This can't possibly go bad, can it?
My biggest concern with lowering the flag for soldiers killed in Afstan is that it creates a perception of inequality among soldiers killed in this mission and soldiers killed in other missions. Aside from special cases, it is unfair to the memories of our fallen heroes and their families to distinguish the deaths in this way.Unfair? Really? This is all about conistency and fairness? This is such a bogus argument that I don't know where to start.
Today, in Sinai, Egypt, Canadian soldiers (multinational soldiers, infact) came underattack by two suicide bombers. *IF* this attack had killed a Canadian soldier and IF* the Liberals had won the past election, I guarantee you they would not have lowered the flag to half mast to honour the death.*IF* this argument wasn't specious and *IF* its author not blinded by partisan politics I guarantee that I would have saved fifteen minutes by not having to write this.
Its main focus has been regional security and the fight against separatism and extremism, but last year witnessed a shift linked by some analysts to Beijing's opposition to American "hegemony" and wariness about U.S. presence near its western flank.
It's a puzzling problem. You can't do anything. You can only wait. So I have a strange feeling. For the first time, I find myself in such a dilemma. But I hope that God will provide a solution
We have issued official statement in the name of the Palestinian National Authority absolutely condemning the operation, which we consider a despicable operation that harms the Palestinian people.The harm that this does to the PNA is particularly great coming only a short while after many western nations, including Canada, withdrew financial support of the PNA government. The resulting financial crisis has caused the largest employer in the country, the government, to withhold pay cheques for at least this month.
We think that this operation . . . is a direct result of the policy of theThis was interpreted breathlessly in the US press as "emphatic support", and likewise by our very own National
occupation and the brutal aggression and siege committed against our people
"I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."
How many things about this statement bother you? Here's my list:
1) I hear voices...
This one is just too easy and frankly cheap. And if there is anything I'm not, it's cheap. Okay, I won't be cheap this time.
2) I read the front page...
I suppose that it's better than way back when he said he never read the paper or watched the news. But since all of the articles are continued on pages three and four, don't you think he'd flip it open? Don't know about you, but I'd feel better...
3) ...I'm the decider...
This is something my five year-old might say, but only when she's using "baby talk". As of this instant, DubyaSpeak doesn't have this one, but they will. Oh yes, they will.
4) ...I decide what is best...
This really is the scariest thing anyone has ever said. Ever.
I need a drink.
I have yet to read as sensible an analysis of the situation as this. Why are you here - go read the rest of it! And for heaven's sake, make sure you check him out daily.
Under the circumstances, Ahmadinejad and his fellow hardliners might see confrontation — up to and even including war — as just what the doctor ordered, both to rally public opinion behind the regime, and to purge it of the corrupt old guard. As one analyst recently put it, for Iran a U.S. air blitz would be the emotional equivalent of 9/11. It could turn a radical crackdown into a patriotic mass movement. It could even make Ahmadinejad the unchallenged dictator of Iran. Such a scenario might seem worth the potential damage to Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
It's also possible that Iran's hardliners are suffering from the same hubris that swept through the Cheney administration after the fall of Baghdad. American failure in Iraq — and the insurgency's success – may have led them to overestimate their own ability to cope with a U.S. attack. Soaring oil prices may have led them to believe the Cheney administration will never risk the energy chaos a full-scale ground invasion ("real men want to go go Tehran") inevitably would cause.
In other words, there is real risk that key players in the crisis — Iranian as well as American — are fundamentally misreading the situation. They may not understand that their counterparts on the other side are perfectly willing to escalate, because they actually want war, or at least are pulled in that direction by their own political and/or strategic dilemmas.
So I'm here at the Pentagon doing my job, working on transformation and seeing that we manage the force in a successful way, and working on things involving Iraq
He is however, also going to have a closed-door meeting with retired officers and civilian analysts today to assess the current situation in Iraq, and I presume to stop some of the political bleeding from the recent public calls for his resignation.
Alas, Rumsfeld can't open his mouth without something interesting coming out:
if every time there were critics and opponents to war, we wouldn't have won the Revolutionary War and we wouldn't have been involved in World War I or II, and if we had, we would have failed, and our country would be a totally different place if it existed at all, if every time there were some critics that we tossed in the towel."
To paraphrase: critics are weak and stupid, and bad for your health. He went on:
That said, if we had only listened to the critics in the 1960's and stayed out of Vietnam, we could have saved hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of lives and would very likely have avoided the inflation crisis of the 1970's. At the very least, our economy would have been far better able to withstand the oil shocks of the early 70's. Oh, and we probably wouldn't have sold our entire economic engine out to the defense industry and we'd still be making useful things that the world's consumers would want to buy.
Okay, I made that last one up.
What are the goals and objectives of the mission and how do they meet our foreign-policy objectives? What is the mandate, what is the defined concept of operations, what is the effective command and control structure, what are the rules of engagement?
These are good questions, regardless of who asks them, and they were not answered, instead they were responded to with snipes about his "support of the troops". To quote directly from Hansard, O'Connor's response (page 284 of the Hansard PDF (page 84 in the PDF)
- sorry, the HTML is not up as I write this (update - html link here)) to these questions and the others asked by Layton:
I wonder if the hon. member basically supports our effort in Afghanistan or not, because it is not clear to me. That is the party that opposed our being in NATO until a few years ago.
How low! Instead of answering good questions with a substantive answer, or even a clever evasion, he responds by challenging his patriotism! I won't say what that reminds me of because I'm sick of seeing arbusto's name in print. It is unsurprising, but a shame nonetheless, that the courage to ask questions in Opposition is not often met with the same to answer them when in government.
In fairness, I did not watch all of the proceedings, but I do not feel any more assured that our elected officials really know what is going on in Afghanistan and that they do not have enough information to make informed decisions. It's a good thing decisions aren't being asked of them, I suppose.
Is this the new governanment strategy for Canada - keep 'em dumb and then complain that they're too dumb to make important decisions?
[Updated with html link to Hansard]
is not only out of the closet and parading its sin publicly in the hallways of South Rowan, it demands all bow down and be subject to it, or be sued. Friends, if we do not fight this battle now when we have a good chance of winning in Jesus' name, we may find ourselves having to fight when there is little or no hope of victory, realizing that it is better to die free than live under the bondage of homosexual slavery.
I have many more questions, but these would suffice for now. If anyone would like to add any, we can compile a list and approach our elected officials in the future when meaningful discussion of this mission begins.
Scripture also says 'Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.' And right now, Caesar demands a building permit," County Commission Chairman Mike Whitehead said.