1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

The conservatives have a habit of constantly referring to the fact that it was the Libs who put us in Afghanistan even though all of the party leaders agreed to it.

If there was any doubt that the role that we were filling has changed since Harper has become PM, here are some astonishing numbers that should open some eyes:


The Liberal party was in power for 51 months of the Afghanistan mission, from Oct 2001 to December 2005 during which time 8 Canadians were killed.

This gives a ratio of 0.157 Deaths/Month or 1 death every 6.375 Months.

The Conservative party was in power for 19 months of the Afghanistan mission, from Jan 2006 to July 2007(today) during which time 59 Canadians have been killed.

This gives a ratio of 3.105 deaths/month or 1 Death every 0.322 months(10 days).


The rate at which Canadians are dying in Afghanistan has gone up 19.78 times since Harper has taken office, and Conservatives still try to call this a Liberal mission. Time to get out.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afgha ... total.html

   

Yes, it must be Harpers fault that the fighting has been much worse the last 19 months.

   

Oh puhlease,

You are ignoring the fact that we weren't actually at war during the Liberal Reign. We are now fighting the Taliban. Of course causalities go up.

The Conservative Reign only has more deaths simply because they are allowing Canadians to actually fight.

And there have been what, 60-65 deaths in total? Not enough to make statistics upon.

Stay in Afghanistan.

   

Like any use of statistics, these 'facts' are decepetive. It was in fact the Libs who approved the move to Kandahar from the north, so they are equally culpable (if not totally so) for the rise in deaths. The fact that the Libs also supported the Cons last spring when the Bloc and NDP were trying to get us to pull out of Afghanistan also proves this false.

If there was real evidence that the Libs would have kept them sequestered in KAF for the whole time (like most of the NATO pussies in the north), then there would be proof that Harper was to blame, but all indications showed that the Libs were willing to let the military 'go on the offensive' in the south, so odds are casualties would likely have been as high as they are under the Cons.

In fact, Harper will really only be 100% responsible for the deaths that occur after 2009, which was when the Libs committed us to before they lost power. And that assumes that the Libs don't support his extension of the mission.

   

I don't honestly care really whose fault the deaths are, we shouldn't be pointing fingers t who died. We should support this mission and support the troops. people will die, let's not go blame others for it, except for the actual cause. Like a Taliban attack isn't the fault of the Cons, or an American Friendly Fire incident isn't the fault of the Libs. We are all in this together.

   

You really need to learn a little history about the first rotation in Kandahar, in 2002. I'll give you a hint, it was called a war and Canadians did kill the enemy. Your immaturity is showing.

   

I don't think it's right to point fingers either. The point of my post was to show Delwin that stats aren't always the real answer.

As Homer Simpson once said, "14% of all people will tell you that."

   

It is really irrelevant whom had decided to to move to Kandahar. The fact is, the mission has become very different since Harper has taken office. This is undisputable.

As much as I hate to admit it, Harper is the leader of this country. With that comes responsibility. To say that the Libs are responsible until 2009 when they are not even in power is complete and utter nonsense. It is up to the leaders to ensure our soldiers are safe, and under his leadership the mission has become 20X more dangerous. This should let off some alarm bells in that thick head of his. We lost 24 citizens when the towers fell. We have since lost 3 times that amount since then. At this point the most we can hope for is a Pyrrhic victory.

   

Actually it's very disputable. The Mission, as it applies to Canadian troops has not changed. What has changed is the return of the Taliban and al Queda in the southern portion of Afghanistan.

Also, it is relevant who decided to move. If Mr Dithers actually made a decision when it came time to move from Kabul we might have ended up somewhere "less dangerous" thus sustaining less casualties.

I see the Liberals still won't accept any responsibility for their inactions.

   

That might have some bearing on the discussion if Harper was in some way opposed to the decision. However, he is not. You may think that he gets a free ride on the coat tails of the decisions of former leaders, but this is not the case.

He has the option to alter, continue, or oppose our current role and his is choosing to continue.

You see this is his choice. Not Paul Martin, Chretien, or Sir John A. but Stephen Harper's choice.

When we look back at the timeline and study were things began to go terribly wrong, what we will see is they began going wrong when Harper took power. It is up to him to ensure that mistakes are corrected, and if believes that what is happening is a mistake he would have made that clear. Quite to the contraire, he is very supportive of the more dangerous role we have taken, and he will be held to account for that.

   

Having a stat incorrect doesn't make me immature, just incorrect.

Nice try once again, however.

   

Sorry junior you're immaturity shows in every thread you post in. I was especially amused at your childish antics in the Canada flag thread.

There is your post in it's entirety. I've addressed your first sentence, which was fluff. Your second sentence ties into the first, as more fluff. You're third and fourth sentences, chest all puffed out about staying in Afghanistan and your dismissal of the deaths as "not enough to make statistics upon".

How dare you dismiss their deaths as insignificant, how many of these people do you know? How many of their funerals have you been to? How many of their family members have you tried to comfort? Tough talk coming from a kid who isn't even old enough to drive. when are we going to see you at the recruiting office?



This is where you go off the rails. Harper had nothing to do with the rise in insurgent activity, the Taliban and al Queda did. It is dishonest to attempt to blame him for the actions of our enemies on the other side of the world. Again, the ROLE HAS NOT CHANGED, the situation on the ground has changed. Would you prefer that the troops not fight back but run away every time the enemy shows up?

   

ROTFL

Ahh, now you sound like Gerry! You amuse me.
You took that and ran with it, didn't you?

I didn't say their deaths was nothing.

I said you can't make accurate stats on who's to blame for deaths with 67 people.

Lovely psychotic assumptions.

Thanks.

You think I'm cheering on the other side, but I really am not. Get bent.

   

My god man, has the mission not become more dangerous ? Does that in and of itself not imply that our role has changed.

If I send troops into an area where their likelyhood of dying is 20X greater than it was last year would you not say that they are in a more dangerous role.

Are you having trouble with the wording or something?

The role we are playing in Afghanistan has become 20x more dangerous. Check

The role is different in that it is more dangerous. Check

This is a different role. Why no check ?

I am not suggesting that Harper is killing soldiers himself. I am suggesting that it is up to Harper to ensure that our soldiers are able to perform their duties in the safest way possible. If we are taking 20x the casualties, something has dramatically changed. So too should our policy.

   

double post

   

1  2  3  4  5  6  Next