Peace activists demand Canada leave Afghanistan
Newsbot @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:00 pm
Title: Peace activists demand Canada leave Afghanistan
Category: Misc CDN
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2008-10-18 18:26:10
Canadian
robmik43 @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:00 pm
I'd like these tiresome assholes fire-hosed into
the closest sewer. Have a Peace of that....
Yogi @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:15 pm
Ironic. Isn't it? These jerk-offs can prance around chanting their anti-war slogans because our troops are in Afghanistan, keeping the Taliban & other terrorists out of Canada. Why don't the protesters show the world 'the courage of their convictions', and go do their protesting OVER THERE???
Freakinoldguy @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:16 pm
$1:
Dozens of anti-war activists paraded onto Parliament Hill to demand an end to Canada's Afghan mission, part of a national day of action organized by peace groups that object to the human and financial costs of the bloody conflict.
The operative word here is "dozens". It's strange how small the turnouts for the peace movement have become since the Soviet Union disintegrated and their funding from Helsinki dried up.
Thanos @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:23 pm
Did the lapdog media have their cameras strategically placed on the ground as usual to make the dozens look like hundred? Cute trick that one is.
SprCForr @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:37 pm
I don't know about all of you but I'm getting tired of all the hyperbole. I guess the election nonsense has run my tolerance level down.
From the link:
$1:
...A report on the cost of the Afghan mission released earlier this month said that taxpayers will shell out between $14 billion and $18 billion - and possibly more - by the time troops are withdrawn in 2011...
..."We feel that the Canadian people have been lied to by the government as to the purpose and goals over there," said protester Paula Kirman.
"Taxpayers' money is being wasted and there's not a lot of progress going on over there."...
..."We feel that the Canadian people have been lied to by the government as to the purpose and goals over there," said protester Paula Kirman.
"Taxpayers' money is being wasted and there's not a lot of progress going on over there."...
From the NP on Kevin Page's (Parlimentary Budget Officer) report on the cost of the Afghanistan mission:
$1:
...Mr. Page's estimate means each household is contributing $1,500 to support the deployment. But because of inconsistent government bookkeeping, that figure would be significantly higher because departments "have not met any appropriate standard or best practice," said Mr. Page, who called on Treasury Board to implement a streamlined practice...
Just to drive the point home from The Torch: October "Pennies a day..." (about halfway down)
$1:
...Kudos to Mike Blanchfield for breaking the number down to a figure Canadian taxpayers could digest - what it means to them. I assume that since he started breaking it down, he won't mind if I take it a bit further...
$1,500 per household over a decade works out to $150 per household per year. Assuming three people per household, that's $50 per Canadian per year. That works out to about 13.7¢ per Canadian per day to run the Afghan mission.
Just to give you a bit of perspective, World Vision - certainly a noble-minded and worthwhile charity - asks for about ten times that daily amount to sponsor a single child.
And what are Canadians getting for that miniscule investment? Col (ret'd) Mike Capstick ventured an opinion in an interview with CBC earlier today:
"You know, what's the price tag you put on global security? We have a country in an unstable area surrounded by nuclear powers. What's the cost of keeping that stable? At the same time, what is the benefit to the 33 million Afghans that we're there to support in terms of their ability to move in to the future? You know, accountants can put costs on things, but this is -- warfare is a human activity, not a fiscal activity..."
$1,500 per household over a decade works out to $150 per household per year. Assuming three people per household, that's $50 per Canadian per year. That works out to about 13.7¢ per Canadian per day to run the Afghan mission.
Just to give you a bit of perspective, World Vision - certainly a noble-minded and worthwhile charity - asks for about ten times that daily amount to sponsor a single child.
And what are Canadians getting for that miniscule investment? Col (ret'd) Mike Capstick ventured an opinion in an interview with CBC earlier today:
"You know, what's the price tag you put on global security? We have a country in an unstable area surrounded by nuclear powers. What's the cost of keeping that stable? At the same time, what is the benefit to the 33 million Afghans that we're there to support in terms of their ability to move in to the future? You know, accountants can put costs on things, but this is -- warfare is a human activity, not a fiscal activity..."
PluggyRug @ Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:06 pm
Peace Activist...an oxymoron is it not. Or is that oxygen breathing morons
QBall @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:27 am
$1:
She said Canada is only interested in preserving oil interests in the region and that's why it has sent soldiers.
Yes, cause goodness knows Afghanistan is such the oil producing powerhouse. Why does the saying "Dumber than a bag of hammers" come to mind?
Scape @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:39 am
SprCForr SprCForr:
I don't know about all of you but I'm getting tired of all the hyperbole. I guess the election nonsense has run my tolerance level down.
From the link:
From the NP on Kevin Page's (Parlimentary Budget Officer) report on the cost of the Afghanistan mission:
Just to drive the point home from The Torch: October "Pennies a day..." (about halfway down)
From the link:
$1:
...A report on the cost of the Afghan mission released earlier this month said that taxpayers will shell out between $14 billion and $18 billion - and possibly more - by the time troops are withdrawn in 2011...
..."We feel that the Canadian people have been lied to by the government as to the purpose and goals over there," said protester Paula Kirman.
"Taxpayers' money is being wasted and there's not a lot of progress going on over there."...
..."We feel that the Canadian people have been lied to by the government as to the purpose and goals over there," said protester Paula Kirman.
"Taxpayers' money is being wasted and there's not a lot of progress going on over there."...
From the NP on Kevin Page's (Parlimentary Budget Officer) report on the cost of the Afghanistan mission:
$1:
...Mr. Page's estimate means each household is contributing $1,500 to support the deployment. But because of inconsistent government bookkeeping, that figure would be significantly higher because departments "have not met any appropriate standard or best practice," said Mr. Page, who called on Treasury Board to implement a streamlined practice...
Just to drive the point home from The Torch: October "Pennies a day..." (about halfway down)
$1:
...Kudos to Mike Blanchfield for breaking the number down to a figure Canadian taxpayers could digest - what it means to them. I assume that since he started breaking it down, he won't mind if I take it a bit further...
$1,500 per household over a decade works out to $150 per household per year. Assuming three people per household, that's $50 per Canadian per year. That works out to about 13.7¢ per Canadian per day to run the Afghan mission.
Just to give you a bit of perspective, World Vision - certainly a noble-minded and worthwhile charity - asks for about ten times that daily amount to sponsor a single child.
And what are Canadians getting for that miniscule investment? Col (ret'd) Mike Capstick ventured an opinion in an interview with CBC earlier today:
"You know, what's the price tag you put on global security? We have a country in an unstable area surrounded by nuclear powers. What's the cost of keeping that stable? At the same time, what is the benefit to the 33 million Afghans that we're there to support in terms of their ability to move in to the future? You know, accountants can put costs on things, but this is -- warfare is a human activity, not a fiscal activity..."
$1,500 per household over a decade works out to $150 per household per year. Assuming three people per household, that's $50 per Canadian per year. That works out to about 13.7¢ per Canadian per day to run the Afghan mission.
Just to give you a bit of perspective, World Vision - certainly a noble-minded and worthwhile charity - asks for about ten times that daily amount to sponsor a single child.
And what are Canadians getting for that miniscule investment? Col (ret'd) Mike Capstick ventured an opinion in an interview with CBC earlier today:
"You know, what's the price tag you put on global security? We have a country in an unstable area surrounded by nuclear powers. What's the cost of keeping that stable? At the same time, what is the benefit to the 33 million Afghans that we're there to support in terms of their ability to move in to the future? You know, accountants can put costs on things, but this is -- warfare is a human activity, not a fiscal activity..."
Chumley @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:53 am
SprCForr SprCForr:
From the NP on Kevin Page's (Parlimentary Budget Officer) report on the cost of the Afghanistan mission:
$1:
...Mr. Page's estimate means each household is contributing $1,500 to support the deployment. But because of inconsistent government bookkeeping, that figure would be significantly higher because departments "have not met any appropriate standard or best practice," said Mr. Page, who called on Treasury Board to implement a streamlined practice...
Brings to mind that scene from Zulu when the quartermaster is doling out the exact amount of rounds each soldier was alloted as they are getting overrun.
Scape @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:26 pm
I was thinking more along the line of the sign that was over my QM:
Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.
Chumley @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:28 am
Scape Scape:
I was thinking more along the line of the sign that was over my QM:
Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.
Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.
I think I saw the QM's corpse slumped over that sign in the closing credits
