• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Didn't take too long for Harper to scare the pants off me

docta seuss

TRIBE Member
SellyCat said:
Just a few weeks ago the government condemned someone to death for converting to Christianity.

THAT is what Canada is supporting. Kinda makes you feel real proud, don't it?
WHAT!?

THAT is exactly what Canada is not supporting.

are you one of those who requires instant change? instant gratification?

did you happen to hear of the outcome of the aforementioned incident, or perhaps hear of how the Canadian government weighed-in on the outcome?

you seem to have ignored all the pros that do make me proud of our involvement. fun with propaganda, eh?
 
Alex D. from TRIBE on Utility Room

docta seuss

TRIBE Member
Harper on defensive over media ban on return of dead soldiers

CBC News

Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended his government's decision to ban the media from covering the return of bodies of soldiers killed in the line of duty, accusing the opposition of politicizing the issue.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said the return of soldiers' remains should be shared only by the military and relatives. (CBC)
Reporters were not allowed into the military airbase at Trenton, Ont., to cover the Tuesday evening arrival of the remains of four soldiers who died in a weekend bombing.

Harper said the policy has been implemented to respect the privacy of the families.

"It is not about photo ops and media coverage," Harper said during Question Period, after being slammed by opposition members over the new policy. "It's about what's in the best interests of the families."

Liberal Leader Bill Graham said the policy is "an invention on the part of the government" and called on Harper to reverse his decision.

"Politicizing these funerals is entirely unbecoming [the Opposition leader's] office," Harper shot back.

Opposition MPs also accused Harper of trying to avoid bad press over the mission in Afghanistan.

"Will the prime minister tell us what he's trying to hide?" asked NDP Leader Jack Layton.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor also weighed in on the controversy, denying the government is hiding anything. He said some families don't believe the media should cover the event, while others do. He said they decided to ban all media coverage to have a consistent policy.

Earlier, O'Connor pointed out that media were allowed to cover a solemn sendoff ceremony just before a Hercules transport plane carrying the remains of Cpl. Matthew Dinning, Bombardier Myles Mansell, Lieut. William Turner and Cpl. Randy Payne left Kandahar airfield in Afghanistan on Monday.

At least one bereaved military family believes the government has made a mistake.

It should be up to the families to decide whether they want reporters present at such ceremonies, said Richard Leger, whose son Marc was killed in Afghanistan four years ago.

"I know, in 2002, it was a great thing for us to have the media there... We wanted to show all Canadians what the cost of their liberty is," he told CBC Newsworld.

"People saying, 'Thank you for the life of Marc' – as a parent that's hard to hear, but knowing what's the reason behind it helps us to move on."

Maureen Burrowes, who is a cousin of Payne, said the government is depriving her of her chance to be part of Tuesday night's ceremony.

"I honestly believed I would see my cousin's return on CBC as I could not be present today," she wrote in an e-mail. "I really feel that our current government has made a very bad decision and voters will remember this in the next election."

"The timing is absolutely horrendous and I would love to know how to get this reversed."

In the United States, the Bush administration has been criticized for banning images of the arrival of flag-draped coffins containing the remains of soldiers killed in Iraq.

White House officials imposed the ban out of worry that such photographs would lower public support for the military campaign.

The new Conservative government is also attracting criticism for reversing the previous Liberal government's practice of lowering the flag on Parliament Hill's Peace Tower to mark military deaths.

The Conservatives say they are returning to the traditional protocol of honouring fallen soldiers by lowering the Peace Tower flag only on Remembrance Day.

Ottawa declared the military airbase at Trenton, Ont., off-limits to media during the repatriation of the soldiers' bodies. (CBC)
In the House on Tuesday, Liberal MP Paul Steckle read a letter written by Dinning's father, who asked the prime minister to reconsider his decision.

"I would suggest to you that there is no more important VIP than a Canadian soldier who gave his life in the service of his country," wrote Lincoln Dinning in a letter two weeks before his son and three soldiers were killed in the roadside bomb.

"Please correct this wrong and show that actions speak louder than words and lower the flag next time a Canadian soldier is killed," he wrote.

Layton also challenged the policy.

"If it is appropriate to lower the flag here on Parliament Hill every time an unelected senator dies, why is it not appropriate to lower the flag every time one of our soldiers dies serving this country?" he asked.

But the Conservatives claimed the previous Liberal government lowered the flag on a selective basis and had no consistent policy.

For more than 80 years, Canada honoured its war dead by lowering flags on federal buildings on Remembrance Day. But former prime minister Jean Chrétien changed that in April 2002. When four Canadian soldiers were killed by U.S. bombs in Afghanistan, the flag on the Peace Tower was lowered to half-mast.

But the flag wasn't lowered in November 2005, when a Canadian private was killed in a traffic accident near Kandahar.

"We have set a consistent policy that the previous government did not practise and that consistent policy is that we will lower the flag for all casualties in all wars and all operations on November 11, Remembrance Day, so that everyone will be treated the same, all military casualties will be treated the same," O'Connor said.

Harper also cited a letter from the army, navy and Air Force Veterans of Canada, who said it would be an insult to the relatives of past veterans who did not receive the same honour of having .

However, the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan both say they will lower flags provincially to honour slain soldiers from their provinces, no matter what Ottawa decides to do.

Canada has lost 15 soldiers and a diplomat in Afghanistan since 2002.
 

blahblah

TRIBE Member
~atp~ said:
Here's a better question: should the government have the right to dictate what media exposes, and what it does not? I thought you right-wing neo-con baby killers believed in a free market? You know, where supply and demand could operate free of government intervention...


BINGO!!!!!!!

Anyone hear the interview with (2002 Afg. 'friendly fire' casualty) Sgt Marc Leger's father (Richard) or Dinning's father request that this new policy be revisited by Harper?

On the other hand, can we handle half-mast flags and funeral coverage on special occasions like Queen Vic and Canada Day? :p
 
Last edited:

atbell

TRIBE Member
~atp~ said:
Here's a better question: should the government have the right to dictate what media exposes, and what it does not? I thought you right-wing neo-con baby killers believed in a free market? You know, where supply and demand could operate free of government intervention...

This was the single biggest contradiction in the conservative book I read. They consistently advocated less official control while talking about how to control things without being seen. Such as talk of getting rid of the CRTC while buying up media outlets. Sure the CRTC censors but everyone knows how, what, and why things are being censored. The "free" market censors are going to be unseen and will claim they are "fair and balanced".
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

atbell

TRIBE Member
SellyCat said:
Yeah but the difference is that one policy reduces the amount of Canadians being killed and coming home to devastated families, while the other allows the State to continue maximising the amount of suffering inflicted upon the soldiers and their families.

Let me see if I've understood you, your saying that one policy supports the faction of our country that would leave civilian Afgans to deal with warlords and chaos on thier own while the other gives civilians the right to grive thier heroic military relatives in private? :D

I'm actually confused - is it showing the cofins that reduces the number of Canadian's being killed, and not showing them that adds to state inforced suffering through soldiercide?


SellyCat said:
And for waht? Are we REALLY to beleive that this is about peace, stability and democracy. It's a load of crap. There is no democracy in Afghanistan; the country is run by the exact same people as the Taliban, they're just called something else; they're still extremely hard core Islamic radicals. Just a few weeks ago the government condemned someone to death for converting to Christianity.

THAT is what Canada is supporting. Kinda makes you feel real proud, don't it?

He was released.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/28/christian.convert/

Question, if it's not about peace, stability and democracy what's it about? (not that I dissagree, I just don't know what ulterior motive there is for this place).

I've heard pipe line up to the "stans" in central asia but I don't know that anyone in thier right mind would think that such a pipeline would last more then a couple of months without a bomb knocking it out.
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
I noticed that there didn't seem to be any mention of what this really seems to be. I don't think this is a one shot conservative "consideration".

1. Steven H. says he wants to get more involved in opperations like Afghan.
2. Steven H. says no more flag lowering for ever soildier killed in combat
3. Steven H. says no more pictures of flag covered coffins.

Sounds like the conservatives are expecting more casualties and they are getting some of the unpleasentness out of the way early. Wouldn't the out cry over the flag lowering and coffin pictures be much more pronounced if 15 soliders were comming back in pine?
 

soulbrother 10

TRIBE Member
The premise is simple: Out of sight - out of mind. This is deemed to be necessary to help keep our focus on the alleged nobility and necessity of our 'mission' in Afganistan, and not on the grim reality of the death of young Canadians fighting in a faraway land against an enemy who will be there long after the Canadian soldiers have gone home.
 

Wiseman

TRIBE Member
So a thinktank did a report on Harper's childcare plan to just give parents $1200 a year and let them figure out thier own childcare. Get this, IT'S TAXABLE!!

So someone in the 30 000 tax bracket will actually see around $200, whereas someone in the 200 000 tax bracket will see $1000.

fucking retarded it makes me soooooo mad.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Boss Hog said:
What an incredibly ignorant thing to say.


I know, but at the end of the day we're at 4 plus years of involvement in an incredibly tough circumstance. We have to accept that with NATO or UN missions comes the reality of deaths. We can't be getting week kneed at each life lost or we will never be able to keep perspective. Part of all deployments is the reality that there is an acceptable loss and for me acceptable loss is more than an order of magnitude greater than what is occuring.

Its cold its heartless its part of military life.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Wiseman said:
So a thinktank did a report on Harper's childcare plan to just give parents $1200 a year and let them figure out thier own childcare. Get this, IT'S TAXABLE!!

So someone in the 30 000 tax bracket will actually see around $200, whereas someone in the 200 000 tax bracket will see $1000.

fucking retarded it makes me soooooo mad.


What you have said doesn't work in any way shape or form, please post a link to this thinktank. In general if an additional source of income is given that is taxable those that have a lower income get more and those with a higher income pay mopre of it in taxes.


As a point of humour...

If you were born in 1975 your education was actually free. If your parents had taken there baby bonus and put it into a savings account when you turned 18 there would have been about 40 grand .
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
In some cases, households with modest income can face very high effective marginal tax rates once you take into account the clawback of government benefit programs tied to income. This phenomenon has always been a problem in our tax/welfare system.

I'm still suspicious of the numbers, but I imagine the "think tank" is trying to go down this road.
 

Onthereals

TRIBE Member
What no one is discussing is why are we in Afghanistan anyways? I thought the original reason was because of a response to 9/11 to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and overthrow the taliban. How is that going? Well now they have a new government that pretty much only governs the capital city, who are just as much islamic extremists as the taliban. Then the rest of the country is run by warlords and taliban remnants. Osama is still at large. Canada was not attacked on 9/11, why are we still there? I can think off the top of my head a half dozen African nations where Canadian peace keepers could be better utilized, but, fuck those places becuase they arent on the US agenda and so we arent either.

Not showing coffins will stifle discussion on why we are in Afghanistan in the first place. Since Harper doesnt feel its necessary to discuss this with the Canadian people, he is figuring out alternative routes to keep it out of Canadians minds. So when he proposes that we get into the next imperialist war the US declares, we can be further disconnected from the reality of the death that follows it.

And really, when people automatically throw the line, 'these troops are defending our freedom' it makes no sense. I'm pretty sure if we pulled out of Afghanistan our freedom would not be threatened. I imagine Afghanistan does not give two shits about Canada, and has no plans to stop our freedom or invade our country.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Saying that we are in Afghanistan because of Bin Laden and 9/11 is true although somewhat dishonest. The reason Bin Laden was in Afghanistan is the reason we are now there and 9/11 is what brought the issue front and centre.

Afghanistan was a failed state that we completely ignored for 20 years because we could. What happens in Afghanistan had no effect on us and letting warlords duke it out and kill and mame and cause countless atrocities was our policy. Bin Laden after being kicked out of Sudan, Yemen, S-Arabia only had the failed state of Afghanistan left as an option our ignoring Afghanistan for 20 years is what made it prime for his needs.

I have a real issue with ignoring places like Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, or Rwanda for instance. When we ignore these places (which simply don't effect us in the slightest) we allow for developments that are contrary to what we do believe in. We end up with things like open public executions, we end up with girls not going to school and we end up with these feudal warlords killing as they go.

So the question comes down to do we ignore them again and allow there country to collapse again, or do we act like nation builders regardless of the stupidity that lead to where we are today. I would like to see Canada take a stronger role in many of the failed states out there and in each case its going to mean our people are coming home in body bags.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

blahblah

TRIBE Member
Harper does not want to find himself having to schedule personal appearances at each funeral. He does not want his "life" wrapped around what happens inside Afghanistan. When Harper is vacationing this summer, he will not need to cancel his vacation to attend any funerals. Harper is giving us the same propaganda that Bush gave his country when he decided to ignore military deaths. When the soldiers were sent into Afghanistan, the soldiers were said to be the best thing since sliced bread ... but now that they are there .... they are just cannon fodder for the American drive at empire building.

As for expected casualties....
In visit to Afghanistan, President Bush depicted the country as an unqualified success story, describing it as "inspiring." The reality is much more complicated and troublesome. A report* released this month by the Council on Foreign Relations provides the grim details. The Council describes a country "challenged by a terrorist insurgency that has become more lethal and effective and that has bases in Pakistan, a drug trade that dominates the economy and corrupts the state, and pervasive poverty and insecurity." Last year "was the deadliest [year] in rebel violence since U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban in 2001." With the country on the verge of becoming "a disastrous situation," the United States is withdrawing troops and disbursements of financial assistance are declining. Counter-terrorism expert Steven Simon predicts, "There will likely be a crescendo of violence, focused largely on Kabul, this summer." It's time to face reality and change course.

Last year "1,600 people, including 91 U.S. troops, were killed...more than double the total in 2004." Violence is expected to increase further as "insurgents will try to test the NATO forces that are moving in to take over from more seasoned US military troops.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=1331575&ct=2197353

* Author: Dr. Barnett R. Rubin, New York University report at:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10273/
 

blahblah

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
I know, but at the end of the day we're at 4 plus years of involvement in an incredibly tough circumstance. We have to accept that with NATO or UN missions comes the reality of deaths.


Ditto, this is NOT a NATO or UN endorsed mission.

After repeatedly saying that the Canadian contingent in Kandahar is part of a "multinational, NATO-led, United Nations-backed mission," both the government and the opposition Liberals came clean that our soldiers are indeed under U.S. command, carrying out a U.S. mission.http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...715&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
blahblah said:
Ditto, this is NOT a NATO or UN endorsed mission.

After repeatedly saying that the Canadian contingent in Kandahar is part of a "multinational, NATO-led, United Nations-backed mission," both the government and the opposition Liberals came clean that our soldiers are indeed under U.S. command, carrying out a U.S. mission.http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...715&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795


http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/


NATO claims its there mission, the editorial opinion peace you posted agrees but questions the lack of involvement of other members
 

blahblah

TRIBE Member
Onthereals said:
What no one is discussing is why are we in Afghanistan anyways? I thought the original reason was because of a response to 9/11 to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and overthrow the taliban. How is that going? Well now they have a new government that pretty much only governs the capital city, who are just as much islamic extremists as the taliban. Then the rest of the country is run by warlords and taliban remnants. Osama is still at large. Canada was not attacked on 9/11, why are we still there? I can think off the top of my head a half dozen African nations where Canadian peace keepers could be better utilized, but, fuck those places becuase they arent on the US agenda and so we arent either..

Facts you should know (check Black and Bachand questions) http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/006_2006-04-10/HAN006-E.htm#Int-1501298


  • The NDP is very concerned about how our commitments in Afghanistan might prevent or hinder the ability of Canada to engage in important missions elsewhere. For the last three years, a genocide has been unfolding in Darfur, claiming 300,000 lives. The UN has recently asked for peacekeepers from developed countries such as Canada. As part of this debate tonight, we need to consider other areas of the world, such as Darfur, where the help of Canadians is needed.

  • The New Democratic Party is concerned about many issues in this mission. We are concerned about the fact that Canadian soldiers have been wearing U.S. army badges on their uniforms, thus creating confusion over the necessary distinction between Canadian and American troops.

  • The NDP is very concerned about Canada's commitment to upholding not just the letter, but the spirit of the Ottawa landmines convention, which prohibits indirect reliance on landmines laid by other countries. (USA is on the list of the 40 countries that have not signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty as of 20 Mar 06. http://www.icbl.org/treaty/snp International Campaign to Ban Landmines)


The U.S. War in Afghanistan http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2006/04/19/01181.html by David Michael Smith Is Stephen Harper's Conservative minority government supporting another Oil War? This would yield enormous profits for greed-driven investors, and the atmosphere will continue to dangerously heat from the increasing use of those fossil fuels.

Canada and the New American Empire: Implications for Security Policy http://www.ualberta.ca/~tkeating/security_harvey.pdf

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol4/no3/pdf/15-book5_e.pdf

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/education/spotlight/issue_43/links.html

Onthereals said:
And really, when people automatically throw the line, 'these troops are defending our freedom' it makes no sense. I'm pretty sure if we pulled out of Afghanistan our freedom would not be threatened. I imagine Afghanistan does not give two shits about Canada, and has no plans to stop our freedom or invade our country.

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government ran on a promise to Canadians that there would be a vote on deployment of our troops. Our engagement in Afghanistan finishes in February of 2007, and I will ask the Prime Minister a simple question.

Will he keep his promise to Canadians to ensure that there will be a vote on any further deployments, following February 2007, in Afghanistan?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our troops are already deployed in Afghanistan, have been deployed for some time and, as we know, will be there in some form in the next few years.

The Canadian government supports our troops. I know the governing party does and I believe the official opposition, other members of the House and Canadians do. I would urge the NDP to get behind our troops in Afghanistan.​

Great example of political shallowness. To want to debate our role there is like saying we don't support our troops. Rather our question is whether we support the decisions leading our troops' actions not the troops themselves.

I think the whole point of Canada being in Afghanistan or any other war zone in whatever capacity should be openly and democratically discussed in terms of whose interests are we protecting. Personally, I've nothing to gain by following the US agenda other than fear of exposing Canada to terrorism.

Not my first choice. Besides, I like being proud of being Canadian, since the Gulf War until now I have very little to be proud of. We once had a great international reputation which has been eroding since the Mulroney era.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

blahblah

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/


NATO claims its there mission, the editorial opinion peace you posted agrees but questions the lack of involvement of other members

Actually you are correct but it is ISAF http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/evolution.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

However, the bulk of our soldiers are not there with ISAF but with the US mission Operation Enduring Freedomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom
 

docta seuss

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
Its cold its heartless its part of military life.
it's cold and it's heartless only if you make it that way.

i agree that it's incredibly frustrating to see the public getting weak-kneed after hearing of inevitable casualties, but if your acceptance of these casualties is 'cold and heartless', you've got issues on the opposite end of the spectrum as the weak-kneed folk.

meet somewhere in the middle-ground.
 

Mr. Magyar

TRIBE Member
nicefnjobcanada.gif
 

blahblah

TRIBE Member
blahblah said:
Actually you are correct but it is ISAF http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/evolution.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

However, the bulk of our soldiers are not there with ISAF but with the US mission Operation Enduring Freedomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom

Oh and DITTO..... here is the DND press release confirming that the mission will not be under NATO leadership until summer. The 2,300 soldiers are part of a mission called Task Force Afghanistan (TFA) so it is not NATO or UN until it is officially so.
http://news.gc.ca/cfmx/view/en/inde...p;yt_as=2006&
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top