Military Support - make up your minds - stand for your ideas

In the recent Canadian news, one of the bigger stories has been a poll suggesting support for continued Canadian military deployments to Afghanistan have dropped below 50%. The cited reason for the change is a combination of issues about flags at half staff and rising death toll. The largest drop in support apparently being in Quebec where 70% oppose Afghanistan deployments.

Folks....get some kahones.....

Canadian troops have been in Afghanistan since 2002 - almost 4 years. There have been about 2 dozen deaths of military personnel in that time - so about 6 a year.
Ypres (1915) - most of the newfoundland Regiment is killed.
Dieppe (1942) - in one day Canada suffered 907 deaths as well as nearly 2,000 soldiers taken prisoner out of an force of 4.963 men sent.

Would those who bemoan out involvment in Afghanistan have called for Canadian disengagement in either cases (yes, Newfoundland was not part of Canada in 1915 - they are are now and their sacrifice in that battle was immense).

Would those who wish to withdraw support in Afghansitan have supported greater UN involvement in Rwanda because there is a really good chance that even more casualties would have resulted from that engagement.

It is ironic that at the same time as this change of heart is going on there is growing support for engagement in the western Sudan, in Darfur.

Peacekeeping has a cost. Everything does. When things get tough thats when the changes will occur. Is the future benefit of a stable, growing, and peaceful Afghanistan worth the price? Is helping to make any country more stable and peaceful worth some sacrifice?

2 cents in light of the most recent military funeral

With regards to the whole half-staff deal....

There needs to be a set protocol and set of standards. Every military death does not warrant half-staff. If it did, it would not have come up for much of 1939-1945, and likewise 1915-1918. Soldiering is a job with inherent risks. Making the choice to do so and subsequently dying in the process is a risk of the job and not unexpected. By making the switch now, what does that say about the deaths of each and every prior war dead? What of those who fought valiantly in numerous campaigns, and survived to die of natural causes later in life...same risks, different luck, no less heroic or important.

If a town wishes to make the honour, so be it...local decision, but natioanlly - keep it reserved for special occassions and incidents.....if evryone gets it - what makes it special - at which point, why bother.

Been a while....

Returned.....

What the heck is Hedy Fry thinking.....really, can the Liberal brass not just tell leadership candidates who are annoying and don't really stand a chance not to waste their time by using ink on ballots? Is she just going on a whim...is Carolyn Bennett not a good enough voice for women?

Ahh...to go back to MPs just picking a leader out of their caucus....hee hee..I said "caucus"!

Happened to have just come across the Macleans article profiling Rae and Ignatieff....good article and those 2 will definitely keep full time pundits going for quite a while as their ideas and plans become more public and entrenched....even moreso if one of them actually wins.