i'm getting fired up about the flag issue et al.

[Birdy]

I'm sick of reading and hearing, repeatedly, that the CPC government, with it's recent decisions to not lower the flag on Parliament Hill everytime a soldier dies at war and banning media from a private military service, is trying to cover up the brutal realities of war. fuck.

there is a ghast misconception that we have ALWAYS lowered our flag, whereas we haven't. we started only four years ago in 2002! the Canadian flag on the Peace Tower is a symbol of our national pride, and as such has historically been flown high and never lowered. i was never for, nor ever will be for, the lowering of this flag. i just finished reading a few articles in the Star (hence why i'm fired up) and am commending one of my favourite Canadian historians, Jack Granatstein, who was quoted therein as saying "I think this is the most shameless crap that I've seen in a long time, playing on the dead bodies of soldiers... if these people had paid half as much attention to the soldiers' equipment over the last 40 years we would probably have fewer dead!" kudos to you Jack. brilliantly put.

why does it seem like the liberals (mainly) always have a sneaking suspicion that any act the CPC government commits is done maliciously or with evil intent or to cover up something.

nothing more fires me up than reading the pure and utter bullshit that's spewing out of media sources left and right over the most recent media ban on the return of the four latest casualties of war. it's not about covering anything up, it's about respecting the civilities of a traditional military service, respecting the rights of a family to grieve in private. if i were the mother of a son who died at war, the last thing i would want to see would be my tear filled eyes on the cover of the toronto star for the nation to bear witness. RESPECT and i'm fuckin' glad the Conservative government has some. there is nothing more appalling than the picture i'm looking at right now as i type, of three hearsts driving down a highway that is littered and i mean LITTERED with photographers, all snapping photographs in a frenzy of something that should be one of the most private and somberest experiences one would ever have to go through. these fallen men may be soldiers, but first and foremost they are sons and brothers and fathers. there death should not be a media frenzy and the nation, if truly in mourning, should respect that. if this picture is what the liberal government stands for, than i'm glad they're sitting tight in opposition.

Edited April 27, 2006 by Guest

[SmoothedShredder]

I think what it all comes down to is tone. I respect that this issue was 'questioned' in the house of commons. Optically the issue over the flag seemed to of changed in as much as they had recently lowered the flag to mark a fallen soilder, and now they (the party in power) were not. It is natural for one to 'question' why this is so, and the duty of the opposition to raise this point.

Stephen Harpers answer was that the decision was made to follow protocol already on the books. This wasn't simply a decision to "change the rules", in fact it was quite the opposite, it was a move to follow a rule which had recently become un-followed. I can respect a new government who rely's on the previously written rules to help guide their decisions when a descrepancy, or lack of understanding of 'how to act' when a real world phenomenon occurs, and the government is suppose to address it in some way.

What Harper said next, certainly seemed to open up the debate in a direction Harper clearly didn't want it to go. He said he didn't want to "politicize the deaths of the fallen soilders." Unfortunately that does not seemed to of happened. And this is why I believe so. When John Graham was given a chance to take the floor, he vhelmently attack the Prime Minister for his actions. It was not so much the words that he said as the way he was saying it... with knives out in the way he delivered his lashing, he accused the Man of some sinister, underhanded propaghanda to "hide the truth in Afganistan."

Perhaps if this was Harpers motive, then Graham can feel confident that he saved the day... because if a dulling of the consiciousness of the people towards Afghanistan was the goal of Harpers CPC decision, then the media storm which has followed has worked in direct contrast to this goal. Still, I do not believe that this was the goal of Stephen Harper and his government. I do believe it was to act in respect towards the families, but because of the relation and reaction and tone from the opposition, this opportunity in this particular situation has gone out the window.

I do however think it is serious time to open up the debate in Afghanistan and re-examine the reason which helped propel us there in the first place. My greatest fear though is that any real debate within the house will be tainted with the same brand of anger and disrespect which helped fuel the tone of the opposition in the recent issue. I don't want this issue to be guided by a contempt of the CPC's toward the opposition merely because of the way the oppositions questions are raised with respect to their tone. In a minority government, the party in power is bound to listen, if only because their own survival in power depends on it. Why listen to someone with so much bitter anger? And then the real questions don't get through.

I fear for our soilders in Afghanistan right now. I fear that they are undermanned, and underequiped, and that there is significant resistance content in riding out the invasion. I am also convinced that the US has "run out of gas", and that their objectives in the Middle East have stalled. Had things evolved more on a single front, more pragmatically, and more within the bounds of international law (I'm looking at you America), then we may have an argument to continue our efforts in Afghanistan, and to a much smaller extent, Iraq (we've had special ops there for a while).

I don't question the question asked, I question how it was asked, and what possible good can come of it. It's clear now that the greiving process of all the families involved have now been scared by this process. How can we get it to not happen again?

Perhaps instead of accusing the government of some underhanded misappropriation of power, they could question the rules on the books. Perhaps they could of calmly asked for an amendment to the rules to clarify the actions of the government in the future... perhaps this time should come within a compasionate distance of the time of the incident (which should be more focused on how and why the soilders died in Afghanistan, and not on how the government is suppose to react with respect to the flag). Perhaps the opposistion should of shown some patcience, tact, and respect with how they approached the issue... perhaps they will learn from their mistakes.

[d_rawk]

The above is handled pretty well, I think. With some nuance, which is always encouraging.

I wonder what you mean by 'on the books', however. It is the second post (that I know of) where you've mentioned it, and you might be correct. But I can't help but wonder which book or books it is that you are referring to. By and large, these are matters of tradition and convention in Canada, and our system is predicated on much that isn't explicitly codified and is open to change as warranted. There is definately a good argument to be had about where, in the sense of a timeline, convention or tradition begins and ends, but it is different from written rules (in a pretty big way, I think).

If the Liberals had made the same decisions -- and I am more interested in the media exclusion from the arrival of the military dead than the flag fiasco, but they are both applicable -- there would have been a similar outcry. In fact, I suspect many of the more conservative voices would have been leading the charge. I know that I, certainly, would have had the same questions and the same concerns as I have now ... particularly that it may be, as stated before, a calculation of shortterm political loss in favour of longterm political gain. And it may well not be that at all, although if not, it could have been handled better (ie. by actually consulting with the families affected before speaking on their behalf. For which the present admin is taking a fair amount of heat at the moment from the families themselves).

There are a few convincing arguments in favour of the actions taken by Harper and his defense minister. I've found discussion about maintaining some semblance of continuity between who is acknowledged and who isn't reasonably persuasive. I think the entire issue entirely worthy of debate and consideration ... that, however, has not happened. And the most affected parties (even before the state as a whole) have been given neither opportunity until the deal was done.

You suggest an amendment to the books, but I still wonder which books you are referring to. Or documents. Or laws. One might exist, but again, these things are normally the result of convention and general will rather than any concrete 'rules'. Yes it is fairly recently that the policy changed. If the will of the nation has changed with it - or before it - than that is significant.

I've heard compelling arguments from the families of soldiers, and from soldiers themselves, from each side of the debate. Which is great and helpful. I do find it a tad unfortunate that these voices are heard only after a particular decision was already taken, and thus amount to little except commentary on a decision upon which they will have no impact. (*Even though* those decisions were made with their opinions as fundamental assumptions, or at the very least, used to excuse the decisions made).

And again, this isn't about the Conservatives being the ones in charge. This debate would be happening regardless of whatever party initiated it. And no doubt the conservative blogs and forums would be screaming bloody murder right now had it been the Libs.

[SmoothedShredder]

I got this from the CTV website... I'm not sure exactly what Bill or Code it's from, but it refers to a previous decision, and the ad-hoc change in policy.

Flag decision

News of the media ban comes on the same day O'Connor defended a new policy not to lower flags on government buildings to half-mast every time a Canadian soldier is killed.

In a Monday letter to The Globe and Mail newspaper, O'Connor said the newly elected Conservative government is returning to a policy where the flag on the Peace Tower is only lowered on one day a year -- Remembrance Day.

"The previous Liberal government broke with this long-standing tradition that confidently brought Canada through its wartime history and instead decided on an ad-hoc basis to lowering the flag of the Peace Tower," he wrote.

"As Minister of National Defence, I can tell you that this adhockery unfairly distinguished some of those who died in Afghanistan from those who have died in current and previous operations.

"Lowering the Peace Tower's flag on November 11th ensures that all of Canada's fallen heroes are justly honoured."

In the event that a soldier dies in combat, flags will be put at half-mast within the operational base, the home base of the member and the National Defence Headquarters from the day of death until sunset on the day of the funeral.

Also, all flags within the service (Navy, Army, or Air Force) of the member will be half-masted from sunrise to sunset on the day of the funeral, the letter says.

[Hux]

None of the families had any problem with media coverage in the past and it allowed for relatives who live far way to view the ceremonies. I'm sure there are families of some of the soldiers who are on both sides of the issue, regardless, the Opposition questioning this week - whether you like it or not - reflects the views of some of those families who contacted Liberal MPs - true democracy in action, so don't blame Opposition leader "John" Graham - talk to the families.

I don't have much of a view either way on this, but I do think perhaps rules/conventions SHOULD be changed if under this current protocol flags are not lowered for a soldier killed in Afghanistan but they will be for people like Lucien Bouchard and Alfonso Gagliano.

The part of this I feel strongly about is the fact that Harper did not attend. I think the person who ultimately will make the decision to send Canadian troops into war should see first hand the most important and dramatic consequences of such a decision.

Harper is scary.

[AD]

The part of this I feel strongly about is the fact that Harper did not attend. I think the person who ultimately will make the decision to send Canadian troops into war should see first hand the most important and dramatic consequences of such a decision.

He probably saw more first-hand that any previous PM when he actually visited the troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Paul Martin should have gone when he made the decision.

AD

[Birdy]

leave the dramatics out of it hux. there's enough already. for once it would be nice of all political agendas to drop the f'ing political ball, and just let tragedy be tragedy. we don't need a 'harper wasn't there' media frenzy to anguish grieving parents even further. I'm bloody well sure Harper KNOWS there are four dead Canadian soldiers who just came home and i'm pretty sure he knows they died at war. We don't conscript soldiers Hux. These men are all of able mind and body and all signed up to fight for a cause that they believed in. In that respect the only ones to judge the consequences of such a decision are these fallen men themselves, as they are the ones who made the decision to join. The difference between Harper and perhaps you, is that he agrees these men died for an important cause. I surely hope this doesn't come to front as an 'issue'. It undermines what they so selfishly gave their lives for.

[Hux]

The powerful reality of going to war I think is more dramatically evident in seeing the repatriation ceremony with grieving families present. Seeing the operational elements in the field are not as dramatic.

[Hux]

Where the fuck did I say/imply they didn't die for an important cause?

[guigsy]

These men are all of able mind and body and all signed up to fight for a cause that they believed in.

not always true. knowing people and having some family who have joined the service, i can tell you that sometimes people join for other reasons: education, financial, lack of direction, a feeling of needing self discipline, etc.. in other words, sometimes they end up fighting for things they dont believe in, and for people they dont agree with. unless you know all the soldiers personally, it might not be best to put words in their mouth.

[AD]

The powerful reality of going to war I think is more dramatically evident in seeing the repatriation ceremony with grieving families present. Seeing the operational elements in the field are not as dramatic.

Governance by emotion? I think the emotion of the events would drastically skew anyone's perception of the mission and all the good that is being done would be overshadowed by the images of grieving families and coffins. Harper might just be steering himself clear of the heavy emotional events so he can govern with a clear head? I dunno. Just some thoughts.

(Wow, I sound like I voted for him!)

[ollie]

Where the fuck did I say/imply they didn't die for an important cause?

[color:purple]It must be because you're a Liberal.

[Birdy]

Where the fuÇk did I say/imply they didn't die for an important cause?

that's why i said 'perhaps'.

not always true. knowing people and having some family who have joined the service, i can tell you that sometimes people join for other reasons: education, financial, lack of direction, a feeling of needing self discipline, etc.. in other words, sometimes they end up fighting for things they dont believe in, and for people they dont agree with. unless you know all the soldiers personally, it might not be best to put words in their mouth.

ok, so i take out the part about a cause they believe in; but what still remains is that each and every soldier went into this knowingly.

[Birdy]

Where the fuck did I say/imply they didn't die for an important cause?

[color:purple]It must be because you're a Liberal.

hah.. this is soo getting turned around.

[Hux]

The difference between Harper and perhaps you, is that he agrees these men died for an important cause.

How did anything I said here lead you to think I "perhaps" felt that?

[guigsy]

ok, so i take out the part about a cause they believe in; but what still remains is that each and every soldier went into this knowingly.

knowing that their government is going to send them to fight for a bunk cause, or trusting that they wont?

[Birdy]

hux it's a misunderstanding. 'perhaps' really, REALLY meant 'perhaps'.

[Birdy]

ok' date=' so i take out the part about a cause they believe in; but what still remains is that each and every soldier went into this [i']knowingly.

knowing that their government is going to send them to fight for a bunk cause, or trusting that they wont?

that's a pretty big gamble there guigs. i'd say if you join the army you better be prepared to fight a war.

nor do i think what Canadian troops are doing in Afghanistan is a "bunk cause".

[guigsy]

i didnt say you did - obviously you dont, we can all tell that - but we're not talking about you or i.

some of the people who are over there dying might, though. some of them might not even think we should have been there in the first place. some of them might have put their trust in that.

and im not saying that if you're going to join the army you shouldnt be prepared to fight a war, either.

but, who's war? and why?

i suppose we need to go back to the very beginning of why we ended up there in the first place. we might not agree on this, but i dont believe this was our war - i dont believe it was anyones. i dont think we should have been anywhere near it. i think we've been duped, and are still being duped.

maybe i am naive, but i've never felt threatened by the taliban, by iraq, by al qaida, nor do i even feel threatened by iran....

.....

i started to keep going there, but i got a little off-track, and i dont want to cross-polinate the threads...

basically, i dont think iran is what it seems, and we're about to be duped again.. but thats another thread another time...

[AD]

i dont think we should have been anywhere near it. i think we've been duped, and are still being duped.

maybe i am naive, but i've never felt threatened by the taliban, by iraq, by al qaida, nor do i even feel threatened by iran....

The Golden Rule.... put yourself in the shoes of the average Afghani who was against the Taliban regime. You're helpless against them. You'd beg to have someone like the States or Canada come in to help you.

My only objection to Canada's military presence around the world is that it's so sparse. Send troops to Africa, send more to Afghanistan, Haiti etc... If we're in a position to help, why shouldn't we?

AD

[guigsy]

it was the usa's war on terror that we went to help with. im just skeptical as to the *real* reasons, is all. i know all the reasons that've been thrusted down our throats for the last 5 years - i just dont trust all of them.

did they ever find those wmd's in iraq? does iran have more to do with nuclear ambition or oil intention?

i've said it before, and i'll say it again - i dont know who or what to believe anymore. but the middle east looks shadier and shadier every day.

im with ya on Africa - there are some serious issues that need some serious help. it's too bad we have nothing to gain from them, maybe they'd get our help.

from what i understand, china has rights to a large portion of the oil beneath sudan - is it a coincidence that they've had such a hard time getting anyone in the west to look in their direction?

[AD]

did they ever find those wmd's in iraq? does iran have more to do with nuclear ambition or oil intention?

don't know, we're not fighting in those places for good reason. we're in afghanistan. providing support so the reconstruction teams can do their jobs without getting killed.

ad

[guigsy]

that quote is taken out of context. i didnt mean to imply that we're in iraq or iran - i know we're not.

my point is that we went into afghanistan under the guise of a 'war on terror' - which all of that stems from (iraq, al qaida, iran). the 'war on terror', being the root of all this, is also the root of my skeptisism for the entire area.

[Birdy]

i agree with you guigs, the reasons originally listed to conduct said 'war on terror' are all out of whack and in most cases, complete bullshit. but now that i see how completely fucked Iran is, I'm kinda glad we're there. in hindsight of world history in general, sometimes i think it's necessary to have a catalyst to set the ball rolling, in order to end the shit sooner. I didn't for a second buy into the WMD bullshit, but certainly do commend the outcomes to date - ie, ridding the world of the Taliban, of Saddam.

[AD]

still, are you not opposed to terror?

might be a simplified argument, but go back to my other post and put yourself in your shoes. if we, a rich country with means, can't help one of the poorest countries with no means get out from under the rule of organised terror, what good are we having a military, diplomats, international reputation etc???

i think we went into afghanistan under the 'guise' of helping the people, war on terror or not.

ad