Flip and flop onto your lying faces, bastards

In 2007 ther Liberals put through a motion calling “upon the government to (inform) NATO "immediately" that Canada's current military commitment to Afghanistan will end in February 2009.”

Now the Liberals say no debate is needed to extend the mission once more. Saying it is not really a military one is more than deceptive since they well know that training Afghan soldiers will place them in the line of fire and that any military presence in Afghanistan draws fire.

Prior to that 2007 motion, “O'Connor and Prime Minister Stephen Harper have repeatedly said the troops are only committed until 2009. Harper also said MPs would be informed of any changes to the length of the deployment. "If the government wants to extend it further, it will seek the approval of Parliament to do that," he said.

Today Harper tells us he’s the Big Boss of everything and doesn’t have to debate this new extension, “that he had changed his mind and had reluctantly decided to deploy trainers because he doesn't want the past "sacrifices" of Canadian soldiers to be in vain.”

Oh. I see. If more soldiers die, the sacrifices were worth it? Because seriously, as Harper himself said in 2009 when he wanted to extend the mission and include training, 6 years is long enough, and if the Afghans haven’t learned from our troops by 2011, they aren’t going to.  So it's all about having more soldiers die to justify the death of the ones who have already died?

But did any of us really believe he’d stick to the 2011 deadline? I sure as hell didn’t.

"My position is that if you're going to put troops into combat, into a war situation, I do think for the sake of legitimacy, I do think the government does require the support of Parliament," said Harper.

Typical Harper not to get it because he just doesn’t see the soldiers as human beings. “For the sake of legitimacy,” he says, failing to understand that debate is necessary not to cover his precious ass, but to make sure that our precious soldiers are not placed in harm’s way unless every other option has been exercised.

Mr. Megalomaniac sociopath goes on -

"But when we're talking simply about technical or training missions, I think that is something the executive can do on its own."

On paper, maybe. But we’re not sending paper over there to face spitballs. So legitimacy aside, serious debate must take place when deciding on any mission that risks flesh and blood.

And the Liberals don’t think we need such a debate. No doubt they would like to avoid facing questions from the Bloc and NDP in the House since they’ve already decided it’s just perfectly fine to send more Canadians to Afghanistan to face death and maiming. What’s the value of debating the lives of our soldiers compared to the embarrassment the Liberal party might suffer, eh?

The prime minister said he believes that a smaller mission that just involves training will present "minimal risks for Canada."

Well, steve, you tell that to families of dead soldiers in 2014, ok? You go visit the new vets in the hospital, maybe drive them to their therapy sessions (if you haven’t cut off funding for that by then).  Talk to them then about "minimal risks."

And you Liberals who won’t even insist on a debate over this, you had better stand beside harper in 2014 and face those affected by this endless war because any blood spilled after the original 2011 pull-out of troops will be on your hands as well.

I’ve had it with the lot of you inhuman bastards.