution in Canada, so Harper has to play the game and when they get back to work maybe bills will get passed as they were presented without the liberal senators destroying for political purposes only. I have to completely disagree that the left will rise to power again any time soon. Every day Canadians are seeing the crash & burning of Obama and the dems in the US what with his weak stance on terror, insane spending, and errosion of basic freedoms that the US has always been known for. Also there is no one on the canadian political landscape from the left at this time that doen't look like a idiot and completely out of touch. Canadians will forget about this soon enough and harper will get that majority in the fall.
Posted by: JohnnieOil | 2010-01-08 11:28:08 AM
YukonGal,
I wasn't excusing torture. As a libertarian I'd never do so. You sort of missed my point. My point is, that as occupiers we only make the situation worse.
We can't be both occupiers and guests in Afghanistan. That just doesn't work.
Either we're occupiers who usurp the authority of the Afghan government, or we're guests who respect it's authority. Choose one.
Those on the left seem to want to have it both ways, and I'm calling them out on that.
Certainly, torture is unacceptable and violates basic human rights. But the left is making a special pleading here: we want the troops out of Afghanistan, but we also want to hold the Canadian government responsible for the actions of the sovereign Afghan government while we're there.
To even use the term "complicity" in this case is to imply that our stature in Afghanistan is that of a benevolent occupier, not a guest of the Afghan government.
Where-as, I'm putting my money where my mouth is and saying: "Fine. The Afghan government is sovereign, and we need to get the hell out of there because we're causing more harm than good."
The left is saying "Afghanistan is sovereign, we're occupiers, and we have no right to be there. And we are to hold our government responsible for allowing the Afghan government to do certain things."
I'm sorry, but the left is advocating to respect Afghanistan's sovereignty and not respect it at the same time. It's contradictory reasoning.
I may not like the fact that the Afghan government is employing torture. But I need to be a proponent of occupation or not. And I choose not. That basically shuts me off from holding our government responsible for any complicity. Respecting sovereignty in any case can be viewed as complicity. So the point is moot.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-01-08 11:33:13 AM
Do not agree with any garbage concern about lying taliban prisoners - who cares!! We are only responsible while in our custody once we pas afghan taliban terrorists to thier countrymen what happens is thier concern not ours. Afghan will treat each other as they wish and as they have for centuries - it is not up to us to change thier culture and only shows the hypocracy and arrogance of western liberal elites!
Posted by: JohnnieOil | 2010-01-08 11:38:35 AM
I was part of the early days of Reform, and whole heartedly supported the merger that created the Conservative party. 2003 was the conclusion of what had been almost 15 years of tough work in the political trenches, trying to build a principled, viable alternative to the LIEberals.
However Harpers actions in the last year have led me to believe that all of my work was for nothing. His governing style is shameful, and his policies are more liberal than many years of Chretien's rule. He has sold out his religious base trying to court 4% of undecided centrist voters. He has ran deficits, alienating all those who believed he would be a real defender of market economics.
I just dont know what else to say. I cannot bring myself to vote for this man again.
Posted by: Randy | 2010-01-08 11:45:00 AM
Again I see things differently. We are in Afghanistan. We are occupiers, call it what you will, but we do take matters in our own hands without first gaining permission from the Afghan government for every sorte, every prisoner, every village we visit. But, according to Rick Hillier, CF has to get permission from Ottawa before any ops. He said specifically, that many times other NATO forces were used; forces that could make their own decisions. That makes us answerable to Ottawa before Kabul does it not?
So there is a certain amount of hypocrisy & contradiction in both the right & left's reasoning and their arguments for either remaining or removing. Both sides use the "we are there at the Afghan's invitation" but spin it for different purposes. I see the right using it to rationalize and deflect detainee treatment and the left using it as a reason we could/should leave anytime. (Politically I see the left winning.)
But there is an in-between that you don't mention. A majority in-between I would go so far as to say. It is no use railing at the far end of either spectrum when the majority is in the middle?
As more of a middle of the road person myself, I see us as (maybe) complicit; we are there at the request of the Afghan gov't but think we would be there anyways and I think that what we do over there matters. If the CF could, I think we should stay until the job is done (I don't think I'm in the majority on that one). We should do as we would have done to us, not as they would do to us. Democracy and humanity -- aren't those the reasons we stay?
If we don't lead by example then we shouldn't lead. Either do things right (as in correctly) or don't do things at all.
Posted by: YukonGal | 2010-01-08 12:00:40 PM
Harper may have is faults but looking around to the opposition I'm glad he is there. Until he get's a majority we will not know what kind of leader will be. He has been walking on egg shells since he was elected where the only mandate open is not to piss off any more people than necessary. If he does get a majority we will see the real harper...for better or worse.
Posted by: peterj | 2010-01-08 12:07:30 PM
The issue for me was not so much the issue of torture, tho I am not for it. And if we turn a blind eye to it, then we can't say jack when they torture one of ours. We have no moral ground.
The problem is as you say, lack of transparency. If something was done wrong, then either come out and admit to it and fix it, or show why nothing was done improperly. Its a war, I don't expect angels on the battlefield, and shit happens, but deal with it if there is an issue. Running and hiding doesn't cut it for me. Enjoy the Olympics Harper, I hope you go down in flames next election. Majority? I sure hope not.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-01-08 12:12:13 PM
Can't support you on the characterisation of the Afghan detainee issue. We (the people, not "the left") need to investigate those in charge and hold to account any who breached our laws (as well as international laws to which Canada has agreed). "Both international and Canadian law require officials in a position of 'superior responsibility' to know or try to find out what is happening if they are told or suspect that a war crime or crime against humanity is being committed or about to be committed." (Robin Rowland, a expert on the law and history of war crimes). In other words, it's against Canadian law to knowingly hand over prisoners to any party we have reason to suspect of employing torture. (Canadian Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000)
Posted by: Ibis | 2010-01-08 12:13:48 PM
Ibis,
I think I agreed with you in the article above, re: the need for accountability.
I offered my opinion on the matter of foreign interventions and occupations: any law or treaty interpretation notwithstanding, I simply do not believe we can accomplish what we set out to do, we're over-burdening our military, the taxpayers, and we end up in situations like we find ourselves today.
Whether the law you cite is relevant or not doesn't appear to be relevant to whether or not you can hold two, contradictory views on the matter of state sovereignty.
Certainly we can make reasoned and logical arguments outside the purview of the legal status quo.
If there are those who are in violation of law, then I think I covered myself when I made a pretty clear case for the importance of transparency in government. But as I've said, my opinions on the matter of detainee transfers, and our culpability in torture is not a contingent part to the argument I was ultimately making.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-01-08 12:19:33 PM
@Brock:
Can't blame the Canadian military or government for the fate of prisoners they took???
How precisely is the Canadian government and military respecting Afghan (gag) sovereignty by a) BEING THERE; b) TAKING PRISONERS?
You need a serious soul search, dude, as to just how "libertarian" you really are.
It's fine if you are not, but please desist in describing yourself as same whilst acting as an apologist for Ottawa's Afghan invasion, occupation and misadventure.
There in fact would not be an "Afghan" state, the "sovereignty" of which to "respect", were it not for Canada's contribution to propping up that corrupt satrapy, itself an affront to freedom and actual sovereignty of the Pashtun, and others.
Afghanistan may well have evolved into what you neocons call a "failed state" -- or what libertarians would applaud as an anarchistic region, much like thriving West Africa now is, and Somalia has very much been -- were it not for the Canadian and "allied" intervention.
Bottom line is, Canada participated in illegitimate invasion and occupation of a sovereign country, because a consortium of American interests seized an opportunity under cover of the equally illegit motive of vengeance.
Canada then set about bullying, interfering, intervening, killing and injuring, as well as dispossessing the indigenous, patriotic population of Afghanistan in the name of "our" (allegedly) liberal "democratic" values.
The Canadian government and its mediocre military are illegitimate and indefensible. So, please, great Ontarian libertarian, explain to me where part of Canada's mission statement includes capturing and turning over patriotic Pashtun for torture by their enemies.
And just for fun, how bout some exposition on precisely when it was Ottawa sought and got democratic permission to forcibly take our tax dollars and enlist the suckers among us to wreak havoc on Afghanistan? When did the Canadian voter sign off on subsidizing various US corporate interests in Afghanistan? Please, let's hear the "libertarian" rationale for this garbage.
Posted by: JC | 2010-01-08 1:06:25 PM
Do not agree with any garbage concern about lying taliban prisoners - who cares!!
Posted by: JohnnieOil | 2010-01-08 11:38:35 AM
Just ice for johnnie and never justice. would Canada look similar to Afghanistan if everybody had a similar perspective of what a basic human right is?
How does a defender of his home, when fighting an illegal foreign invasion constitute as a terrorist?
If the press started calling them what they are freedom fighters would most of you flip flop and lose the word terrorist overnight? Of course you would, because being lead is your destiny. Analysis of the issue escapes many and the meaningless minutiae which paasses for thought filled discussion is founded on false premise and propaganda.
This is why Mike has a hard time writng a responsible piece from a perspective of being a human first and a pawn of the cruel some where further down the line of choices.
I applaud bravery and there is nothing braver then having an opinion which differs from media manufactured consent.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-08 1:08:33 PM
JC,
There's so many straw man arguments in your comment that I can't really see the forest through the trees you've planted.
If you'd like me to defend a particular point, then I'd be happy to. But so far as your current challenge goes, I'd have to spend too much time deconstructing the misrepresentation of my position.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-01-08 1:12:51 PM
@Mike
I can not discern a "position" on your part beyond an apologia for the Canadian government and military.
Try harder.
Posted by: JC | 2010-01-08 1:37:18 PM
JC,
I fail to see -- and I think most reasonable people will too -- how you can reconcile the statement that I am an apologist for a government that I am simultaneously saying is a threat to our democracy, while also slamming partisan supporters of the government.
I don't know what sort of mental gymnastics you've gone through to arrive at such an interpretation, but it's certainly impressive to say the least.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-01-08 1:44:18 PM
@ Mike Brock:
"if it turns out that Afghan authorities did, in fact, employ torture on prisoners which we handed over to them, I must simply say that we cannot lay blame on the Canadian military or the government."
That is not a statement in support of liberty.
Neither is concern over "threat(s) to our democracy".
If a State invades and occupies the sovereign country of another people, kills, injures, dispossesses, displaces, and otherwise bullies and interferes with said people and also takes prisoners and turns them over for torture to an even uglier state entity, that is a moral crime and an affront to liberty.
I don't see why you are so confused on this point, nor why you are so concerned for "our" dumbocracy.
You call this libertarian. I say it is a stripe of neoconservatism.
You won't defend your defence of Ottawa and its armed forces.
So I suppose we are at an impasse, and you have negated the handful of interesting and valid points you did make.
Posted by: JC | 2010-01-08 2:12:03 PM
@Mike Brock:
Let me exaggerate and thereby hopefully simplify a point for you:
If a government agency takes children from a home (for whatever PC "liberal (sic) democratic" reason)(a wholly illegitimate act) and turns them over to a pedophile, is said agency to blame, yes or no?
Posted by: JC | 2010-01-08 2:14:38 PM
JC,
You're adding too many implications to my positions where none are warranted.
I willingly admit that I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. However, I no longer do. It is clear to me that these types of foreign intervention do more harm than good.
As such, it is my position that we should withdraw our forces from Afghanistan.
Given the fact the left is calling for us to respect Afghanistan sovereignty, it is hard for me to reconcile their demand that the Canadian government be held accountable for the actions of the Afghan government.
While I agree with you that support for torture is not a libertarian position, you cannot imply support or complicity from my advocacy for a non-interventionist foreign policy. Which is all I'm doing.
The fact is we are in Afghanistan, and if we are there, the lesser interventionist position is the one I'm advocating for -- which is to not act like an occupier. Which means, unfortunately, sitting on our hands and respecting the sovereign authority of the Afghan government.
There's nothing wrong with my position in the libertarian context. All I've done is draw a line in the sand, and said that we need to draw a line between Canadian interests and Afghan interests. That means, that we are not responsible for the actions of the Afghan authorities, and it also means that Canada should withdraw it's troops.
How you deconstruct a decidedly anti-imperialist position to a neocon position is beyond me. Really.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-01-08 2:24:02 PM
1) Exactly what type of torture are these prisoners supposed to have endured?
2) Do you really assume that the Canadian Forces would hand over prisoners to the Afghan gvmnt if they suspect actual torture was going on?
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2010-01-08 2:32:48 PM
Libertarians do not care about STATE sovereignty. The Afghan government has none.
And Canada has NO interests in Afghanistan, period.
Taking prisoners and handing them off to another state entity only compounds the original crime of invading and occupying Afghanistan.
It is bad enuff that Ottawa occupies Canada -- never mind Afghanistan.
But given that at least some Canadians vote FOR whatever regime is in power in Ottawa, there is an argument ( a bad one ) that at least Ottawa and its armed forces are acting democratically HERE. But nobody in Afghanistan voted for the Canadian State in Ottawa to invade their country and violate the people's sovereignty.
There is only ONE libertarian perspective on Afghanistan: Get Ottawa OUT. Hold the Canadian State in Ottawa and the armed forces it force funds and employs responsible for their act of aggression - both against the Canadian public who pays for it and the Afghan public who suffers for it.
If you can not hold Ottawa and the CF responsible for any and everything they do in Afghanistan, then you can not advance liberty.
Advocating that Ottawa and the CF get out of Afghanistan is only worthwhile until they invade another country at neocon behest.
Posted by: JC | 2010-01-08 2:40:01 PM
As Stephen Harper has closed down the constitutional means whereby he does his job, proroguing parliament, should not this mean that he should not be able to draw a salary until the House sits again in March 03? Also how can all the members of his party do their jobs if the means of doing so have been stopped. Should they be able to draw salaries for illegal behavior?
Is this behavior by the Conservatives constitutional, legal or ethical?
When Julius Caesar tried this he was assassinated.
Bill Reid, Yellowknife
Posted by: Bill Reid | 2010-01-08 2:58:24 PM
When will we Canadians wake up,Stephen Harper is a separtist,Google ALBERTA FIREWALL,he is an absolute joke.Iam ashamed that he represents us here in Canada and around the world.
Posted by: Ken MacAskill | 2010-01-08 5:21:25 PM
Mr. Harper saved 32 million jobs, universal health care, education and a high standard of living from fanatics in the Liebral/NDP/Green Party bent on following the global warming agenda to its fullest extent. He ought to be championed as a national hero. But then genius usually takes time to be appreciated. You people will come around in time, especially if Iggy and Taliban Jack sell your jobs and homes to the lowest bidder in the developing world.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-01-08 5:37:13 PM
@Ken MacAskill:
If only. If ONLY Stephen Harper were a Western separatist.
No, what Harpo is, is prime minister of Upper Canada. He favours government for, by, and of the people of ONTARIO.
You can take the boy out of Ontario...but you can't always take Ontario out of the boy.
Posted by: JC | 2010-01-08 5:49:07 PM
Haha, I'm watching CBC news and they report only 23% of Canadians believe a word Stephen Harper says, hows that for democracy?
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-01-08 7:01:29 PM
Shows what CBC watchers and website voters know. They still think that Global Warming is real! Little do they know that Mr. Harper saved everyone's job (well, except that of David Suzuki!) from the careless, inattention and outright treason of Iggy, Dion Layton and May. How ironic that the people who claim to be the defenders of Canadian sovereignty prove to be its greatest betrayers.
Thank God for Mr. Harper. He saved our everything.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-01-08 7:17:21 PM
Zebulon Pike: "Mr. Harper saved 32 million jobs, universal health care, education and a high standard of living from fanatics in the Liebral/NDP/Green Party bent on following the global warming agenda to its fullest extent."
Setting aside your opinion about global warming, 32 million jobs? You do realize that not every person in a country is employed, don't you?
Posted by: Fact provider | 2010-01-08 8:06:15 PM
What about those who have more than one?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-01-08 8:13:18 PM
Thats actually a good point, but there are 16,871,300 employed people in Canada I doubt each would have an average of 1.95 jobs, nor would the 3,439,600 public sector jobs be affected.
Posted by: Fact provider | 2010-01-08 8:47:05 PM
Don't fret, its just Zeb throwing numbers around. He does the same with "facts".
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-01-08 9:18:45 PM
Mike, do you really think the Obama administration is radically left-wing? Seems pretty centrist to me. You must be really hard-core right-wing if you think Obama is radically left. Probably an Albertan
Posted by: Ryan Foster | 2010-01-08 10:45:57 PM
Zeb, about the only thing Harper saved was Alberta Oil Company profits. Too bad when the planet is destroyed the won't have any place to spend their ill-gotten gains
Posted by: Ryan Foster | 2010-01-08 10:49:32 PM
If a government agency takes children from a home (for whatever PC "liberal (sic) democratic" reason)(a wholly illegitimate act) and turns them over to a pedophile, is said agency to blame, yes or no?
Posted by: JC | 2010-01-08 2:14:38 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is quite an analogy. Only valid if the children were doing their best to kill you. What I would like to know is , Even if we were to win this war, just what have we won ?.We can't win. Why ??. The combatants will move somewhere else. The government will still be corrupt. The population will always hate non muslims. The 53 warlords that wield the power will go back to their old ways. The poppy will once again be the main industry. The same factions that banded together to fight the Soviet Union will continue to band together to remove the invaders, us. We measure the war in dollars and lives lost. They measure the war on the lives of their sons to carry on the battle. The farmer that befriends you during the day could be the same one that will try to kill you at night. Unlike us, to them life is cheap and death is welcome.Alah will bestow them blessings. We have rules. They do not. Most important of all....they have time on their side. We do not.
We should have bombed the snot out of them in the Tora Bora mountains and left it at that. Nothing from there on will make much difference in the long run.
Every invader in history has left that country with their tail between their legs, after conquering it.
The main question that should be pondered by our leaders is still : What have we won if we do win:?
Posted by: peterj | 2010-01-09 10:44:52 PM
Wow peter everything you believe is wrong, how sad for you.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-09 11:06:08 PM
Wow peter everything you believe is wrong, how sad for you.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-09 11:06:08 PM
Thank you vegan
This is a exchange of opinion. My "truth". Please tell me why I'm wrong. I'm interested in your "truth"
Posted by: peterj | 2010-01-09 11:13:56 PM
First off you think its a war,and that some how our measely force will have anything to do with its outcome, you are wrong and over estimating our importance. The combatants will move you said,the majority of them live there, where are they going to move to? Your implanted notion is that Afghanistan is overun with this organized army of highly trained foreign fighter, bollocks! You say the government will still be corrupt, well who's fault is that we install the government and create the corruption whether you think our sides moral compass is perfectly calibrated which it is not.
You said the popualtion will always hate non muslims, if you mean warring white men invaders then i agree, but the world has many non murderous, non muslims that I am guessing are welcomed, Flora Mcdonald may be one of them.
The 53 warlords if that is an accurate number have never stopped its business as usual, the poppy crops are yielding much opium and the world heroin market is robust with Afghan base product.our troops have protected the crops, and only erraticated at time of photo op for the purposes of cojuring stories to keep drug war money flowing. our troops are there to protect heroin and the trade and never ever get in the middle of iteven though it ends up here. Its all politics, invaders who are pussified. "the poppy will once again will be the main industry. it has only increased in size during the accupation which would makes it possible that occupiers are now involved in the trade and have increased the model. it is an incorrect notion to think that we at all slowed our heroin problem by being there.
We are not the same as the soviets we don't skin as many of them alive in front of other afghans so I doubt they will band together the same way, and this is because we buy our friendship with Canadian tax payer dollars, and when you have cash everybody is your friend."the farmer" the farmer is the farmer, it is a fallacy notion planted in your mind "that they are everywhere".
you said"Unlike us, to them life is cheap and death is welcome" this is another fallacy, doesn't the absesne of daily "suicide bombers" or waves of them going off constantly say to you that maybe what you beleive about that particular tactic is exaggerated. Wouldn't it have to be if you actually believe most of them want to die. Please don't ignore the numbers think about it, because you are not properly assessing the threat.
"We have rules they do not" is what you said. I say they have far more rules than we do, and we honor or repect almost nothing. We invaded them, without a declaration, or with out grounds by way of evidence that was even reasonable. I never saw anything after the americans got their that would support invasion, nothing thast couldnt have been fabricated set up to appear as something.
"tora Bora" what moral argument can you make for bombing those mountains indiscriminately?
"every invader in history" well at least you admit we are invaders, but you are incorrect if you think many conquered that region. you are delusional if you think a win is acheivable. I thought the CIA attack was a thing of beauty and clearly highlights why the invading forces could never and should never win. I think I have proven what you know is what the news tells you to know and its all pie and the sky and flag waving. the reality is, no nation has man power or desire to stay there indefinitely so all of our soldiers died there for nothing. Start walking around with your eyes open peirrej.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-10 12:03:01 AM
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-10 12:03:01 AM
Thank you for your "truth" but it seems that you are supporting everything I said. I fully support our troops as they are only doing what they have been ordered to do,and doing it well.
"tora Bora" what moral argument can you make for bombing those mountains indiscriminately?
That is where Osama was hiding out.
Other than that, I agree with you. Or at least parts of your disjointed statement.
Posted by: peterj | 2010-01-10 9:53:41 AM
Either I wasn't clear in how I responded to you, or you are being purposely obtuse, because nothing you believe about anything is actually accurate, so every opinion is based on flawed premise.
That is where someone told you to believe Osama the Phantom was hiding. how do you know if he even exists, or ever existed in the sense you mean? You don't have any evidence to support what you believe, yet your steadfast that he the figurehead of your fears. I on the other hand assess everything, and logic dictates that I know nothing for sure, other than that the US is very evil, and above nothing, so Im am on the fence like anybody intellegent.
I am the complete opposite of you on every issue, for instance I want real safety and you want a version you have been lead to believe is the only way to be safe, even within the same confines we are at opposite ends.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-10 10:13:26 AM
Vegan,
You're entire premise is based on simply holding contrarian beliefs to information provided by the US government or the media, based on the belief that everything they say is a lie.
You claim that all intelligent people also hold these views, as well.
There's nothing particularly intelligent about being contrarian.
As a rationalist, I tend to be skeptical about a great many things. But being skeptical is not the same thing as believing everything I'm told is a lie.
You're making the claim that Osama bin Laden might not exist. A claim that many 9/11 Truthers share. But that is an extremely bold claim. As the number of people involved in said conspiracy would be mind boggling, involve more than half the nation states on the planet, countless private individuals, including the Bin Laden family itself, which disowned him.
Considering that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that Osama bin Laden, does, in fact, exist... up to including records, footage and first-hand accounts of his participation, funding and support for the Mujahideen in the Soviet-Afghanistan war, his falling out with the Saudi Government during the first Gulf war, his threats against the United States throughout the entire 1990's, etc. You're basically saying that there's a good chance that the US, Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, etc. have all been working together to construct a fake persona of an Islamic extremist for the past 30 years.
The position that Osama bin Laden does not or may not exist is the position that begs credibility, not the position that he does.
Where do you get your intelligent information from? Prison Planet and Alex Jones?
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-01-10 11:34:29 AM
am the complete opposite of you on every issue, for instance I want real safety and you want a version you have been lead to believe is the only way to be safe, even within the same confines we are at opposite ends.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-10 10:13:26 AM
The version I have been LED to believe comes from many sources over many years . You want real safety and you know the way to achieve that ??. History is a great teacher and littered knee deep in fools that thought they had the answers to peace in the world. Since everyone else is wrong on almost all issues you attack I would sure enjoy the sources you get your "truths" from.
And how about that vegan handbook thingy. Still waiting.
Posted by: peterj | 2010-01-10 12:03:16 PM
"You're entire premise is based on simply holding contrarian beliefs to information provided by the US government or the media, based on the belief that everything they say is a lie.
You claim that all intelligent people also hold these views, as well.
There's nothing particularly intelligent about being contrarian."
I'm working right now and only be breif until later, so here goes.
First off there is nothing intellegent about automatic conformity and only non confromists are responsible for meaninful change in this world. Before you challenge me you can't, its Philosophy supported by historical fact, pick anyone who is responsible for change, in anyway shape or form. All of your heroes qualify.
What you interpret as contrary is actually the middle, because you know nothing for sure unless you saw it, and even then ones perception of reality can be flawed, because the eyes and brain creates deception inadvertently.
Any philosopher like any you idolize would be the first to tell you not to follow them, they would tell you use what they created inorder to develop new philosophies. An open mind that is capable of listening if it has the ability to, weighs what it hears for plausibility by way of reason. I am not saying yours doesn't work this way, but maybe its not tooled exactly right at the moment regardless of your typing and vernacular abilities.
My defense:
you calling my position "contrary" is done so as convenienence for you. The fact i need evidence in the form of logic when the media and government rarely tells the whole truth speaks more about you then me I think.
Why would I belive anything an illegal invasion force is spinning out of there,are you a student of history in any way? If you did more research instead of reading other people opion pieces then spinning off of that, you would be far more knowledgable about the inaccurqcies of the press.
For instance in the news this week is a story floating around about how veganism is going to be reponsible for a decrease of meat consumption in the US. Many have picked up this story and a search of google news will verify it. On reading I immediately went to the sources they cited US ag something and the truth is the drop is due to the economy and spending trends by the consumer.I am a staunch vegan, but i am for the truth first and want no cause advanced predicated on lies, even one so vital as the protection of animals. Only thefor me. I can also dig much that is opinion or fallacy from any story obviously unlike you. So this example is just one how nothing that is printed is the whole truth and you would be wise as a journalist to understand this.
I can logically presume that much of what the media say about the business of terroism is largely hyperbole , just cite something and I will give you my take on it. The amount and level of attacks by loners makes this clear. Fighting in pakistan, and afghanistan makes them a defense force, not terrorists as I am guessing you believe they are by challenging me.
I am truther in the fact unlike you I am only about the truth. Why are you trying to demonize anti truther? :))
Reagarding 911 like you tried to hem me in with, nobody truly knows what happened there and because I am capable of being and induvidual, i don't need to pick sides out of needing a false sense of security. So I can say I don't know. You know as much about 911 as anybody, and that is almost nothing other that what was reported by media.
Youn defend media like it hasn't been proven that they print almost nothing accuately, again this speaks more about you then me.
So I repsectfully diagree, contrary is everything because it get you to the truth, and blind acceptance only keeps you ignorant and ill informed.
What is the over whelming evidence Bin laden exists? A handfull of videos, and some audio, thats all you need? I Am not saying he doesn't or did exist, I am just saying without real evidence other than inuendo, he may not exist in the sense you think he does or did.
You know what they say there is no govenor on stupidity, I can't make you see what you are afraid to see, or think about what you do not want to think about,those are personal flaws you have to work to be wise. That is not be offensive as much as it is to challenge you not to be a stooge who just rehashes that which cannot be supported.
You assume way too much evidence that supports our side, and it has damaged what i think is meant to be good and reasonable judgement. Still the fact remains it is your premise regarding how i formulate my opinion which is wrong.
Instead of trying the old "guilt by association" fallacy, to impress dolts, commit to some kind of idea, say something you think is true and i will try and disprove it with logic.
Something about media virtue or the one sided war on terror.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-10 1:19:58 PM
"You're entire premise is based on simply holding contrarian beliefs to information provided by the US government or the media, based on the belief that everything they say is a lie.
You claim that all intelligent people also hold these views, as well.
There's nothing particularly intelligent about being contrarian."
I'm working right now and only be breif until later, so here goes.
First off there is nothing intellegent about automatic conformity and only non confromists are responsible for meaninful change in this world. Before you challenge me you can't, its Philosophy supported by historical fact, pick anyone who is responsible for change, in anyway shape or form. All of your heroes qualify.
What you interpret as contrary is actually the middle, because you know nothing for sure unless you saw it, and even then ones perception of reality can be flawed, because the eyes and brain creates deception inadvertently.
Any philosopher like any you idolize would be the first to tell you not to follow them, they would tell you use what they created inorder to develop new philosophies. An open mind that is capable of listening if it has the ability to, weighs what it hears for plausibility by way of reason. I am not saying yours doesn't work this way, but maybe its not tooled exactly right at the moment regardless of your typing and vernacular abilities.
My defense:
you calling my position "contrary" is done so as convenienence for you. The fact i need evidence in the form of logic when the media and government rarely tells the whole truth speaks more about you then me I think.
Why would I belive anything an illegal invasion force is spinning out of there,are you a student of history in any way? If you did more research instead of reading other people opion pieces then spinning off of that, you would be far more knowledgable about the inaccurqcies of the press.
For instance in the news this week is a story floating around about how veganism is going to be reponsible for a decrease of meat consumption in the US. Many have picked up this story and a search of google news will verify it. On reading I immediately went to the sources they cited US ag something and the truth is the drop is due to the economy and spending trends by the consumer.I am a staunch vegan, but i am for the truth first and want no cause advanced predicated on lies, even one so vital as the protection of animals. Only thefor me. I can also dig much that is opinion or fallacy from any story obviously unlike you. So this example is just one how nothing that is printed is the whole truth and you would be wise as a journalist to understand this.
I can logically presume that much of what the media say about the business of terroism is largely hyperbole , just cite something and I will give you my take on it. The amount and level of attacks by loners makes this clear. Fighting in pakistan, and afghanistan makes them a defense force, not terrorists as I am guessing you believe they are by challenging me.
I am truther in the fact unlike you I am only about the truth. Why are you trying to demonize anti truther? :))
Reagarding 911 like you tried to hem me in with, nobody truly knows what happened there and because I am capable of being and induvidual, i don't need to pick sides out of needing a false sense of security. So I can say I don't know. You know as much about 911 as anybody, and that is almost nothing other that what was reported by media.
Youn defend media like it hasn't been proven that they print almost nothing accuately, again this speaks more about you then me.
So I repsectfully diagree, contrary is everything because it get you to the truth, and blind acceptance only keeps you ignorant and ill informed.
What is the over whelming evidence Bin laden exists? A handfull of videos, and some audio, thats all you need? I Am not saying he doesn't or did exist, I am just saying without real evidence other than inuendo, he may not exist in the sense you think he does or did.
You know what they say there is no govenor on stupidity, I can't make you see what you are afraid to see, or think about what you do not want to think about,those are personal flaws you have to work to be wise. That is not be offensive as much as it is to challenge you not to be a stooge who just rehashes that which cannot be supported.
You assume way too much evidence that supports our side, and it has damaged what i think is meant to be good and reasonable judgement. Still the fact remains it is your premise regarding how i formulate my opinion which is wrong.
Instead of trying the old "guilt by association" fallacy, to impress dolts, commit to some kind of idea, say something you think is true and i will try and disprove it with logic.
Something about media virtue or the one sided war on terror.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-10 1:21:11 PM
.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-10 1:22:09 PM
"Considering that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that Osama bin Laden, does, in fact, exist... up to including records, footage and first-hand accounts of his participation, funding and support for the Mujahideen in the Soviet-Afghanistan war, his falling out with the Saudi Government during the first Gulf war, his threats against the United States throughout the entire 1990's, etc. You're basically saying that there's a good chance that the US, Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, etc. have all been working together to construct a fake persona of an Islamic extremist for the past 30 years"
Support some of this so called fact as you stated it is. Documentation would have to exist if it fact. Now is your chance to prove your credibility and you have no choice by committing so staunchly. I love to read so post all the links you can find to support truths about the man bin laden. I don't want any back paddling bull, just do it mr journalist.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-10 1:38:38 PM
A perfect example, with every grow op bust the police report to the media a ridiculous value for what they confiscated, and this cycle repeats itself several times a week.
Are the press ignorant to its value? No, but they repeatedly report what they know is false.
This would have to be the case in every news story and therefore clearly only an idiot would believe them without question.
Slimier they could not be, bit everyone has a choice to trun their brain on when someone is telling you something.
Mike I think this makes clear who is more likely to know the truth when he hears it.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-10 1:55:45 PM
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-10 1:38:38 PM
Good grief...you really are as dumb as a stick are'nt you ?. I thought perhaps it was a good act, but no one could be that devoid of logic without a little helmet , thick glasses and riding a tri-cycle. You say you love to read. Just what in hell do you read that erases all logic and replaces it with the garbage you keep coming up with. What is YOUR source. You are definately a leader alright.A leader of the hopelessly brainwashed delusional incurables. Lucky for you we have a medical system that actually cares about the mentally ill. I'm sure you use the system often.
Posted by: peterj | 2010-01-10 2:08:22 PM
I'm glad I go ever your head peter because that just makes my point about you irrefutable.
lets wait for Mike you are too stupid to grasp a concept
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-10 2:34:11 PM
I'm glad I go ever your head peter because that just makes my point about you irrefutable.
????. Take another handfull of Prozac and try again.
Posted by: peterj | 2010-01-10 2:50:41 PM
you like it when I blast you don't you Peter that is why you keep goading me.
How about you write more nonsense that has been compiled in your head since 911 and lets all pretend its fact.
Don't you feel stupid purposely making an effort to be stupid?
How can blind loyalty benefit you, do you see the state of things because of trust? are you really thst blind that you think anybody deserves to be taken at face value. That notion is seriuosly flawed and the one who peddles that notion needs the most attention paid to because he is about no good.
I don't have to defned who I am to narrow pinheads regrdless of what they think they know. when you boil it down, everyone knows very little that can be verified, the difference between me and you is I am aware of this and you are painfully not.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-10 2:58:35 PM
The year the towers fell, terroism killed roughly 3000 people in the US, the same year 500,000 died of cancer, why no war on cancer, Cancer is caused by what you eat, and our environment, yet you all worry about terrorism, ands send troops around the world to fight almost no existent threat. The unfounded fears don't make a whole lot of sense other than the fact it is the of business you are all being sold on. Pathetic really, I am sure your real life bravery reflects your views on wanting to be shielded by a protector.
Posted by: Vegan Philosopher | 2010-01-10 3:08:25 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.