Steven Staples & Company

[Roy Harding]

As long as no slander is published, I don't see the harm.

People (including Mr. Staples) have a right to their opinion, to "hold back" because of imagined consequences smacks of (self)censorship - which isn't required.  Mr. Staples is more than welcome to state his opinion here, should he so desire.

Keep it legal and there won't be any problem.


Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff

 

[jollyjacktar]

I just don't like the idea of suggesting that they stand in front of me -- I'm a good shot.    I am pretty sure that's the implication being made with the saying in question.

I personally like the bumper sticker, because I do not see it in the same vein as you and IN HOC do.  I see it as an "invitation" to the ungrateful bastards (such as the man who is the topic of this thread) we serve to step up into the line of fire if they think they can do a better job.  And they do seem to.

I would be happy to see him and his tribe take over doing convoy runs and other hazardous work outside of KAF for a while.  I am sure the Taliban would be happy to educate them and open their collective eyes.

 

[Thompson_JM]

I would be happy to see him and his tribe take over doing convoy runs and other hazardous work outside of KAF for a while.  I am sure the Taliban would be happy to educate them and open their collective eyes.

AND HOW!  ;D

+1 on that point...

Im all for free speech, but i do get tired of the people who continue to get this kind of publicity from the media when they are so obviously out to lunch!

 

[Franko]

Back on topic please....not on bumper stickers.

Regards

 

[Good2Golf]

That was an interesting piece following the links to http://canadiancoalition.com/audiovideo/20060411_CTV_GordonStaplesAfghan.asx 

Steven Staples gets side tracked very easily with his anti-American views and avoids answering the tough questions. 

I wonder how long the MSN will continue to use him as entertainment?  Once he is done with the News, he could make a pittance on the Comedy Network.

Kate Wheeler spanks Staples in the above video pretty well -- Staples' answers were pretty fluffy compared to Mr. Gordon, who seemed well informed and logical in his presentation of his position.  He kept on avoiding Kate's question about, "have things improved?"but she kept him on topic. 

It is interesting to note that Staples was rather economical with the truth thereafter, stating that Canada had moved (at the time) from a NATO mission (which he describes as obstensibly "peacekeeping", really not the case at all) to an OEF (CT by mandate) mission -- while true, he certainly doesn't point out that this is because NATO was not in RC(S) and RC(E) at the time, thus there was no option but to operate under OEF to assist those in the Southern provinces.

G2G

 

[EW]

Not to overestimate the average Canadian's knowledge of defence matters, but I think that the more that is seen of Mr. Staple, the more Canadians will recognize that he certainly does not represent a neutral view of Canadian government policy, and eventually he will burn out his image as being an 'honest broker' when speaking on defence matters.  His only hope is that in that timeframe he can attract enough new members to his organization to make it worth his while.  We'll have to see how that plays out over time.

In the meantime he's free to say whatever he says.  I don't really blame the MSM for engaging people like him.  They have to provide a counter opinion to all the government news releases, and professional DND public relations officers.  Must be kind of hard to find anyone who can go toe to toe with the CDS  ;D   So, they've had to resort to this fellow.  Lets be glad its not someone who is more credible.

Not happy with him or his Institute, but such is a free society.   

 

[ModlrMike]

In a year's time he'll have to find a new villain. Once the US elects a new president, GWB will no longer be available as Mr Staples whipping boy.

 

[Flip]

Generally good advice but.........

No problems with that RBD, was just being cautious. Never know how he might try to spin it.

Spin what? - In the interviews posted he has used more "imagination" in his
commentary than we could ever offer him.

"Laser type weapons"!? What? "May skirt the law" My hats off to the guy!
It spins so smoothly in doesn't even look like anyone touched it!  ;D

 

[stevenstaples]

The point is that there needs to be a debate, and we provide a different point of view than what is typically handed out by the government to the media and the public. Our research has been proved correct time and time again. In fact, we often rely on the government's (and even NATO's) own numbers.

And besides, without us, who else would that mysterious Ruxted Group have to blog about?

Steve

BTW, I like the thread's subject line. Big fan of Robin Hood.

 

[McG]

In fact, we often rely on the government's (and even NATO's) own numbers.

I suppose you also get a lot from the Senlis Council reports.  Interesting how a third party which actually puts investigators into the country comes to the conclusion that the military needs to be there.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Welcome to the thread. We're actually not a bad crowd when you get to know us....I think a lot of us have a much different perspective than you do but that's what we're sworn to uphold...your right to a different opinion.

 

[Good2Golf]

If you don't mind my asking, Mr. Staples, were you aware during your interview with Kate Wheeler on CTV.net that NATO had not yet expanded operations into the Southern provinces of Afghanistan when you described Canadian operations changing from NATO command to U.S.-led OEF?  Unless I misinterpreted your intent, it seems that you were implying Canada had deliberately chosen to cast aside the "peacekeeping" mantle in Kabul, instead joining the U.S. and other "non-peacekeeping" allies in the South.

Rather than viewing the move as toeing the "U.S.-company" line, one could instead look at Canada as having the conviction to redirect its 3D operations to areas of Afghanistan that badly needed the additional support to establish security, stability and strengthened development efforts, no matter the fact the NATO had not yet expanded its own operations to the needy region?

In your view, was Canada better off to have stayed in Kabul city/province under NATO's command until Phase 3 expansion (ref: NATO ISAF expansion plan) had been completed?  If so, why?

Regards,
G2G

 

[McG]

Rather than viewing the move as toeing the "U.S.-company" line, one could instead look at Canada as having the conviction to redirect its 3D operations to areas of Afghanistan that badly needed the additional support to establish security, stability and strengthened development efforts, no matter the fact the NATO had not yet expanded its own operations to the needy region?

I'd add another possibility:  we were setting the conditions to allow for the ISAF expansion. 

 

[Franko]

The point is that there needs to be a debate, and we provide a different point of view than what is typically handed out by the government to the media and the public. Our research has been proved correct time and time again. In fact, we often rely on the government's (and even NATO's) own numbers.

And besides, without us, who else would that mysterious Ruxted Group have to blog about?

Steve

BTW, I like the thread's subject line. Big fan of Robin Hood.

Debate is fine Steven, however, you pose yourself off as an abject analyst devoid of any political leanings, which as it would seem, is incorrect.

You have an agenda and it's pretty clear to anyone who takes a few minutes to do a bit of digging. Unfortunately the public only grab sound bites and take it as gospel.

Can you explain this?

Your last tidbit on the "Laser type weapons that may skirt the law" is inferring that the CF and the forces on the ground in theater are going to go against the Geneva Convention and the rules of lawful warfare by nefarious means. Kind of a bold statement with nothing to back it up with.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=SEAfghanistan&video_link_high=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2007/11/18/ctvvideologger3_195402098_1195406514_500kbps.wmv&video_link_low=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2007/11/18/ctvvideologger3_195402097_1195405072_218kbps.wmv&clip_start=00:48:52.73&clip_end=00:03:08.58&clip_caption=CTV%20Newsnet:%20Steven%20Staples,%20military%20analyst&clip_id=ctvnews.20071118.00222000-00222760-clip1&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20071118&slug=afghan_death_071118&archive=CTVNews

Please take the time, which it may take you a while to do so, and go through the entire thread and respond to the questions put to you.

You may inadvertently educate some of us and give us a bit of an insight to your own perspective.

Regards

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

The end of the interview (the one with Alistair Gordon) really clarifies the mentality of Mr. Staples:

"the risk is that their [the US] enemies become our enemies and if we weren't on a terrorist target list we may find ourselves [on one]... "

It it NOT a "risk": the reality is they declared themselves our enemy, and that we were on their target list, a *long* time ago.


WAKE UP!

 

[medaid]

To naievly think that we are free from harm, and to think that terrorist organizations don't already consider us (Canada and Canadians) to be targets of opportunity is plain ignorance and stupidity. The osterich mentality that seems to plague our nation. Many peace advocates demand that we look to our past as they argue that, if we do not learn from our historical mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them. I look at history, all the time! Everyday when I do my job, and I need to look no further the 9/11. I know my history and so should you. I am not advocating hyper vigilance, but more constant readiness. 

 

[Rodahn]

Good commentary from 2006 re: Mr Staples.

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/007920.html

 

[birdgunnnersrule]

Although it has been known for quite sometime that Canada has been targeted in media broadcasts by known terrorist such as Bin Laden, there is still a requirement for organizations such the Polaris institute that are left of center.  For Mr. Staples to join the forum is impressive and this should be applauded. Hopefully we all remember the democratic values that define the country and contribute positive debate to the forum. There's an opportunity here to understand the role that Polaris institute can play as certainly in the not to distant future the Afghanistan debate will be at the forefront of the Parliament. Keep in mind the same arguments used here, will definitely be used by the Bloc, NDP, and some Liberals in the immediate future.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Although it has been known for quite sometime that Canada has been targeted in media broadcasts by known terrorist such as Bin Laden, there is still a requirement for organizations such the Polaris institute that are left of center.  For Mr. Staples to join the forum is impressive and this should be applauded. Hopefully we all remember the democratic values that define the country and contribute positive debate to the forum. There's an opportunity here to understand the role that Polaris institute can play as certainly in the not to distant future the Afghanistan debate will be at the forefront of the Parliament. Keep in mind the same arguments used here, will definitely be used by the Bloc, NDP, and some Liberals in the immediate future.

Agreed, birdgunner. While I disagree with Mr. Staples' conclusions, opinions, and, insofar as he makes them known, his data analysis, especially  when he talks about defence spending, I support his right to preach from his pulpit - just as I expect him to respect e.g. Ruxted's right to preach from its.

I am a little unhappy with the tendency to attack the messengers, like Messers Layton and Staples, rather than their message.

Jack Layton has done what none of us here, the registered users of Milnet.ca, has dared: he has put himself, warts and all, in front of the electors and has stood for public office. They have found him to be best amongst a field of good, solid candidates representing the whole range of political opinion. He deserves our respect, indeed our admiration; in standing for and serving in elected office he has performed a great public service - at least as great as the service performed by members of the armed forces. Mr. Staples also exposes himself, willingly, to the slings and arrows of a free, open public discourse. I attack his ideas but I respect him for bringing those ideas into the debate.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Seems he only dropped by to see what was being said about him and has not bothered to engage any of the questions put to him. Good level of debate eh?