But...But, this can't be true. All that Canadians soldiers over there are doing is just killing and torturing Afghanis. That is all I have ever read in the papers and heard on TV anyway.

Let's hope that the idiotic moonbat/leftard crowd(iberia and company)do not force on Afghanistan what was foisted on Somalia. If NATO is to leave before the Afghani security forces are fully prepared, it will turn into a massive clusterf@#$. One only has to look at Somalia to see what the potential is. One of my brothers spent 8 months in Somalia(half the time powering medical facilities, half the time dealing with thugs and criminals) Everything he put his life on the line for was undone because some bleeding heart leftoid idiots could not handle a little bloodshed. The resultant chaos from us withdrawing in Afghanistan will make the Somalian experience seem mild in comparison. Yet, these jerk-off socialists do not seem to care. Shame on all of you dipper idiots for not allowing the truth to come out. Canadians should be proud of what the troops have managed to accomplish. Instead, taliban jack, bombardion, and their legions of wannabe commies distort the truth to suit their own political agendas, at the price of innocent Afghani women and children. Moonbat/dipper/librano a$$holes!

correction....my brother spent 6 months in Somalia

Where do we start. First, this information must be broadcast in some way and we are doing that here. Thankyou Kate.

Second, I believe I am responsible to write at least three newspaper editors, 3 radio station managers, and 3 Television newscasters, with a this report and a question. Without fulminating, for they will just dismiss you as a lunatic, I will ask them respectfully to bring this information to Mr. Laytons attention, and report his response. Because dear editor/manager, as a listener/reader I'm totally confused. This report say's we are winning, Jack say's were losing. Which is it?

Its there duty to publish this report. Will they? I can only try.

Lastly, I will send the report to a moonbat acquaintence, to make it an even 10.

If we all did this, it just might get published in the UrineStreamMedia

kingstonlad says: moonbat leftard commie bleeding heart etc...

A quick and dirty analysis of federal ridings containing Canadian Forces bases indicates that soldiers are pretty goddamn socialist and tend to vote Liberal in large numbers. I remind you that the MP for Kingston and the Islands, home of RMC and CFB Kingston, is a flaaaaaaaaaming homosexual and a Liberal, Peter Milliken, who won last election in a landslide.

I might actually be wrong about this (doubt it, though) so if anyone out there has data one way or the other I'd appreciate seeing it.

All of which begs the question: why the hell should I support the troops if they're a bunch of hard left Canada-destroying Liberals?

First: Andrew fails to note that the 'military vote' is mixed - many, many soldiers vote (by separate ballot) in their 'place of ordinary residence' (usually where they joined - often where they grew up and where their parents still live). Those who vote where they are posted (e.g. Kingston) are only very a small part of the electorate and their vote is dispersed, poll by poll, across the community. Kingston, despite its history/tradition, is not a large garrison. The 'military vote' is not decisive.

Second: soldiers, above all others, have earned the right to vote as they wish. Some certainly do vote Liberal - usually because they like a specific candidate and what (s)he did/does for the community; others vote Conservative for similar reasons.

If Andrew doesn't 'support the troops' because he doesn't like how they vote then I'm guessing they are happy to do without his support.

"Those who vote where they are posted (e.g. Kingston) are only very a small part of the electorate "

Oh, I should specify that egregious lies and Liberal-style morally relativistic (eg "some vote Liberal, some vote Conservative, why can't we all get along, sob") arguments such as the quote posted above aren't what I'm looking for here. Post data and masculine arguments or shaddup.

"Those who vote where they are posted (e.g. Kingston) are only very a small part of the electorate "

there is a very large Leftoid institution called Queen's University that provides lotsa Liberal votes.

Been there, didn't do it.

"there is a very large Leftoid institution called Queen's University that provides lotsa Liberal votes."

Sure, but that should be negated by the military vote, and yet Milliken still won in a landslide. So I remain unconvinced. Also factor in that young people tend not to vote as compared to older folks.

You remain unconvinced, Andrew, because you are unaware of the facts. How many military personnel are there in the Kingston garrison? What percentage of the vote would they constitute IF: they all voted (they do not) and all voted in Kingston (most do not)?

The numbers prove you are wrong.

Your ignorance is not my problem.

On behalf of some of the former troops: we are pleased that you, like Jack Layton, support the Taliban rather than us.

Andrew ,who's the largest employer in the Kingston area?
Gubmint!

There's an awful lot of prisons there, holding the liberals we caught.
I bet the prisoners, or as we've come to know them "incarcerated liberals" vote to keep the conservative judges off the benches.
Who watches from the other side of the bars , but more liberals.
Don't get too excited Andrew, I believe there are few of them that would share your lieberal values that go much farther than, they're willing to sell their vote to corrupt liberals on the promise their party if elected will tax the living daylights out of you and pay them.

"Over a quarter of parliamentarians are women;"

This IS significant.

Choke on that Jack!

Why do we not hear this on the floor of parliment or in the speeches given? I will say one thing for the Left, their criticism of how the Government gets its info across is true. I scream at my computer about the information I think the talking heads should be disclosing.

E.R. Campbell - Your remarks are on the mark.

There's about 2000 soldiers on CFB Kingston (x2 if you count spouses and assume they vote, and vote the same as their spouse) =4000 .

The last informal poll that I saw on Army.CA (which was removed due to inappropriate content) showed 90% of the vote for the Conservatives.

The military was totally screwed by the Liberals in the 90s. The Conservatives have spent billions of $$$ in hasty contracts to fill in the huge gap that was created by Liberal cuts.

Andrew - I think your "quick and dirty" = "poor" analysis is just that. (I also don't understand what being a homosexual has to do with the whole conversation.)

Peter Milliken has done a good job of keeping the base in Kingston - it was almost closed in the 90s. People don't forget that easily. So he did his riding service. I personally would never vote for him - but I can't anyway because Kingston is not my riding...

Here is a Question: Why would you NOT support the troops? They are out there defending the freedoms that this Country was founded upon.

As much as I dislike the leftist/Liberal point of view, the troops above anyone else have earned the right to vote however they see by serving the country and protecting the values of it.

Judging by the 17 Facts they've done a outstanding job also.

Just another factoid for Taliban Jack...

From above; Over a quarter of parliamentarians are women

By comparison; Percentage of women in the 39th Canadian Parliament - 20.8%

(Source -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_39th_Canadian_Parliament)

In other words, the Canadian and NATO forces have helped more women in Afghanistan achieve a seat in Parliament, than the NDP have in Canada, despite their incessant whining about proportional representation in Canada.

Geez, moonbat, I must have touched a nerve. Fact is, the leftoid, Queens U crowd are the ones who keep electing Milliken. As well, Kingston is a support base, not a garrison for the combat arms types. As far as the last election goes, Milliken received 46% of the vote, a drop of 6.5%. Lou Grimshaw(retired army) captured 26%, a gain of 3%. Considering that the base is less than 5% of our local population, to say they voted overwhelmingly librano is pure garbage. So, moonbat, go f#$% yourself.

Meanwhile, the CBC and other Leftard reporters that have access to the troops are running around trying to foment doubt, as to the commitment the government has towards them.

I for one hope that when the Conservatives get their majority they shut down the CBC and use the yearly taxpayer funded subsidy for something of value.

One armed Polar 8 Icebreaker a year for the first two?

Here is some good news from Iraq. Well done General Petraeus and troops.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07262007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/winning_in_iraq_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm?page=0

Andrew...

You are an idiot.

Not voting for someone because of their sexual orientation proves the point.
Suggesting you wouldn't support our troops because of their voting preferences is further proof.

What are you? Ten years old?

Don't feed the troll, the homosexual comment was obviously the bait.

I suggest everyone email this report to their member of parliament so that they have lots of facts to counter the 'losing in Afghanistan' arguement. Let's do something positive rather that flinging accusations at each other.

Oh, and by the way, my daughter is going into 4th year Mining Engineering at Queen's and, as far as universities go, it is harding a hotbed of left thinking liberalism. Cheers.

Did anyone catch the CBC National last night. They had their at Issue panel and commentators, including Don Martin telling us how we are losing the war and how Harper is now a weak leader because he is going to 'cut and run'. It is worth posting to contrast with the facts in the Ruxted article. Cheers.

Wow, I know we can't give all the credit to the Canadians, but the Canadian military rocks. Rock on!!! We love you.

Andrew, troops come from all over Canada, not just Quebec and Ontario, the Liberal capitals of Canada, but I'm sure the military in Alberta votes conservative. In fact, I would sincerely be surprised if the Canadian military voted primarily Liberal, considering how the Liberal party had reduced the military to the equivalent of what would be needed to protect Old Crow, Yukon from wolves.

As a fmr member of the CPC Board of Directors for Kingston and 1000 islands maybe I can shed some light on Andrew's argument.

Kingston is home to many prisons - prisoners vote liberal, so do prison workers.
Kingston is home to many retired Torontonians (Torontards?) who do not want 2 tiered health care - they vote liberal.
Kingston had the representation of the Speaker of the House (who was a former mayor) - This causes many to vote liberal.
Kingston has many academics (St. Laurence College, Queen's U, RMC) - They tend to vote liberal.
5% of the population of the riding is military based - they tend to vote conservative.

Therefore Andrew - I hope you die in a fire.

Love,
Jon

Good, since nobobdy can provide a shred of actual data refuting my analysis, since every one is pretending that CFB Kinston is the only military base in Canada, we all agree that the Canadian military is left wing and Liberal. This will be useful the next time kinstontard goes off the rails.

Andrew, when you actually present analysis, then we can talk. Your so-called conclusions are spurious, yet you blame others for not backing up data. Hmmm.

CTV last night touched on an interesting facet of the Canadian casualities in Afghanistan, the fact that some of them could have been avoided had the Libranos not sold off the Chinook heavy lift helicopters which could have been used to ferry supplies instead of road-bound convoys. While the Conservatives are working hard to get the helicopters replaced, there's a five year backlog of worldwide orders for new ones and Canada is far back in the queue.
The progress in Afghanistan is unqualified good news. Anyone wanting it undone to advance crass political agendas at home is no humanitarian.

Leftard. You must not visit here often. I am always off the rails. As far as I am concerned, I am in a perpetual state of war with all things leftoid. You cannot rattle me f#$%face, because the facts back me up. GO ARMY!

DrD, I hate to tell you this but Canada sold its Chinooks to the Dutch in 1991 - when a Conservative government was in power.

From this day forward, let it be known throughout SDA land, kinGstonlad will now be known as kinGstontard. Hey leftard, notice the G?

DrD wrote "The progress in Afghanistan is unqualified good news. Anyone wanting it undone to advance crass political agendas at home is no humanitarian".

But at least no one thinks of Jack and Steffie as humanitarians. Crass politicians yes - himanitarian NO.

Darn!

Just when the death toll in Afghanistan over the past four years was approaching the combined murder/traffic accident death rate in Toronto last year ...

Jack Layton and his minions say we have paid too high a price in soldiers lives in Afganistan to accomplish all this. Okay Jack, what, in your opinion, is an acceptable price to pay for letting millions of little girls go to school, to stop the Taliban from killing gays, to allow women to run for parliament?
In other words what is the price Jack would pay to support all the ideals that the ndp claim to be the basis of their philosophy?
66 soldier's lives is too high? How about 30? 10? 1?
Is having one soldier break a leg too much?
How about a sore toe?
Or is Jack's opposition to us being in Afganistan based more on what political advantage he can glean from it?
And to hell with the little girls going to school.

Great article on Iraq, thanks for posting Brent Weston!

We should be there as advisors and peace keepers. Not as soldiers fighting for the USA's war machine. Who do we think we are? The USA??? Get with the program. This is Vietnam all over again only this time Canada's involved as fighters. Whose benefit is ths for? So our phoney baloney President Harper can score points??

ok4ua wrote: We should be there as advisors and peace keepers. Not as soldiers fighting for the USA's war machine

Do you mean like we did in Rawanda and Samolia and Bosnia. Yep we did a real good job there.

How many hundreds of thousands were butchered while Canadian soldiers stood around with their hands in their pockets wishing the hell they could do something about it.

Screw peacekeeping,screw the UN and screw idiots who think that we can keep the peace with savages.

I am going to quote Edmond Burke for ok4ua:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Nothing is exactly what peacekeeping is. Why is is that lefties never have the fortitude or resolve to see the fight through to the end?

Or think of it another way - 17 examples of the breath-taking incompetence/dishonsty of Jack Layton and the federal NDP.

Good for you Kate. Sock it to that pathetically short sighted, hard hearted. anti liberation, weak kneed, reactionary "progressive" twerp every chance you get. No balls Jack is no match for you.

ok4ua wrote: We should be there as advisors and peace keepers. Not as soldiers fighting for the USA's war machine

This is a statement so classically naive and unknowing it should be framed.

And if there's no peace to keep? Not to worry, we advise: Taliban approaching. Run! This way. Behind these American soldiers....Your family was wiped out by the Taliban? Well bury them quick before disease spreads... The Taliban doesn't want your daughter to go to school? Well can't you teach her to cook?

So, ok4ua, what advice do you have for these poor unfortunates who want what you take for granted?

I have some advice for you. Learn to think. The USA war machine -as you cluelesslssly call them -are in fact the world's most unselfish peacemakers. They are what stands between these innocent people and being killed or subjugated by Islamofascists.

ok4ua: Read the most recent 2006 resolution of the United Nations Security Council:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8826.doc.htm

I really mean it. Read it. Should not Canada be doing what the UN mandates? Or do you lack even the basic knowledge to comment with any intelligent effect?

Mark
Ottawa

ok4ua, you sir, are a blithering idiot - and a really lousy troll. Don't flatter yourself sunshine, you're nowhere near as clever as you think you are.

The West backed the commie Weimar government because it was against the "pure evil" of the Kaiser.

Then they backed the fascists because they were fighting the "pure evil" of Bolshevism.

Then they backed the Soviets because they were fighting the "pure evil" of fascism.

Then they backed the Islamic extremists because they were fighting the "pure evil" of the Soviets.

Now they're backing brutal dictatorships and shabby puppet democracies in the Middle East because they're fighting the "pure evil" of Islamic extremism. (fighting, nurturing, whatever)

I figure around 2015 we'll have a whole new generation of dopes ready to be led into the next foreign policy boondoggle.

And I'm wondering about one thing: if binges of government debt and spending, and building mountains of public welfare programs is a bad thing (I know it's a bad thing because every day I read in blogs like SDA how bad it is for Detroit, Gaza, Saskatchewan, France, Aboriginals, whatever), then why is it a good thing when they do it in Afghanistan? When the West gets sick of pouring billions of dollars into the corrupt, incompetent Afghan government every year to run their 10 universities and 200 government hospitals and 5000 girls' schools, and they forget to pay the farmers not to grow opium poppies, and they realize that government programs like the Afghan NSP are as crooked and pointless as the Canuckian NEP and CWB - when all the socialist chickens come home to roost - who's gonna take over then? I don't know who it's gonna be, but I know for sure that they're gonna be "pure evil".

Ugh

You optimist you!!! You should be ashamed of the glee you exude from every word you write. Personally I think that the west should put a collective loaded gun to our collective head and squeeze the trigger. Thanks to you, my spirits have been lifted and I now opt for something bigger and stronger not sure what yet... Any suggestions? Thank you in advance.

Don't kid yourselves about Canada's benevolent purpose in Afghanistan. According to Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, Canada is in Afghanistan for retribution:

"When the Taliban or al-Qaeda came out of Afghanistan, they attacked the twin towers and in those twin towers, 25 Canadians were killed...The previous government and this government will not allow Canadians to be killed without retribution."

Retribution...altruism...as long as someone else gets to die it's all the same in the end, isn't it?

E.R. wrote:

"DrD, I hate to tell you this but Canada sold its Chinooks to the Dutch in 1991 - when a Conservative government was in power."

Yeah, you're correct, but they had the EH101's ordered to replace them, and we all know who cancelled those.

Sorry, Yukon Gold, but: not so.

The Chinook is (and was) an Army tactical (battlefield) transport helicopter. The 35 EH101s were ordered for the Navy - as anti-submarine helicopters. Given the kit inside the EH101s they could not have been (readily) converted to Army transport duties.

There is plenty of blame to be shared for emasculating the CF.

ER I agree EH101 cannot carry what Chinook capable of, but, EH101s can be of many variants and have, for their class, the most carrying capacity. The point was not this or that helicopter, but Liberals have a lot of nerve bringing up helicopters when they eliminated that capability, at huge cost to taxpayers. Even NSH variant can be reconfigured for utility/army role, though. 10 or so would have been great in Afghanistan. Again, point is Liberals are flaming hypocrits on military matters.

8. Over 600 midwives were trained and deployed in every province of Afghanistan;
...-

NATO has helped save the lives of 40,000 Afghan children: Canadian commander
Canadian Press via Sun Media ^ | 2007-07-28 | Martin Ouellet

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - Canada's outgoing military commander in Afghanistan says Canadian and NATO efforts there have helped save the lives of 40,000 children.

And Brig.-Gen. Tim Grant says that's a "conservative estimate."

In an interview with The Canadian Press at the multinational base in Kandahar, Grant said he's handing his successor, Brig.-Gen. Guy Laroche, a country more "confident" than it was a year ago.

"There's 40,000 babies in Afghanistan more this year than . . . last year," said Grant, whose return to Canada is days away. "That's a big number."

He attributes the success to improvements in health care, which has led to a drop in the region's infant mortality rate.

Grant says the international community helped put a vaccination program in place and increased access to doctors, particularly for women.

Meanwhile, even as Taliban activity remains prevalent in Kandahar province, the level of confidence has surged among the city's inhabitants, he said.

"The town was empty," Grant said of Kandahar 12 months ago. "Now you go there, (it's) like Kandahar City is a successful little town. ...-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1873062/posts

I stand corrected wrt the sale of the Chinook helicopters. I foolishly took the CTV report as accurate without fact checking it -- won't happen again.