Sometime after six tonight MPs will vote on a motion to bring our troops home from Afghanistan in a little less than two years. It was put forward by the Liberals and, as you can imagine, is being opposed by the Conservatives. The motion is highly controversial and is being turned into an issue of patriotism by PMSH. Of course.
You might recall that Parliament voted lasted year to extend the Afghan mission to February, 2009. I supported that move, as did most Liberals. It was clearly not time then to consider pulling out, and neither is it now. But the concern has grown that we might have an open-ended commitment to a combat role there, without a clear timetable or end goal.
The PM says that’s ridiculous, since we cannot know what the battle may look like twenty months from now. The NDP wants the troops to withdraw yesterday. Liberals (as usual) are a tad divided on this – since this seems to be the party of free thinkers these days.
So, should this motion pass? Well, if it does, it means Canada is telling its UN and NATO allies that we will be going home – at least in terms of combat – two years hence. Other countries then have lots of time to dust off their tanks, shine their side arms and make travel plans. Our mission in the desert and the mountains will end after seven long years and (to date) more than 50 lives.
If, however, the motion does not pass then the mission is indefinite. The 100 new tanks we are purchasing can be deployed after 2009, and the humungous C-17 heavy lift aircraft we are buying can lug them around. We will bolster and continue to re-equip our troops, and they will perform valiantly, as they have been doing.
Obviously there are two important and valid points of view here. Canada has been a willing ally of the US in the War on Terror, and we have performed an astonishing role in Afghanistan. Our goal has been to rebuild that country, help the people, and breath life into democracy there. We are succeeding and making a difference, or mired in a bottomless quagmire – depending on who you listen to.
I’ll be voting in a few hours. A discussion here would be helpful
214 comments ↓
Apparently the NDP are planning to vote against the motion. Dumb or what?
What can you expect from the NDP – Tommy Douglas was against going to war against Hitler in WWII.
Just think – if we were attacked – the NDP wouldn’t want to fight back.
Dion isn’t flip-flopping – he’s “re-assessing” and that’s the “right thing to do”.
Bush never re-assessed and look at the mess he’s in.
Apparently 2/3 of Canadians want to pull out in Feb/09.
Vote against it – trying to predict what will happen two years down the road is impossible. When we signed on, it was for the long haul. We should be committed to winning this war by providing the Afgans security and help to rebuild. Does anyone think this will be accomplished within two years?
Just my two cents!
It is foolish for the liberals to push for returning our troops on a specific date in 2009. What if in 2009 we are still needed? If we are a few months from finishing our work there it would make no sense to leave? What if at that time most Canadiand think we should stay? What would Dion do then? This push by liberals is foolish and is way to premature.
From a Halton voter.
I think that fighting terrorism, and keeping Afghanistan out of the hands of some of the most brutal vicious people to run any country since the Middle Ages is something that everyone, Liberal or Conservative can and should support.
Canada has always had a very strong tradition of helping out in these kinds of situations, and I think that staying in Afghanistan until the U.N. and N.A.T.O. decide that the job is done is that option that would best reflect my values as a Canadian.
If we were to leave, what kind of message would it send to other countries, or to the people of Afghanistan? Not a very good one, and I imagine the Taliban/Al Quaida and others would see it as a victory, and work even harder to destroy the Afghanistan we’ve helped to build.
And I think frankly, that while we owe our compassion and sympathy to the soldiers who have lost their lives and their families, we also owe it to them to make sure that their deaths were for a good and sucessful cause, not for a failed, aborted mission.
The Conservatives may be guilty of trying to turn the war into a partisan issue. But that isn’t a good reason for Liberals to go along with it, attack the mission itself (which they originally voted for), and throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Garth, I would hope that when the vote comes you will stand up along with principled Liberals like Michael Ignatieff and Bill Graham in supporting a continued mission in Afghanistan. This should not be a partisan issue,as some Liberals and Conservatives want it to be. It should be about Canada supporting its allies, standing up for its values, and helping to build a better world.
First of all, how about getting Germany and France to live up to the NATO covenant.
We’re going to need our troops at home later this week due to blizzard conditins in Ottawa from Birdy-Baird.
I’ve called Mel Lastman to ask him to get involved. He’s apparently involved in another venture on slow cooking … residue from his intemperate remarks about a potential African visit.
http://www.thestar.com/images/assets/217149_3.JPG
As part of
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/206452#
The “Suzuki Nation,” making up one-fifth of the population
“Invested Materialists” are the 28 per cent
The last category is “Ambivalent Materialists” – the 15 per cent
The report by market researcher Phoenix Strategies suggests individuals can be pushed into environmental action with targeted communications.
That seems to go against the thrust of the Tory green plan to be released this week.”
We’re way past cynical on this government as well as angry with certain members of the print and electronic media who provide mediocre coverage at best.
I believe that our soldiers are heroes for serving our country and protecting us in time of need.
And, to serve as a peacekeeping force is an admirable ambition.
However, in light of the apparent torture of prisoners that Canadians are apparently handing over for that abuse, it would appear strongly that the CPC does not support our troops.
Instead, they force them into the middle of a war that Canada should not be in, and force them to (unwittingly) aid in committing acts at that are both heinous and against international law.
If you truly support our brave soldiers, bring them home. And only put them into harms way when Canada needs protecting.
If this current situation is allowed to continue, we will find that the positive reception that Canadians receive while traveling abroad will be impacted, and the proud reputation of our troops will be indelibly stained.
This is a world stage and Canada needs to present Canada as the strong and peaceful nation that it has always been.
To do less is to mire our troops in needless controversy and tarnish the good efforts they have put forth on our behalf for so many decades.
But to withdraw them and protect them from harm requires integrity and I just don’t see that coming from Harper.
Garth,
To me the key is in the mission’s definition, i.e., is it a ‘nation building/peacekeeping’, or ‘combat based war on terror’ mission? Right now I deem it to be both primarily due to necessity and reality.
How can that be changed to our traditional role? here are three suggestions (make that conditions as in ammendments) to include.
1. Mandate the cooperation of Pakistan in securing its border and stopping the infiltration of Taliban from their country. If they refuse bring our troops home NOW because we are fighting a battle that will never be won.
2. Demand the full open cooperation of the Afghan goverment, no exceptions, no minor, unaccountable stooges ‘guaranteeing’ this or that. It must be right at the top, and failure means withdrawal.
3. Help the Afghan farmers produce all the opium they can, and take it for the world medical market. Stop destroying the little they have to make a living on because Bush, ‘The Reformed Souse’, and his religious right cannot see any positive anything in drug related reality.
4. Mandate that other NATO participants must deploy their troops into Kandahar to provide relief for CF’s who are carrying the burden far beyond their expectancies by the Canadian people.
5. The UN must impose sanctions on any country supplying the Taliban with arms. No exceptions.
Those are the things I see as critical decision points.
Saying that the mission is indefinate if the vote fails is a little bit misleading. The motion last year only “approved” for them to stay until February 2009. In the absence of a decision by the Cabinet, their mission ends there. Voting down this motion doesn’t mean that the troops stay beyond February 2009; it just defers making a decision on whether we’ll extend their mission or not.
I am not one of your constituents, however, I believe you should oppose the motion. The Afghans need the help of the worlds to build a peaceful society and I think the world owes them this opportunity on moral grounds. Secondarily, I think if the Afghans fail, the repercussions to Canada and other Western countries may be negative (as it was when we abandoned them after the Soviets pulled out and it became a training ground for terrorists).
Why should Canada be one of the participating world countries? Because we are capable of helping them, and there are few countries that seem to be willing to play our role. I fancy Canada as a country that promotes freedom and human rights, especially where there are factional divides (we’ve overcome them between the english and french, so we can probably help others do the same). I think this is exactly the sort of mission Canada should be in. It is definately dangerous, but I think we’ve seen our forces adapt to the danger and so there have been fewer new casualties in the last few months than there were a year ago. I see no reason why we shouldn’t continue to improve.
- Mustafa Hirji
Thank you for setting out this complicated situation succinctly. Tough call Garth, but voting for the motion would, as you point out, let our allies know that we cannot (and should not) carry the military load in the south indefinitely.
It is time for Canada to bring our troops home because Afghanistan is a quagmire and the War on Terror is a Bush line that is slowly being questioned by Americans themselves.
By bluenoser on 04.24.07 9:54 am
There are OTHER non-performing NATO members who HAVE NOT answered the call in the same way as the US, Canada, Netherlands. If Germany and France are not going to pull their weight, I say bring our people home.
The Afghan/Pakistan border is extremely porous attended by corrupt officials. The ANA and police force are corrupt as well. The PTR’s can’t operate effectively because their every move is monitored and blocked by insiders in the tribal hierarchy who are not above threatening the populace. If that’s the culture, no amount of truthiness is going to save the day.
My $.01 worth … Change, please.
Let’s not forget the 45 innocent Canadians who died on 9-11. It was Alqaeda that first went on to N. American soil to reignite this war. It was the Taliban who harboured and gave strength to the Al Qaeda forces. The Taliban had lots of opportunity to work with us in the beginning.
I think late 2008 would be the time to revisit this issue. Spring of 2007 is not the time, and this just gives the Taliban the idea they are winning and we are not behind this mission.
I watched an interesting piece on CTV called the Road to Hope. Now is not the time to falter.
In Canada we lose 4 people every day to drunk drivers. Now that is a waste, completely senseless. However, when our brave young joined this army, they knew about the mission in Afghanistan and are there willingly because they want to make peace and bring hope to the people and to stop this brand of terrorism from coming home to us again.
I would say 3/4 of all people I speak to, do not know the difference between the war going on in Iraq and the war going on in Afghanistan. I often wonder if most NDP members do. Afghanistan is not ‘Bush’s’ war. It is our war and it is a just war, a U.N. sanctioned war and a very much needed war if we are to ever have a peace at home that we can once again take for granted.
You must make peace before you can have peace and that’s just what we are doing. Rwanda is a good example of that.
Don’t give fuel to the Taliban to let them think we are faltering. That gives them strength.
Mr. Dion should not have brought this motion before the House. Not now.
L
you need to vote against it.
we can only imagine what would have happened if we’d voted to bring our boys home in February 1944, i.e. before the job was finished.
I’m one of those people who are still really on the fence about Afghanistan. Regardless of who started it, and who transformed it…Canada has been doing really, really great things for European security and for Asian security over the years.
It’s really unfortunate to see, after all the years and lives we gave to Europe in their backyard (I refer of course to Bosnia, Cyprus, and Kosovo), that they can’t muster any effort at all to help us out in Afghanistan.
Moreover, I’m a bit frustrated with the waste in Afghanistan. I’m just not seeing enough money being poured into the traditional Canadian nation-building stalwarts — Water, Wheat and Working Schools.
I’m also really disappointed with a number of intelligence failures. The fact that we’re sending our troops out there to drive around and wait for THEM to HIT us isn’t so great, I don’t think. Has there been much more money spent on the human intelligence side of things?
I’m really familiar with military policy policy on paper. We’ve had positive nation building experiences in Kosovo, which yes, is a Muslim-Albanian nation. I know I’m comparing apples to oranges here, but it just feels like this is getting bungled.
As for setting a deadline — I think it’s important to define a timetable for which the Afghans need to stand up.
It’s been 5 years. These things don’t happen overnight to be sure, but being there for another 5 years, or hell, 10 years isn’t something that I’m supporting.
To sum up, I suppose, I’m against a defined pullout date, but I’m also against a blank cheque.
Do you think most Centrist-Median voters agree with me?
Garth,
66% of Canadians are opposed to this war, and would like to see our brave women and men return home immediately. I think your duty is clear.
Personally, if we can go into Pakistan and root out the terrorists and the Taliban from their sanctuary, then I say we stay until the mission is accoplished, meaning Afghanistan becomes the country their citizens want it to be. If not, I say end the mission in 2009. Having our men and women in the military fight with one hand behind their back is not right and to ask them to continue to do so is unfair.
Garth,as always Canadian intentions are noble and decent .
I am very concerned about how we are treating the Taliban insurgents that we care for in our custody in Afghanistan .
We have ,over the years,had incidents of our guys (the white hats) stepping over the line in places like Somalia .
I see this as an almost certain inevitability as more of our soldiers are KIA .
Hilliers attitude towards these people is extremely dangerous and must be reined in .
Canadians have lost their Lester B.Pearson persona of innocence of always being the good guys in time of need to a killer elite .This is not helpful .
NATO has fallen down badly and left the majority of the fighting to a handful of countries .
No other country of our size has as big a commitment in Afghanistan .
We must draw the line on when we will retreat as a continuation of this insurgency is inevitable .
Our leaders have not clued into the fact that the Taliban and remnants of El Quida will never surrender nor allow peace to rein in their country .
The enemy is intractable and very dangerous and wily .
They are being armed and manned by every Muslim country on the planet .
It matters not how many schools and clinics we build if the Afghans are too terrified to use them .
I keep hearing we are making a difference on the ground my question is who are we making a difference too ?
Al Quida the Taliban ?
No,without a huge and massive input of material and manpower from NATO we must draw the line and commit to a with drawl in 09 ‘
We are left with little choice . Peace is never achieved by the barrel of a gun or tanks .
Garth, although I am not one of your constituents, I suggest you vote for the motion. There are several reasons why:
1. We should not be trying to “socially engineer” Afghanistan. I don’t trust our government to socially engineer Ontario, let alone a country we know little about.
2. We have done our bit to stop terrorism. We can’t shoulder this burden since its not OUR burden to shoulder. If the Americans want to “stabilize” Afghanistan (i.e. install a pro-US government), then let them do it themselves.
3. The Afghans don’t NEED our help. A few ruling Afghans may WANT it, but that is certainly not the same thing. They need to stand on their own two feet – and they never will as long as we are propping them up.
4. We can never win in Afghanistan. The Russians (with 100 times the power) could not do it, nor could the British. It can’t be done, so don’t try.
5. As for democracy – democracy means “rule by the people”, not rule by foreigners. We are the foreigners in Afghanistan. You cannot impose democracy, only tyranny. If the Afghans don’t want our democracy, then trying to impose it on them in no better than tyranny.
Garth,
The one issue that should be ignored, IMHO, is ‘how it will look!’ Let’s leave the image thing upto PMSH, and concern ourselves with how it actually affects Canadians there and back home, and especially their families.
This is not about a U.S. style ego trip of pride, it is about our mission and how it is to be or not be carried out according to Canada’s role.
Consider this principle. Can our presence actually accomplish the mission? Like deciding if one should run into a burning building to rescue another, or if such an act is merely foolhardy and ignoring reality.
Two lives lost do not make up for a bad decision.
Too early to plan the withdrawal date in my honest opinion.
Dear Garth,
The motion is only asking the Conservatives to do what they have already done at least once during this mandate… pull out and give our UN brethren a chance to share in the responsibilities and rewards of our collective efforts. Read below:
Posted on 27/03/06
globeandmail.com
Canada pulls out of peacekeeping
WALTER DORN
“The Canadian Forces said a final goodbye to the UN peacekeeping operation on the Golan Heights on Friday after 32 years of service. Canadian troops have helped keep the peace in that tense area of the Middle East, preventing flare-ups between opposing Israeli and Syrian forces since shortly after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Indian forces will now keep the watch in places where Canadian soldiers once stood. The ending of Canada’s Task Force Golan is understandable after three decades of admirable service…â€
I’d vote for the motion.
Sincerely,
MB
Potential for this Middle East war to escalate increases by the day.There is little doubt Bush-Cheney would love a crack at Iran.Bush says he will not sit by while Iran wipes Israel of the map.Israel says it will attack Iran with or without US help.
Cheney says this whole ME war will be a long one and just happened to slip the nuclear word into the debate on US tv this past Sunday.
The Cons are smart enough to realize this war could escalate.That means no home for Can.troops in 2 yrs.
The question is.How far is Canada ready to commit to the INSANITY that is US domination of world oil.
Vote against the motion.
Forget about Party politics.We owe that to the troops.We have committed to be there until 2009.So let the government govern.Don’t take away their flexability.
Instead,hammer at the government to get the Pakistani border sealed up and the candy assed Germans,Italians,Spaniards and French out of the North and help the Brits,Dutch,Yanks and Canucks do the heavy lifting in the South.
If those two conditions can’t be met,then start on the government 6-9 months before pullout date to make a formal exit announcement.
I would hate to be a member of the Armed Forces risking my life while 308 jackasses debate about something their committments got me into and now could harm and endanger my life by putting the exit option on the table now.
Garth,
Sorry, forgot the final point. Yes, a definite pullout date should be set, with the provision that if certain progress, verifiable progress has been made, we will be willing, but not obligated, to extend the mission.
That progress should be stated in writing, be realistic, and leave no room for ‘If only a little longer’ scenarios. Do to this mission what Deif did to the Arrow…meet the progress requirements or it is over. Somehow that seems so fitting?
This does two things…holds Parliament’s head to the chopping block, and says to the Afghan government ‘Bud, if you want us here, then you better start getting real serious about making this work. Stop the pilfering of supplies, and get your act together. We are here to help, not do it for you and your country!’
Sorry,307 jackasses.The Halton guy is OK!!!!!!!
Peace is never achieved by the barrel of a gun or tanks.
Really now? How do you think they stopped Hitler? History proves you unequivocally wrong.
As has been said by several bloggers already, we can NOT win a war against terror….too nebulous. It’s not as if the Taliban run around wearing name tags. They’re coming from all over the world to kick our collective infidel butt. PMSH coerced the House into extending the mission until 2009. I say that’s enough. There are other places around this globe where Canada’s peacekeeping troops are much needed – Darfur, for instance. It’s time Canada got PMSH’s assurance for an end to the mission and let our NATO buddies step up to the plate.
I think late 2008 would be the time to revisit this issue. Spring of 2007 is not the time, and this just gives the Taliban the idea they are winning and we are not behind this mission.
By Leasa on 04.24.07 10:38 am
We should decide and give notice now.
We’re spending $120 Million per year to prop up a regime which, at best, has not demonstrated a cohesive will to engage the Taliban dissidents. There are former Taliban members in what presently comprises their national assembly.
Note also, the expenditure of $650 million on mothballed Leopard 2’s by a Defence Minister to whom the former Coyote LAV III was the be-all end-all for protection of our military. It looks like poor leadership and an inadequate assessment of fighting conditions to me.
Ever seen an M1-A1 Abrams, flipped on its turret by a roadside bomb?
of course 66% of Canadians are opposed to the war. Nobody likes war, it’s not pleasant – it never is.
but we can’t turn our back on the women and children over there, and simply say, not my job anymore ….
I don’t see the War In Afghanistan as paralleling WWII on any level. We aren’t protecting Canadian citizens or defending the “free world” or anything like that… we’re meddling in a part of the world few of us understand very well. What is it all for? Well, depending on who you ask you would get a different answer. To “defeat terror” some might say; rubbish! The War on Terror is as much an open-ended joke as the War on Drugs. Alright, well those Taliban types weren’t very nice! True! However, there are plenty of mean people in power all over the planet but you don’t see Canada rushing off to go fuss with their way of doing things.
Hold on, stop right there. I will admit that it unnerves me to be involved in any sort of war where there isn’t “clear and present danger” to Canada. It strikes me as terribly foolish to go half-way around the planet to muck around in a land that has seen far more war in the last century than it has seen peace. And yet… I can’t escape the feeling that since we’re already involved, we should see it through to the end. I say vote to let ‘em stay and fight the good fight… and I tell you, I feel very weird saying that.
By the way Garth, the year is currently 2007, not 1944 as some people claim it to be. There is no “Third Reich” or “evil empire” out to conquer the world. At worse, there are a few thousand rag tag “Taliban” out to control parts of Afghanistan. Given the renewed strength of the “Northern Alliance” its doubtful the Taliban could create a “terrorist state” capable of doing us harm.
Furthermore, if we are in Afghanistan to “fight terrorism”, then we should also be sending our troops to Africa were several “terrorist” wars are now being fought. I’m sure that several more will spring up shortly. How many hundreds of lives and tens of billions of dollars will fighting these hopeless “terrorist wars” cost us? If we say yes to staying in Afghanistan, then where does it end?
One final point: who runs this country (Canada)? The people of Canada (66% of whom want our troops out), or a bunch of corrupt Afghan government officials who want us to stay in? I find it bizarre (Harper’s bizarre?) that we are “supporting democracy” in Afghanistan by ignoring the will of the people here in Canada in order to support a corrupt government in Afghanistan which the people of Afghanistan do not themselves support. How is any of that democratic?
1. We’ve had positive nation building experiences in Kosovo, which yes, is a Muslim-Albanian nation. I know I’m comparing apples to oranges here, but it just feels like this is getting bungled.
2. As for setting a deadline — I think it’s important to define a timetable for which the Afghans need to stand up.
For 1. Ordinance was delivered from 15 thousand feet by aircraft. Ground engagement on even a minimal scale was non-existent. Even the much-touted Apache Longbow was not used due to the type of terrain and possibility of an RPG strike or even a small portable surface to air missile.
2. No question. Full agreement with that principle. Debate, set the horizon and give notice to NATO pronto.
Bring troops home in 2009, majority says
Poll finds almost 2 in 3 oppose longer mission
Norma Greenaway, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Tuesday, April 24, 2007
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=75c0956b-0c4e-431f-a88a-5aeb73085077
I recommend supporting the motion in order to “encourage” the rotation of new U.N security forces into the Southern Afghanistan area from nations that are not of a Christian Heritage.
Stability (and hence real reconstruction/development) cannot be achieved as long as an unlimited number of Taliban recruits can be drawn into the conflict under a “Jihad” (Holy War) motivation.
That said, I do think we can and should re-balance the Afghanistan mission post-2009 to continue involvement in terms of much greater diplomatic and development assistance. We can as well continue training and equipping the Afghan Army to prepare them better for eventual full responsibility for national security.
In fact, this re-focusing could well have a much greater impact on the eventual success of the U.N mission if we are effective.
Eric Walton
I believe is sustaining democracy even if Canada gave it up by enacting the Charter. However Afghanistan isn`t the only troubled place. Africa isn`t that far off a continental war as well as the entire middle east. If we`re going to set a deadline for troop withdrawal then I agree with the NDP. Pull them out now and see which side becomes strong enough to precipitate the next event, a global war with nukes, Iran possibly.
Nothing to fear in a global nuclear war, humans probably won`t survive but in a few million years the earth will be green again,,, omg I think I woke up this morning as a Green/Liberal, yep, no nuts.
My two coppers’ worth…
There are two groups whose opinions seem to be largely ignored in discussions of whether our soldiers should stay in Afghanistan — the opinions of Afghanistan’s people and the opinions of our soldiers. Seems to me, those are the people we should be asking.
I can’t say for sure what either group thinks, but from what I’ve heard, most of Afghanistan wants us to stick around and help out. And from what I’ve heard (including directly from soldiers who’ve served there) the majority of our soldiers want to stick around and help out.
Based on that, it seems to me like the right choice is to vote against the motion — after all, even if this motion is defeated, the continuation of the mission will be reconsidered in ‘08 sometime.
Tough call. Afghanistan is a bit of a quagmire, but I frequently here things about what’s going on there that give me hope a permanent solution will come about, eventually.
I don’t want to see Canada there indefinitely, but I would prefer that we actually have a clear strategy for boosting the Afghan government to the point where it can stand on it’s own two feet, and then leave. A set date isn’t really compatible with that, but on the other hand, if we have an indefinite commitment, it reduces the incentive for them to up their own forces.
I’d probably end up voting for this motion, at least that way there really will be an end, I just hope that the government takes this opportunity to say “OK, we’re leaving in two years, what do we need to accomplish before then for this to work.” But, PMSH being who he is, I expect him more to look at is as “Let’s just keep doing what we’re doing so the Libs look like panzies when the time comes around.”
Oh, and is there anything you can do to stop our allies from burning poppy fields? Seriously, buy them up and sell them to the drug companies that make morphine and other legal opiates instead. Burning them just makes more enemies, more people with no hope of an economically sustainable living.
By Leasa on 04.24.07 10:38 am
Afghanistan is not ‘Bush’s’ war:
,
After 9/11 and as we know now Bush didn’t even want to go to Afghanistan,he wanted Iraq
Blair had to talk him into Afghan.
All the deaths on 9/11 are suspect.too many unanswered questions.And killing more Canadians/Americans just doesn’t somehow add up.Where’s the justification for all the innocent dead in Iraq/Afghanistan vs 9/11.
There’s no way in Bush,s world anyone is going into Pervez Musharraf’s Pakistan to root out Taliban.Definitely not doable.Bush gave up pretending to look for Osama long ago.The Americans fronted the Taliban to root out the Ruskies.And while everyone tries to put all the pieces together the innocents keep dying.
Isn’t NATO there in support of the Americans.And if so why are we supporting Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz-Perle-and Rove.War criminals all.All complicit.Pack them up and ship them off to the Hague.
Peace is never achieved by the barrel of a gun or tanks .
By Jackie Chan’s Left Hand on 04.24.07 10:45 am
Garth, could you start a donation link to collect money to send Jacqueline over to Afghanistan so she can give the Taliban the big hug they need.
ps, the Geneva convention does not cover non-military combatants such as terrorists targeting civilians, it falls under the laws of the country.
btw what`s going on with the police charged with torture right here in Canada.
lol, yep the next election will fix it all. Kinda like asking the criminals to please stop committing so much crime, we`ll all give you a hug.
Garth your whining about your present situation and occasional barking about the next election brings out the funniest responses.
Motto for the day. If we can`t enjoy good governance at least enjoy the humour of it because it`s the most expense comedy act on the planet.
Hi Garth, Jackie and Bill have said it all and very well. Please vote for this motion, like Iraq this will be a failed mission, improperly planned with no end in sight. Let other Nato members that believe that this is indeed a just cause take our place in the South.
Please vote NOT to extend Canada’s combat Crusade role beyond 2009.
In the interest of the political and economic expediency that has driven our past motivation, is it wise to vote on this Bill now? Shouldn’t we wait until the Bush vs. Senate & House bill on Iraq is decided?
Their war spending bill would start bringing combat troops home from Iraq as early as July and complete a withdrawal by April 1, 2008.
_______________________________________
Some quotes that I use to guide my own decisions:
“It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.”
-Ayn Rand
“We cannot defeat evil in the world, only resist it in ourselves”
Kung Fu
________________________________________
“Just like the ground that is covered with stones and thorns which cannot be stepped on. In order to make it safe, you cannot cover the whole ground with leather because that would be too much and you will never have enough to cover the whole world. You can just wear shoes and walk. That is very safe.
We do not have to tackle each and every negative action or consequence one by one. We try to tame our own mind, then we have tamed the rest of the defilements, the rest of the causes and conditions.”
Buddha’s teachings
______________________________________
“Success of liberty in other lands increasingly depends on the survival of liberty in our land.”
kitkat (turning a Bushism backwards)
Two points of clarification.
Contrary to what you wrote, most Liberals including Dion did not vote to extend the mission. I saw the vote.
Secondly to not vote for this motion does not mean the mission is endless. The last motion extended it to Feb/09. Parliament will then decide what to do after that. It most likely will not be extended with three parties opposed at this point. At least the Conservatives are letting parliament decide on the mission whereas in the past the Liberal cabinet made the decision to go to Afghanistan and then to move to the dangerous south part of the country.
And the purpose of this motion is what? Forgive me for being so cynical to think the Liberals are attempting to move from their flip flopping position of the past to present a united front of where they now stand on the mission. I feel bad for the soldiers that not only see Canadians divided in their support of what they are doing BUT they also have to endure politicians wavering, conflicted, self interested form of support.
I grow increasingly angry at hearing the Iraq war described by our media as a misadventure or a mistake on the part of the Bush and Blair governments. Allied to this is the cry that the war isn’t working. Let us examine what we know of these governments actions and see if we can’t arrive at a more logical conclusion.
Starting with the Bush administration:
we have heard that another war in Iraq was planned from the start of Bush’s term in office. [1] [2]
we have heard that Bush wanted to attack Iraq straight after 9/11, despite there being no connection between Iraq and the destruction of the Twin Towers. [3] [4] [5]
we know that weapons inspectors operating in Iraq since the first Iraq war had concluded that they were as sure as anyone ever could be that Iraq was disarmed of all weapons of mass destruction [6] [7] [8]. In Febraury 2001Colin Powell even told the Egyptian ambassador that Saddam was no threat to his neighbours. [9]
so we know that the Bush administration lied when it said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, including Colin Powell’s infamous presentation 2 years after that mentioned in the previous point. [10]
we know that the war was decided upon whatever the UN said. [11] [12]
we know that the first Iraq war and the subsequent sanctions had already reduced life for the Iraqi people to a desperate state and had killed hundreds of thousands of people including over 500,000 children.[13] [14]
Similary for Blair’s government:
we know from the Downing Street memos that Blair’s government sought to deceive the public into believing Iraq was a threat, despite all evidence to the contrary. [15] [16]
we know that British and US forces were already bombing Iraq prior to the declared war. [17]
we know that the government and the majority of MP’s voted for the war despite huge opposition from the British public. [18]
we know that when presented with a study showing the death toll as a result of the war was most likely 655,000 or more the Blair government derided the study despite being told by his own advisors that the study was sound and the methods used close to “best practice”. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]
We know that in pursuing this war both US and British forces used depleted uranium [24], which can be classified as a weapon of mass destruction [25] and the use of cluster bombs was also widespread [26]. We know they deliberately destroyed the civilian infrastructure of the country contrary to the rules of the Geneva convention [27] [28]. There are numerous examples of how the Iraqi people are treated as worthless by our armed forces. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Are these actions ones that can lead to the conclusion that the war in Iraq is merely a mistake or misadventure? No, these actions and the determined continuation of them are surely the pursuance of policy. But why would they pursue such a policy? Like anyone looking for a motive we only need ask cui bono? Who benefits?
The answer of course is:
all our arms manufacturers and those involved in that vast multi billion dollar industry. [34] [35]
all those construction companies who have been paid so much for rebuilding so little of what we destroyed. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]
all those “security” companies, otherwise known as mercenaries. [45] [46] [47] [48]
and of course the oil companies who have made so much money from the leap in oil prices and stand to make so much more when they take unprecidented control of Iraq’s oil resources. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]
It may seem unthinkable that anyone would be willing to slaughter so many hundreds of thousands of people and ruin the lives of so many more merely for the financial benefit of a few corporations, but that, as far as I can see, is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the facts. Nor is this an isolated case. Similar analyses can be performed for other interventions: Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Iran, Panama, the list goes on and an entirely consistent picture emerges. Our governments tell us they are taking action in order to bring democracy and freedom or formerly to prevent communist takeovers; our media repeats the mantra almost entirely without questioning it; our governments pour our taxes into funding the onslaught; terrible suffering ensues; various corporations with connections to government figures make huge profits and we sit by and let it happen.
Is this where Canadians want our government to lead us.
I would suggest that it would be much appreciated if both sides stopped playing political games with the mission.
We are committed to Feb 2009. We honour our commitments.
It is premature to decide whether or not we should stay in that role beyond that date.
The question should be asked, debated, and answered either in the spring session of 2008 or the fall session of 2008.
As far as preparations to assume our role past 2009/02 by other countries? They should prepare based on the fact that our commitment is up…
To those who feel we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan because we should only go to war when Canada needs defending, I would say remember 9/11. The enemy came to N.A. and killed many Canadians and many more Americans.
As for a vote … I feel the vote should be on when to revisit the issue. Nobody can predict what the situation will be like there in 2 years. So why not revisit at a later date when the vote may be more relevent to the reality there at that time?
Sure, plans can be made up to withdraw. However, they should be drawn up so that the plan can be invoked when appropriate and not on pre determined dates.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see the enemy all but disappear once they had a firm withdrawal date, only to come back fighting with a vengeance once we started to withdraw.
There’s my 2 cents…
Garth,
We have our differences of opinion so I’ll try to be non-partisan in my response here.
The most recent report by Amnesty International states that there must be increased security in Afghanistan. Without it the Afghani people will continue to be killed and their rights suppressed by the Taliban. NATO and the UN both support the mission to increase security within the country and foster democracy.
It is impossible to know the conditions within Afghanistan in the future. Canada has been involved with peacekeeping in Cyprus since 1964. I don’t believe Canadians want to be seen as ‘quitters’ on the world stage.
Yes, other NATO countries are not putting forward the same commitments as Canadians. That is what makes us different than those countries. Canadians do the difficult tasks, not because they are easy but because we are dedicated to principles that we believe should be upheld throughout the world. We shouldn’t be stating that it is not fair because in 5 or 10 or even 30 years, when the Afghan people are living under a democracy that respects the rights of their citizens, Canadians can look back with pride at OUR accomplishments.
Making this decision now does what to the soldiers morale? the Afghan people’s opinion of Canada especially the ones working with our soldiers? How will the Taliban view this? It just seem wrong, dangerous, counter productive to make such a decision two years ahead of time. The Polticians need to give this more thought!! So much is at stake.
Where’s the accountability with respect to the Afghanis not living up to their end of the bargain?
Just wondering.
It dawned on me that we could set up all the timetables in the world and it wouldn’t matter if there were not consequences.
Just like Iraq. The warlords will just kind of wait around until the Westerners leave, and then have at her.
Where’s the accountability?
Sean,
Really now? How do you think they stopped Hitler? History proves you unequivocally wrong.
On that I can agree. Nice to see you post something I can agree with. However, remember, that it a bullet from Hitler’s own gun that ended his reign, and as far as we know, by his own hand.
Such should be the case for all dictators.
Is it possible to vote for this deadline, allowing an end to be in sight. And then if something happens that alters the current circumstances it can be adjusted accordingly. Like a scaled back operation or specialised forces or whatever may be needed.
It is a delicate issue, but I think that there is a possibility that if you do not put boundaries on our involvement it could go on indefinitely. If we look at the past, it has been an extremily difficult task to truly effect change there. We want to help and we have and are but we have to be responsible for ourselves as well and discuss these things to find the best overall solution.
My opinion is that all such strategic decisions in a war zone MUST be kept confidential.
You don’t tell the enemy what you are doing, when you are doing it, etc. Do the Taliban terrorists or Al Queda give us the heads up about their plans?
I believe that is why the PM, the military, etc. WILL NOT broadcast their future plans. They have said that any extension will be brought to the house for a vote.
Leaving this “potential” of an extension open is sound military tactics to keep the Taliban off guard .even if the desire
Your motion is absolutely stupid in terms of military strategy.
“Canadians” don’t need to know at this time. But, the Taliban would sure like to know.
Which side are the Liberals and Bloc on anyways?
A worthless resolution. I can just imagine what the world would have been like had countries like Canada voted to limit their commitment to fighting the Nazis to 1942.
Maybe, the final answer is to allow the CF troops to cast the vote on when the mission ends? That would be real democracy, eh?
Again, Leasa proves she only believes the rhetoric and doesn’t get her facts in order. There were “24″ Canadians killed in 9/11 – my girlfriend lost her only son in 9/11 – the Taliban did not attack the World Trade Centre. Got it girl.
Things have change – Karzai is running a “corrupt” government.
I think Dion’s motion is the correct thing to do. Think about it – if Harper, God forbid, ever gets a majority – we would be stuck with what he would do. This motion would stop that.
When you listed to the “experts” and not the government rhetoric – things are NOT GOOD and we are being mislead.
Enough already!
Whatever Afganistan started as, it is now a civil war. And with a civil war 2 things must be considered.
1) A civil war will not end until one side is wiped out. That is, either the Taliban are all dead, or “our” side is.
2) Unless the people of Afganistan fight agaisnt the Taliban, their numbers will not fall.
The choice we have then is to fight in this war without end, or commit genocide and completely wipe out the Taliban.
I am all for helping the Afgan people once they have figured out what they want. Until then, my morality says we should pull out – or else we are committing ourselves to a path where the only way out is genocide.
I know this sounds harsh (and some may say over-the-top) but it’s the truth.
Hi Garth,
As much as I get on you about other things I do appreciate your openness. With that in mind, I will try to offer an opinion free of partisanship.
Please vote against this motion. People have made some good points for and against our presence in Afghanistan and I won’t debate them here… The fact is that we have committed ourselves to being there until 2009 and this motion is extraneous and counter-productive. It’s domestic politicking that does nothing but undermine our foreign policy and (not incidentally) our troops. I don’t see how anyone can think that a public commitment to leave – regardless of circumstances – is a positive step. It sends the wrong message about our resolve and it encourages the Taliban to escalate their attacks on our troops. People mock the “simplistic” rhetoric of patriotism and militarism but the fact is that aggression is a simplistic force. If you buckle under aggression then you give the aggressor strength and you increase his aggressiveness. Let’s not buckle.
PMSH, as reported by the media, is saying that NATO is not pushing us for a withdrawal date.
I think the issue here is that NATO has a responsibility to continue the mission in Afghanistan. However, with the exception of a few NATO countries, most have not given the support the mission needed by providing troops or have placed conditions on how their troops should be deployed.
The message PMSH should be sending back to NATO is that we have pulled our weight as far as the mission is concerned and its time for the rest of NATO, British and a few others excepted, needs to step up to the plate.
The way PMSH is handling NATO is leaving Canada in the position of an open ended committment.
Will a vote for bringing our troops home in 2009 send that message to NATO?
And if the vote is for the motion, will NATO be able to continue its commitment to the people of Afghanistan?
Peace is never achieved by the barrel of a gun or tanks.
Really now? How do you think they stopped Hitler? History proves you unequivocally wrong.
By Sean P. Hogan on 04.24.07 10:59 am
A better quotation would be:
True Democracy has never been achieved at the end of a gun.
Call afghan what you will. A REAL democracy they are not… Not yet….and perhaps never. Time shall tell that tale.
A note to our politicans…..If you’re going to vote to sacrifice our children for it, to restructure it, then at least you owe it to them to know the history of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
Here’s a good start,surprisingly enough from a U.S. government site. It covers the ivasions from 328 BC onwards…
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5380.htm
If you are going to have the hubris to dictate their future, at least be aware of the history.
Lorraine,
You pojnt is well made, except, this is a UN/NATO mission and Canada is only one of many participants. Such an announcement would be meaningless in the end result.
The issue remains that CF’s have been doing the brunt of the combat in Kandahar Province, and that is not what we took on as our mission. The Americans have been there right beside us, but they have stretched their own troops to a dangerously thin point.
If there were a crisis in another part of the world, a reql international crisis, the americans would be basically unable to carryon both theaters.
If their goal, under Bush’s ill-conceived plan, is to invade Iran, then they will se casualties that may make WWII look like a walk in the park.
Westerners forget that the Persian Empire, as well as the Medes, have ruled the area for millenia. They have staved off countless enemies, know the territory intimately, and as with all other wars since WWII, the American technological abvantage has been proven null and inert in such conflicts.
I say that as an experienced Viet Nam Marine Vet!
Meanwhile bilions are expended on ‘Glory Hunting’, pridefullness, and the infrastructure and society at home goes into the toilet. Wars cost a LOT of money. Choose wisely!
For all the FUD about having to deal with GW, it sure seems like people have a very distorted view of reality. Not to mention the additional GHG spewed into the atmosphere by weapons of war.
So, while people scream ‘OH NO! Don’t cost me anything to save the planet!’, but many of the same people say, ‘Hey!, Hell yes spend away to have a war!’
What is the disease?
You mention we are making a difference, and I can be certain where our troops are, a difference IS being made. However, the size of our presence there is too small to make an overall impact that would justify the lives (as if) that will be lost…what I mean is, 2000 troops are not going to change Afghanistan, they will make an impact YES, but not to the overall situation example bumper poppy crops over the last 3 years…we should pull since the presence is political, it is not a “true” intervention. Vote with your concience…
Good grief Garth, bring the troops home.
At minimum, we need a definition of success, without that we have no way of knowing what it means to “get the job done.” Does “getting the job done” mean we stay in Afghanistan for as long as the US wants us to stay there? Or is there some tangible goal that we can point ourselves at?
You know that the Taliban had nothing to do with 911 and that we are not in Afghanistan to protect Canada. We aren’t fighting “terrorists” and we certainly aren’t wining hearts and minds. We’re fighting the Pashtun people, the world’s largest tribal people, joined by nationalist forces and former mujahidin from the 1980’s anti-Soviet struggle.
Just ask Josée Vernier how successful we are, there, to date. For security reasons during her recent visit to Afghanistan, Ms Vernier did not visit any of the projects funded by CIDA nor meet any key Afghan stakeholders in Afghan development, let alone the local population.
Afghanistan has been the graveyard of many empires. If 160,000 Soviet troops and 240,000 Afghan Communist soldiers could not defeat the Pashtuns in ten years, how can 50,000 US and NATO troops do it?
-R
our presence there is political window-dressing…
The Russians couldn’t get it done. It is a tribal society and as such will always be divisive.
It’s a tough call. If we committed to 2009 then fufill the obligation and let other NATO countries step in.
It’s a war that cannot be won.
Okay, Bill tell me one country where peace is maintained by guns and tanks in support of a corrupt regime .
You can’t as it doesn’t exist on this planet .
By slg on 04.24.07 12:30 pm
Nobody said the Taliban blew the towers up. I said, if you bothered to read it, that the Taliban in Afghanistan openly harboured and supported Al Qaeda. That’s a fact.
As for the barrel of a gun concept. Sometimes that’s the only way to bring about democracy and change. Wasn’t that long ago, Trudeau used the military right here at home to stop the FLQ…and it worked. L
Peace is never achieved by the barrel of a gun or tanks.
Really now? How do you think they stopped Hitler? History proves you unequivocally wrong.
By Sean P. Hogan on 04.24.07 10:59 am
Okay, wise ass .Name one country that has had peace enforced by guns and tanks that adheres to democratic principles and is run by a corrupt regime .
Yea, thought so . You can’t.
I think that getting rid off the Taliban is a good thing.
However taking into account the huge and porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan and the fact that Musharraf is not doing enough to control the passage of the Taliban into his country and also the fact that France and Germany are not doing their part. I would say then vote to bring them home.
It is impossible to do any rebuilding or humanitarian work when you have to constantly look back so you do not get killed.
Having said that, I think once all troops leave, the Taliban will take over again.
Afghanistan is very fluid and it is impossible to predict what will or will not be required in two years from now. The military on the ground believes in this mission and wants to stay there. Their views should be given the most weight when it comes to vote.
People talk about us being peace keepers while folks before you can keep the peace there must be peace to keep and Afghanistan is not at peace by any stretch of the imagination.
This motion in reality means very little except the Liberals likely feels that it will play well with the public. I say this that the government either Conservative or Liberal can extend the mission beyond 2009 without having to go to parliament for approval. In fact this is how we got in Afghanistan in the first place.
It is indeed unfortunate that the media doesn’t show us how much reconstruction of roads, schools and so on instead of dealing mainly on the war itself.
Finally, My advice Garth is that you vote against the motion since it impossible to for cast what will or will not be required by 2009.
Btw, will this be a free or a whipped vote? Hopefully Dion will lighten up and allow the Liberals to vote their conscience in a fee vote.
The motion is Liberal policy, but – unlike with Conservative and NDP MPs – I have not been told how to vote. — Garth
On that I can agree. Nice to see you post something I can agree with. However, remember, that it a bullet from Hitler’s own gun that ended his reign, and as far as we know, by his own hand.
Thank you, yes, but it was all the guns and cannons and so forth which lead to him taking the coward’s way out.
I feel bad for the soldiers that not only see Canadians divided in their support of what they are doing BUT they also have to endure politicians wavering, conflicted, self interested form of support.
By Ken on 04.24.07 11:55 am
Geez, I don’t know how you slice-dice to arrive at that conclusion. Look at the losses. Don’t you think it’s reasonable to ‘be conflicted’ when you have misgivings about the potential for future losses? I say it’s a question of arriving at a stop-point, setting conditions, serving notice, and leaving.
I call those concerns part of a re-assessment and a willingness to not sacrifice our people in an obviously pointless conflict. I don’t see how that can even remotely be considered as a lack of support.
Someone mentioned turning the poppy trade on its head by buying the producation at drug-runner prices for processing in Canada. With the growth of the poppy trade over the past 3-4 years, that’s not a bad idea. Alternatively, they could find another crop which gives the Afghan farmer a similar return. For the life of me, I don’t know what crop that might be.
True Democracy has never been achieved at the end of a gun.
Call afghan what you will. A REAL democracy they are not… Not yet….and perhaps never. Time shall tell that tale.
By SJ on 04.24.07 12:36 pm
Hmmm, would you say that Germany has true democracy now? How about Canada? We fought for our sovereignty. Is there such a thing as true democracy?
No,without a huge and massive input of material and manpower from NATO we must draw the line and commit to a with drawl in 09 ‘
We are left with little choice . Peace is never achieved by the barrel of a gun or tanks .
By Jackie Chan’s Left Hand on 04.24.07 10:45 am
Key word; Manpower from NATO.
I agree. Unless we start having some much needed help from them, we stick to our guns & withdraw from there in 2009.
People are forgetting that we are there propping up a hideously corrupt regime headed by Mo Karzai .
I wonder how many of his potential political opponents have disappeared in the desert .
Forget about western style democracy.Never going to happen .
In modern times Russia got their butts kicked by the Mujiahedeen forces that were armed by the CIA .
Taliban and Al Quida have Saudi Arabia ,Syria,Iran and a host of other countries arming the insurgency as it is a holy war being fought against the infidels .
No one, including Alexander the Great, has ever been able to impose rule on this lawless state .
Poppy production increses year by year giving the insurgency a ton of money to buy weapons .
It is a pipe dream of western democracies that they can achieve peace in Afghanistan .
Firstly, I think that anyone under the impression that Afghanistan is less than a 20 year project is kidding themselves. We are trying to help them rebuild a civil society, and that will take a long, long time.
Secondly, I think the real problem here is not that Canadian troops currently have a combat role, but instead that many other countries who have troops in the region are unwilling to have one.
Suppressing the Taliban insurgency is definitely a necessary part of the work being done in Afghanistan, but the mission is doomed is it’s going to be left to Canada and the United States to do all of the fighting.
As a Canadian, I support our combat role there, but I find the Conservatives attempt to make it into a patriotic war to be disgusting and totally characteristic of them. I think that if we are going to introduce legislation regarding our role there, it should be about tying our combat committement to that of other countries in the region. February 2009 seems like a reasonable timeline for a crossroads, and it should stand.
Finally, as an aside, I’m against the tank purchase as it doesn’t mesh with our very successful tactic of engaging the locals. You cannot build rapport with the afghanis from inside a tank.
Good 10:23 post Bill.
Regarding your first suggestion, unfortunately, it aint never gonna happen. We gotta stop pussyfooting around and contain the Taliban in Pakistan by nuking the mountains and the Khyber Pass. Aint war Hell?
PMSH should lose no sleep PROMISING twice as many virgins in the afterlife than the Taliban do, to attract volunteers. Heck, if he would promise as well, an endless supply of Viagra, I would be sorely tempted to fly the mission myself. LOL.
On a serious note, our boys deserve an immediate resolution. One wonders how many of our posters, in favour of their continued role in Afghanistan, comprehend the horror that is war.
PER ARDUA AD ASTRA
Show some respect you Kool-Aide swilling punk . – ROGER
Wholly crap! Tell that to someone who was over there. Tell them that they weren’t making a difference.
What an ignorant comment!
Garth, Just think it over VERY carefully and apply YOUR best judgment.
It is a case in which Canada has already given FAR more than our military can sustain in its present condition, BUT our soldiers will ALWAYS do what is asked of them. Even to the death.
It is up to the parliament of Canada and us, the people to see that they are cared for as they deserve.
Our “allies” have to do their part too!
Right on Roger but we are also keeping GW happy.
Bill…you have to tell them they are right, otherwise they will go on and on and on…until they put you to sleep!
As for the barrel of a gun concept. Sometimes that’s the only way to bring about democracy and change.
Have you given an consideration to the idea that they may not want democracy as we see it?
Garth,
I think Canada should set a time line to pull troops out of, at least, the combat. War is not capable of solving ANY problem, let alone achieving democracy. The real solution has to be a political solution including every party. By setting a combat withdraw time line, it will put pressure on finding a peace solution which is the only correct way to go.
thanks!
This is what I know – our soldiers, my son being one of them, are immensely proud of their work in Afghanistan. The stories of life there are unparalled to anything I have ever seen or known in my life. And it appears that this has been their way of life for decades, if not centuries. The reconstruction efforts being done are admirable and are most definitely providing better living, learning and medical conditions to the Afghan people. The Afghan people have nothing – really nothing to look forward to in their daily lives – can we imagine a life like that? Our presence there has given them a chance for a life – hopefully that will allow education to flourish and children to be decently fed, clothed and nurtured.
This is a UN / NATO sanctioned joint effort to be maintained by member nations – and Canada has provided brave and admirable assistance in their role as a NATO member. Other NATO countries know of the need but are not responding in kind. There is the rub – an open ended commitment in Afghanistan will, in my opinion, allow other NATO members to continue to lag behind in their responsibilities to contribute viable troops to this mission. I believe that NATO should be informed now, and informed clearly that Canada will NOT remain as a combatant force in Afghanistan beyond February 2009. The message is for NATO, loud and clear. This motion,as I know it, does not imply whatsoever that there is any lack of support for our troops – this is partisan nonsense. Canada should not wait for NATO to ask us about our future plans – tell them right now – our combat troops are out in February 2009 – time for other NATO members to step up. I know that reconstruction teams will be needed and I see no problem with Canada continuing in this area – it is the open-ended combat issue that concerns me. I remember that PMSH – in Opposition – berated PM Chretien for NOT sending Canadian troops into Iraq as a sign of support for our American friends. This folly would have placed us well within the Vietnam-style quagmire that the USA is in today. Thank goodness our government of that day made the right decision. I have no confidence that PMSH would make the right decision regarding our troops remaining in Afganistan. I honestly believe that if PMSH had a majority government we would have virtually no discussion on this issue – far too much reigning in of free expression and discussion. I certainly hope that this issue does not become wrapped within a Confidence Measure…if so, what would the NDP do then? Food for thought. A most interesting posting from most bloggers today Garth, and when it comes time to vote, I for one know that you will vote with doubts, questions and regrets, no matter what. Life as an MP can be very lonely at these times – I know, I used to work for one. Good luck, today will be a tough one…I can see both sides, but would prefer that the motion pass.
Garth, I am responding to this issue with the Serenity Prayer rattling around in my head. Given the number of lives that could be saved by supporting peaceful projects around the world, wouldn’t our money and energies be better spent there? I don’t think the acquisition of Leopard tanks does much to relieve the suffering of Africa’s AIDS and malaria victims. Personally, I think their purchase is in anticipation of an invasion of Iran, conveniently next door to Afghanistan – classic two front invasion. As for the doomsayers, I, for one, grow very weary of their persistent paranoia. We are not being invaded. There is no clear and present danger. More people have died from any number of preventable causes than died on 9/11. Let’s work on what we can solve.
Prior to this war in Afghanistan the Soviet army had between 120,000 and 180,000 ground troops during the ten years of war. This number proved to be insufficient to control the occupied territories. According to the former top Soviet commanders in Afghanistan, they required around 500,000 troops to control the captured territory of Afghanistan without having to rely on the “friendly” locals.
Current troop strength in Afghanistan is around 30,000 .
With this kind of troop deployment we are off by a magnitude of ten .
First, the goals set by the US are very similar to those pursued by the USSR: an establishment of a friendly regime in Afghanistan. In this regard Soviet goals in 1979 were more attainable because such a government has already existed in the country and enjoyed considerable public support. On the other hand, today we do not have East-West standoff of the two superpowers, that fuelled the Afghan opposition to the Soviets.
What we still have in Afghanistan, however, is the lack of understanding, to put it mildly, between numerous ethnic and religious groups. We also have Pakistan, which is somewhat supportive of Taliban and cannot be effectively controlled by its government. And we have something the USSR did not have to deal with in 1980s – the Al Qaeda and the threat of nuclear and biochemical terrorism .
In other words, I think its unfounded to call the situation in Afghanistan any easier than it was in 1980s or the goals set by the US any easier to achieve than those set by the USSR twenty years ago. So far we have seen very little of what is,actually, going on in Afghanistan. The media coverage of the conflict is very patchy at best. In most cases the reporters show astonishing lack of historical knowledge and understanding of Afghanistan, which is inevitably reflected in the news reports wee get from the region.
When the US started its campaign against bin Laden and Al Qaeda, my impression was that the primary goal was to prevent any further terrorist attacks against the United States, not to provide social services to the Afghans, including the Taliban fighters who now pose as peaceful civilians. I think it is this expansion of goals that will make the outcome of this war very different from the outcome of the Persian Gulf War.
What is really disturbing, in my opinion, is that today Americans are not feeling any less vulnerable to possible terrorist attacks than they did after September 11 attacks. This situation is illustrated by the very response of the American public and economy to the threats of further terrorist attacks recently made by the Taliban’s leader Mullah Omar.
Concentrating of Afghanistan may help to bring down the Taliban, however, it will not end Al Qaeda activities. The real strength of this organization always was and continues to be Saudi Arabia. Of course, the US cannot bomb its main gas station.
As stated without an enormous commitment from NATO we have no choice but to leave Afghanistan in in 09′ .
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the breadth of the motion, but would it not be reasonable to re-affirm our February 2009 extension, and leave open the option for Canadian aid and reconstruction efforts in the northern provinces while our so-far non-combatant NATO allies take over in the south, e.g., Kandahar?
This seems a reasonable way to continue to help Afghanistan (if it wants our help) while not having our forces take the brunt for perhaps another 15 years as O’Connor has opined.
O/T, Garth, is there any way the opposition parties can force the resignation of Gordon O’Connor? He seriously needs to go. If he doesn’t understand Human Rights then he cannot be a proper Defence Minister.
Garth,
I think you should vote for the motion.
Not so that our troops will come home in 2009, but to get the rest of NATO to realise that Canada will not shoulder most of the burden alone. This mission will take more than another decade to complete. But we cannot do this on our own.
Voting for this motion should cause some of the other NATO allies to pony up more troops so Canada does not always have to be the tip of the spear.
But either way, this is not an easy call.
Good luck
Ray
Tim N,
“1) A civil war will not end until one side is wiped out. That is, either the Taliban are all dead, or “our†side is.”
So the South in the US Civil War was wiped out? Then why were there all those KKK members in the years following the war? Shouldn’t the North have killed them all? Because according to you, genocide is the conclusion of a civil war.
The fact is that civil wars can end in many different ways. In most conflicts, one side simply loses the will to fight any longer or runs out of resources to fight.
As for the barrel of a gun concept. Sometimes that’s the only way to bring about democracy and change.
Have you given an consideration to the idea that they may not want democracy as we see it?
By PJW on 04.24.07 1:47 pm
Tell that to the women who are tortured and murdered. No disrespect, but the answer is obvious. But at the same time, they may not want the exact same type of government but that doesn’t mean they don’t want to be democratic.
Show some respect you Kool-Aide swilling punk . – ROGER
Wholly crap! Tell that to someone who was over there. Tell them that they weren’t making a difference.
What an ignorant comment!
By ERIC FOREMAN on 04.24.07 1:22 pm
You are the ignorant and stupid one as I never said any such thing .
Your neo-con spin won’t work on me so don’t even try .
I don’t think telling our NATO allies that we have given up two years before the deadline is a smart move. It’s irresponsible in fact. We should make that decision collectively with all our allies including the Dutch closer to the deadline. Just my opinion.
Tell that to the women who are tortured and murdered.
Unfortunately I cannot afford the trip.
So I won’t be able to tell them anything. I just think sometimes we try to export democracy on our terms and fail to hear what the locals really want, but like I say, I haven’t been there and only get my information from the media and that is hardly positive.
Hey Garth. Not an easy decision. My support for the afghan mission has fluctuated over the last couple of years. The primary reason is that I don’t see a military solution.
We are handicapped because the “enemy” can sustain themselves from Pakistan. If the Pakistani government can’t control its own borders (or gain the following of its own “citizens” living along the Afghan border), then what are we/NATO doing there? In the end are we just helping one warlord over another? That was how the US defeated the Taliban to begin with (through the “Northern Alliance”).
So, I would vote in favour of the resolution. We can recommit later if circumstances warrant. But, until we can address the underlying reasons that enable the enemy to succeed, I don’t think we shoudl stay indefinitely.
This isn’t a military
opps sorry forget that last post, thank you.
Tell that to the women who are tortured and murdered. No disrespect, but the answer is obvious. But at the same time, they may not want the exact same type of government but that doesn’t mean they don’t want to be democratic.
By Sean P. Hogan on 04.24.07 2:02 pm
And how many Afghans have you talked to on a personal basis ?
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE
If we are going to stay in Afghanastan, then do what must be done. Use modern technology and wipe out every Opium Poppie Field in the country. This is the main source financing terrorism. Force the farmers to grow something else, say crops for bio-fuel.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MCS306A.html
JCLH,
Okay, Bill tell me one country where peace is maintained by guns and tanks in support of a corrupt regime .
You can’t as it doesn’t exist on this planet.
Jackie, I hate to say this, but honesty does not allow me not to. IRAQ! before Dubya decided to overthrow Sodumb Insane. Now, at least, we know why he ruled the bloody country with an Iron Fist!
On the more humous side Baird just stated ‘The Bloc Quebecois does not believe in economic growth!’ Man, they are really sucking down their own Kool-Aide now that the warm weather has come.
PJW,
Bill…you have to tell them they are right, otherwise they will go on and on and on…until they put you to sleep!
Sheesh! You must be right because I just woke back up? LOL
Actually reading some comments is more effective than going to a hypnotist! ‘You are getting sleepy…very sleepy…very, very slee……’
Tell that to the women who are tortured and murdered. No disrespect, but the answer is obvious. But at the same time, they may not want the exact same type of government but that doesn’t mean they don’t want to be democratic.
No…they want bread, jobs, along with law and order.
I think that this is the correct policy mix here is best summed up as:
“A deadline if necessary, but not necessarily a deadline”
“Okay, Bill tell me one country where peace is maintained by guns and tanks in support of a corrupt regime .” -Jackie Chan’s Left Hand
China?
Your neo-con spin won’t work on me so don’t even try . – JCLH
Does this mean you don’t love me anymore?
We are not peacekeepers in Afghanistan.
What we are doing there is best described as Nation-building. It’s also one of the most difficult tasks that can ever be undertaken. Setting a timetable is a great idea, but the problem is that it gives the Taliban a date to work with, something to prepare for and make plans. In that way, I do not support the motion.
Vote against the motion and call for a set of UN developed criteria underwhich Canada will leave.
Okay,Bill . But Sodom hardly was a democratic leader.An iron fisted tyrant,yes,a benevolent loved leader,No.
The Taliban were not involved with 9/11 and neither was Saddam Hussein contrary to what many americans believe- the pilots were from Saudi Arabia – why didn’t the U.S. bomb Saudi Arabia? I don’t believe the war in Afghanistan is winnable – the Brits and Russians couldn’t win, neither can we. Look at the recent “surge” in Iraq, it has only increased the violence, 157 Iraqis killed in one day, but the Americans have achieved what they wanted – all the contracts are finalized with Exxon and Shell. Halliburton has earned millions of $$ in contracts. Over 600,000 innocent Iraqis were killed.
Captain George
your comment about using technology to eradice poppies – what do you suggest Afghan farmers grow that will get the return they get on poppies – corn? or starve?
Garth: I have a compromise solution. All those who are in favour of extending Canada’s mission past Feb 2009 can volunteer for military service, be deployed in Afghanistan and of course, pay all of the costs of their deployment. Sean P Hogan, Get a Rope, Leasa, GGF – report to the local recruiting office.
And how many Afghans have you talked to on a personal basis ?
By Jackie Chan’s Left Hand on 04.24.07 2:23 pm
About as many as you but I use common sense.
I just think sometimes we try to export democracy on our terms and fail to hear what the locals really want, but like I say, I haven’t been there and only get my information from the media and that is hardly positive.
By PJW on 04.24.07 2:18 pm
The thing is, is that they have their government. We’re just there to protect them from terrorists like the Taliban.
Michael Harris makes some good points in the article End Mission Impossible – http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Harris_Michael/2007/04/20/4078983.html
AFghanistan’s Puppet Prez’s own cabinet ministers own many of the biggest poppy farms, which basically makes them drug dealers, which affects our kids here.
I don’t want Canada associated with that kind of corruption within a supposed made-in-U.S. democracy. It’s all B-shite.
Vote Yay!
Oh and this is so dam depressing
“So we’re pretty surprised to be able to bring you this journalistic coup: Darrel Reid is back in town. Darrel Reid used to be head of the Canadian arm of Focus on the Family, when it was an a zealous “anti” phase. Anti-abortion rights. Anti-gay marriage. And, if you believe the Xtra, anti-feminist. Reid has been hired on as deputy director of policy and research in the PMO. He already did a stint in Rona Ambrose’s office when she was Minister of the Environment, after his previous employer (FotF) denounced climate change as “environmental theory yet to be adequately established.”
I guess Harpo has to give a pound of flesh to his voter base. Ugh!
Elizabeth,
Anything but Heroin . A farmer growing a new crop will likely live, drug addicts in cities around the world will likely not.
Who can predict what the situation will be in 2009? It is indeed a riddle wrapped up inside of an enigma wrapped up inside of a mystery. It is veilled from us at the moment.
So why make a decision today based on what we don’t know in the future? We need to make some decisions based on what is clearly needed at the time.
Liberal Leader Stephan Dion first suggested Canada should transport prisoners detained in Afghanistan back to Canada but then rejected the idea. This does little to negate the image of Dion as one who finds it difficult to make decisions, and to stick with them, or to advocate policy before it has been properly thought through.
He can ill afford another example of speaking before the position has been properly thought through and discussed.
We need leaders of clear vision who have thought through their positions, and then speak them out clearly.
Only such a vision will inspire confidence for people to follow. If people lack confidence that the visionary will change his mind, they will be reluctant to follow until he demonstrates a clear-sighted sense of direction.
Okay, wise ass .Name one country that has had peace enforced by guns and tanks that adheres to democratic principles and is run by a corrupt regime .
Yea, thought so . You can’t.
By Jackie Chan’s Left Hand on 04.24.07 1:01 pm
You’re changing the question because you didn’t like the reply to your last question, even though it totally refuted your statement.
In reply to your challenge, there is no such beast as after a country is freed, such as France, Austria and so forth, were able to return to their former state before Germany invaded them. So, my question is, what was your point again???
Elizabeth-The Taliban were involved in 9/11 because the training camps were in Afganistan.
But you raise a good point about the Saudi pilots.Saudia Arabia had more responsibility for 9/11 than Iraq,and both North Korea and Iran were more of a threat to the U.S.A. than Iraq at the time.
But Dubya decided to do in Iraq instead.And remember,Dubya is the decider,no one else!
As for Poppies,the Taliban outlawed their growth and did a bang up job stopping poppy farming.The liberation of Afganistan got it going again,full speed.
Hmmm, would you say that Germany has true democracy now? – Sean P. Hogan
Yes it is, but only after the guns fell silent and the threat of guns from the former USSR were removed from East Germany.
Guns only bring temporary peace, a peace under the spectre of war.
For true peace both sides have to talk to each other, face to face. Until then, the enemy are just faceless people fighting for a different cause.
And even then, don’t expect miracles overnight.
It was a sight for sore eyes when the Rev. Ian Paisley sat down in the same room with Gerry Adams in Northern Ireland a few months ago. That dispute had been going on since 1969. Not until people on both sides said enough and started talking did the people of Northern Ireland get on the road to real peace.
So maybe, George W. needs to get of his self righteous God Bless America horse, and use his voice for talking instead of bombs. Sometimes he makes me want to vomit.
BTW. When the Germans caught the French Resistance, they shot them because they were seen as terrorists. The Allies were appauled and rightly so. Then why should we not treat Talibhan prisoners with some decency?
Or does it depend on whether they’re fighting for you or against you? Well we can see the answer to this question from all the friendly fire incidents. Over the moon until they find out they just bombed someone on their side.
It shouldn’t matter whose side they’re on.
Rant over…….
Garth, As you know I am a serving member and have deployed to the Gan twice. I truly believe it is too soon to show our hand to the Taliban, I can with out hesitation assure all posters that what we do just as well as fight or peace keep is plan the living daylights out of things and if in fourteen months the will of the people and the House is to pull pole (army talk for leave) then the plan will already be there(more then likely already done and sitting on a hard drive in Ottawa) and just need to be tweaked. I can also truly tell you that the troops are doing yeoman work for the afgan people but for some strange reason the development successes do not make the cover of the MSM. I guess the saying “if it bleeds it leads” is true. Garth, At this point, from the view of a soldier who has been on the ground I must advise you to vote against the motion.
Garth…I think you should vote based of your own assessment of the stiuation, generally speaking, if I read it correctly, the opinions expressed here pretty much fall on party lines as usual. Good luck!
“Actually reading some comments is more effective than going to a hypnotist! ‘You are getting sleepy…very sleepy…very, very slee……’” –By Bill-Muskoka.
Bill, I enjoy your sense of humour. You and I are becoming the best of friends!
A Liberal motion calling for Canadian troops to withdraw from combat in Afghanistan by 2009 appears headed for defeat.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Tories will oppose the motion, aimed at guaranteeing the combat mission won’t be extended beyond the current commitment, which is scheduled to end in February 2009. New Democrats also plan to vote against the motion late Tuesday; they contend Canadian soldiers should immediately be withdrawn from combat duty in the increasingly bloody Kandahar province.
“Okay,Bill . But Sodom hardly was a democratic leader.” –Jackie Chan’s Left Hand.
Are you talking about a person or a place? I didn’t think that they had democracy is Sodom either.
In reply to your challenge, there is no such beast as after a country is freed, such as France, Austria and so forth, were able to return to their former state before Germany invaded them. So, my question is, what was your point again???
By Sean P. Hogan on 04.24.07 3:31 pm
You are, without a doubt, the funniest person in this forum, Sean. What led up to WWII anyway, Sean. Don’t spare the horses now, tell us, from the depth of your historic knowledge, what was the cause? Sweet Jaysuz, I’ve never met anyone who professed the faith, as being more stupid {stupider, be that a word] than you.
Ask Garth to get me suspended, wontcha?
What absolute HORSE[POOP]INGS!
I have a simple question for you: how many volunteer CF members have you or your new party consulted? Just curious,
JCLH,
Okay,Bill . But Sodom hardly was a democratic leader.An iron fisted tyrant,yes,a benevolent loved leader,No.
Actually, Jackie, he was elected, just like Dubya, the Hamas leader, etc.. Bush is not a beloved leader any more, and neither is Harper, or Howard Down Under…but all were democratically elected.
Even Iran’s President was elected, yet will the west recognize that fact? Oh, Hell no, because they won’t play the game the way the U.S. Britian, and Harper want them to, which is ‘Bow down and be humble before your Lord and Master. Same goes for Hugo Chavez. HYPOCRITES all!
So much for the delusion that ‘democracy’ cures all evil in this world. Next question mon ami!
Anything but Heroin . A farmer growing a new crop will likely live, drug addicts in cities around the world will likely not.
Your tax dollars at work.
But what’s the solution?
I hear a lot of drawn out arguments about Germany, China, Japan, WWII and so on, but no solutions.
What’s the Conservative solution? Status quo? Status quo doesn’t seem to be working.
What’s the Liberal alternative and vision for Afghanistan? Abandonment? I don’t think that’s going to work for us. Maybe say ‘FU Europeans’ and go home? does that work for us?
I hear a lot of sizzle on both sides of the aisle.
Nobody is showing me the steak.
By KPK on 04.24.07 2:15 pm
Put them ‘on notice’ for Chrissake!
I failed to acknowledge the Brits in my previous, along with the US, Dutch and others. If France and Germany don’t want to “haul ass” give them the Prince Philip urinal treatment.
I’ll be damned if I would permit our sons and daughters to continue in the blood sacrifice. How’s ’bout being struck in the head by a 17-year old with an axe, because he’s heard the Canucks are raping their women. Now, obviously, that had to come from somewhere in the tribal hierarchy.
Please
Bring them back! one more dead is too much!
You might recall that Parliament voted lasted year to extend the Afghan mission to February, 2009. I supported that move, as did most Liberals.
Most Liberals voted last year to extend the mission? Since when was less than a third the same as most.
The biggest market for heroine is in north america. So why did we stop funding to Insite in Vancouver that was trying to deal with addiction as a health issue?
The Afghan situation will not be solved by war. The country is run by warlords who get their money from heroin. The border with Pakistan is porous, drug money keeps pouring in, and for every Afghan killed or tortured 10 more Taliban members are created.
The solution is to bring the opium poppy production onto the side of law – by legalizing it as a source of medical morphine. The profits would go to the legitimate government and be used for schools, and modern infrastructure.
It’s amazing how people lose their appetite for armed resistance once they are part of the middle class.
As far as Canada’s mission there, as far as I’m concerned it was a bone thrown to George Bush when he was at his most rapid “with us or with the terrorists” stage. He is now the lamest of lame duck presidents. No need to humour him along any more.
Canada must not be drawn any deeper into the bogus “war on terror”.
You’re changing the question because you didn’t like the reply to your last question, even though it totally refuted your statement.
The day you can refute anything I say is a long,long way off .
As to the poppy fields. Poppies, that beautiful flower of Flander’s Field we wear so proudly on Remebrance Day, is the source of opium. From opium is derived, by chemical processing, morphine, heroine, and other narcotic substances used positively in medicinal treatment.
Right now there is a world shortage of morphine, so what are they doing? Burning and spraying the poppy fields to make the nutbars in the U.S. Christian Right feel their War on Drugs is winning!
Yeah right, and I am going to go out on my patio and leap over the moon tonight just because I need to believe I can do it!
I say let the Afghan farmers grow, and help them produce as much poppies as they are able, control the sale to legal buyers, and help them climb out of their desparate situation.
One constant remains…where egos are involved intelligence is made null and void! What is the disease and who is spreading it?
You say in your entry that most liberals supported extending the mission. I believe that is either an error or revisionist history, didn’t fewer than 1/3 of liberals support the extension?
Just checking.
I think you should vote to stop our mission by February 2009.
I do not believe we should leave it open ended after being there for 7 plus years. Our partners will know now of our intend to pull out by 02/09
If the “situation” changes for better or worse later the house can always reopen the issue.
Bill,if we can control the sale and shipping,you’re right on to let them grow it.
Sorry, Garth, no time to develop reasons, but -
First, the motion is a mistake. There is no need to vote in 2007 on whether to continue past 2009. All the motion will do is hand Harper the “Support the Troops” stick to beat Harper and Dion with and to demonstrate the patriotism of his CPC.
Second, having gotten into this motion, vote for an end of the mission in Feb 09. The mission as stated is idiotic in view of Afghan history and reality. That tribal sow’s ear cannot be turned into a modern, democratic and prosperous silk purse in one generation.
We tied ourselves hand and foot to the Bush Administration under NATO and UN fig leaves. It is time we joined those countries who preserved a degree of separation between themselves and US policy, put a limit on our involvement, and forced the USA to get real.
Why are the Liberals bringing this motion to the House when the Gov’t voted in 2006 to extend the mission to 2009? Is this to satisfy the rebels within the Liberal Party? Can’t he control the troops or is this another FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP?
I meant “extend the mission to 2009″
Garth,
Firstly vote against it sorry I don’t think this is the time. Maybe next spring.
Second I see so many people saying Germany is not pulling it’s weight but if the were to look it up they would find that since WWII Germany until just recently was not allowed by their constitution to have active troops outside of their country. They are still trying to get their head around this new reality. France is a different story but they think they shouldn’t be in any combat situation (sounds like some in Canada). Peacekeepers only after someone else makes it for them.
I say let the Afghan farmers grow, and help them produce as much poppies as they are able, control the sale to legal buyers, and help them climb out of their desparate situation. – Bill Muskoka.
You hit the nail on the head! I know a local pharmacist who suggested the exact thing. I bet if the big pharmaceutical lobby suggested it, old Dubya would see the light! And lets not kid ourselves, NATO policy is being dictated to by Dubya!
I have a simple question for you: how many volunteer CF members have you or your new party consulted? Just curious, – BOB
The honeymoon is over. None were! Right Garth!
And..
What a good idea! Let’s tell the enemy the exact date of our withdrawl. And for those people who believe we are treating the Taliban unfairly, maybe we should give them our military plans as well.
Stupid Liberals.
My belief is this is not a “war against terror”. Our troops are playing against a stacked deck, simply pawns in a larger scheme set up by the Americans, who started the whole godforsaken bloody mess and now state the rallying cry of bringing democracy etc etc to Af’Stan etc etc. Such utter crap. It will never happen, and they never cared before 9/11 did they? And we all knew what the Taliban was doing.
I say pull out now. And if not now February 09. as the latest. Then we can remain to do what we can to repair some of the horrendous damage that has been done to the country. Which will be difficult as the Karsia Gov. is corrupt too. But we can try.
More knowledgeable minds than mine know better what Afghanistan needs than I do, but tanks and planes and soldiers and other countries playing war games for years in their country, and then of course there’s the occupation forever afterwards, is not it.
2 cents Out as soon as possible.
By dumbfounded on 04.24.07 4:59 pm
Thy name suits thee for truth, untruths and NeanderCon leanings.
In which group of the Candian Forces have you served?
You seem like most in the NeanderCon hierarchy, no military service, but very ready to make and meet a pledge as long as it’s not you in the battle.
I’d love to send Rob Anders into battle.
Would he soil himself? Too bloody right!
Elias,
“I have a compromise solution. All those who are in favour of extending Canada’s mission past Feb 2009 can volunteer for military service,”
I might have, but I have medical conditions that prevent me from joining.
Question, would you expect all the Liberal MPs who vote to keep us in Afghanistan to also volunteer for service?
Stupid Liberals.
By ERIC FOREMAN on 04.24.07 5:32 pm
Why don’t you grow up and learn to be civil..your attack mode is boring and revealing and hurting your cause.
lol, Late again!
The trouble with living on the left coast. 3 times zones over, I slept in. I am catching QP on rerun from this morning. And they are voting on this issue again as I write:)
I am all the time 3 hours late.
oooo Rob Anders is a right irritating miserable little twit isn’t he?
Atypical of the 101st fighting keyboardists. But that sort abounds on that side of the aisle.
Eric Foreman is probably a card carrying member. All talk, no action. Except for what he will now pull out of a Tom Clancy novel or one of his gun mags.
Lets ‘er rip EF
I am glad my 20 odd yr old and his multitude of friends in the same age bracket said “no thanks, not interested and not going”. That’s it over and out!
Interesting news. The US Senate has had the Pentagon “by the nuts” on their hearing about the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tilman stories. Turns out, Jessica declares her ‘heroic’ effort to be a falsification … while Tilman was killed in a friendly fire accident.
The axis of evil decreases into smaller and smaller circles. Chalk it up to David Frum[p] and his friends from Canada who attended the RNC in New York.
I can’t wait to put the Greb Kokiak to their collective arses.
Thy name suits thee for truth, untruths and NeanderCon leanings.
In which group of the Candian Forces have you served?
You seem like most in the NeanderCon hierarchy, no military service, but very ready to make and meet a pledge as long as it’s not you in the battle.
I’d love to send Rob Anders into battle.
Would he soil himself? Too bloody right!
By Pyotr Petrobitch on 04.24.07 5:37 pm
Sorry Garth but this a**hole is nothing but a hemmeroid infested blight on society.
I wasn’t going to lower myself to respond but for his info I’m not a con,lib nor dipper. But I did spent 20 years in the military and have been in situations that would turn him and his overlarge mouth into a pool of quivering jelly.
My name dumbfounded is based on “Everyday I don’t think people can get any stupider but everyday I’m proved horribly wrong.
pouty petro bitch you prove the point
GGF:
The fact is that civil wars can end in many different ways. In most conflicts, one side simply loses the will to fight any longer or runs out of resources to fight.
-Granted – I was being dramatic. But seeing how the Taliban are willing to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up to take out 1 or 2 of “our” side makes me think it will be some time before they give up….
Garth,
I haven’t seen the feed yet. How did you vote.
Against – Thank You
For – I respect your opinion
Correct me if I am wrong but that sure looked like a whipped vote.
Ah, Eric Armpit, the youngest member of the neo-Con goon squad, squeaks up again.
Problem is the quality of the people involved now. CPC (Jay Hill, idiot of the week) keep trying to compare it to WWII. No comparison whatsoever.
We had real leaders then – Churchill, King and Roosevelt and we had “real” “quality” generals. And they didn’t have Col. Lobbyist (O’Connor) then. Mega difference just in the quality of the former “deciders”.
Also, all countries were “willing” allies – NATO countries aren’t all willing in Afghanistan.
NO LIE IS TOO SMALL!
Can you say WMD? How’s ’bout yellow cake?
… What’s next? Find a tree with big PEACHES and IMPEACH the son of a bitch. I’ll NEVER forget General Powell, up to that point, a most honourable man, standing with a pointer in his hand, directing everyone to a photo of trailers in a remote desert location
… while claiming they were the foundation for a planned gas attack.
How about the US ambassador and his good wife Valerie [member of the CIA] who was vengefully placed in jeopardy by lies the US administration spread.
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2007/04/24/ap/headlines/d8on6nd00.txt
I still want Rob Anders sent to Afghanistan … IMMEDIATELY!
PJW,
Have you given an consideration to the idea that they may not want democracy as we see it?
Putin said the same thing. When one considers what ‘democracy’, more often than not produces, one must sit and reflect on its true value over say a monarchy?
With a monarchy, at least the person spends a lifetime preparing for the position from birth literally.
In a ‘democracy’ one must be highly selective that it does not turn into a ‘demoncracy’ populated by oligarchs solely looking after their own interests while telling the masses how they will do this or that ‘if elected!’ Sound familiar? It does to me.
When I see something other than a money oriented system elect true non-partisan representatives of the people, then I will have faith in ‘democracy!’
Garth, Where did you find the pic, Combat Camera.
Bill, yea I was aware that Sodom was elected he got 100 % of the vote .
Polling observers weren’t sure if it was a free and open election though . LOL
Jack Layton makes me sick. Nobody will forget he put Harper in power and has kept him there. Do you sleep well at night Jack?
Ack Bill!
I went back a few days a found your response.
Thanks…I think:)
I’m thinking.
G
Well Mr. Turner, how did you vote? and was the weblog useful or helpful in determining your position?
I think it is important to point out that our military is a volunteer military. Most of the men and women who are in Afganistan voluntered to go. They were not forced. There can be a variety of reasons a soldier might want to go.
I think we need to stay until a viable exit strategy is formulated. Otherwise we send the wrong message to the rest of the world.
Will the same bleeding heart leftists, who seem to have more concern for the Taliban (if question period is anything to go on..)
be singing the same song when they demand a pullout of our CAF from Darfur?
More than likely…
It’s where they want to send them..do they think it will be safer there, or that our men and women won’t have to kill to make peace?
Smitty,
Bill,if we can control the sale and shipping,you’re right on to let them grow it.
It is called C^3I Command, Control, Communications & Intelligence.
Control the roads, the airports, and the seaports. How will the Taliban get it out?
Oh! I know, through Pakistan on foot. The same way Ho Chi Min brought thousands of tonnes of materials south into Viet Nam by jungle pathways on bicycles…200 lbs per bike walked through the jungle.
We have satlellites, UMV’s, AWACS, with micro millimetre RADAR, and they can’t stop it? BULLSHIT!
The Fat Albert balloon RADARs along the U.S. Mexico border are so sensitive they can detect a person walking across the desert. Ask any captured drug dealer.
Now, onto a REAL situation Canadians face…CONTAMINATED AMERICAN PRODUCE!
Global National ran a segment tonight which clearly showed that under Dubya, the U.S.D.A. has had a 25% reduction in funding, their inspectors are far too few, and there are no MANDATORY COMPLIANCE for producers there to guarantee food quality, nor laws to mandate compliance.
Now, I think, in light of the BSE fiasco Canada suffered we should all STOP BUYING American produce, and I darn well know I am doing so.
This is right at home, right in our food supply, and right into our stomachs, and our defenseless, vulnerable children’s stomachs. So much for the Conservative, free-market approach to economics. Spray the crops with E-Coli infected sewage and sell it anyway. Who cares? Not the Marketeers od Death and Disease.
Harsh? No, I think it is called accountability! Let me repeat that for PMSH and his Goon Squad…A-C-C-O-U-N-T-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y!
Remember while looking to the horizon keep a mindful eye on the ground around you!
Carry on mon ami! Just a message from the Outer Limits of reality, eh? LOL
Why don’t you grow up and learn to be civil..your attack mode is boring and revealing and hurting your cause.
By PJW on 04.24.07 5:48 pm
PJ you expect more from a card carrying member of the neo-con Truth/Goon squad ?
Well, what have we learned today?
Okay class. Here is my take on today’s poignant lessons.
First, and foremost. PM Harper has no clue about anything and will lie no latter what the question, but he only following his ORDERS from Washington and the neo-con Imperialistic High Command. Didn’t we deal with that back in Nuremburg?
Oh, and as a side thought that occurred to me this afternoon, why is it people always talk about Hitler and Nazi Gernmany, but never Emperor Hirohito and the Japanese Imperial Warlords? Just curious. Perhaps it is because they fought with honour, in their own way?
Second, Minister of Defense O’Connor, has no emotion, is a drone, and should resign befoire it gets any worse. He must the frog in the slowing heating water to not realize he is soon going to be COOKED!
Third, and the most importtant for the coming election. Jack Layton and the NDP are total moronic idiots. They vote against the bill because they can’t get the troops out now as a protest vote? What is Jack smoking, discarded ATM reciepts?
I have PERMANENTLY scratched the NDP off my list of Canadian political party possibilities. *Still shaking my head in disbelief!*
“More knowledgeable minds than mine know better what Afghanistan needs than I do, but tanks and planes and soldiers and other countries playing war games for years in their country, and then of course there’s the occupation forever afterwards, is not it.” –Georgine
Amnesty International has stated that security must be increased in Afghanistan. To do that requires removing the insurgency.
To NATO member states contributing to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF):
· Increase security throughout Afghanistan. This is essential for the creation of an environment in which the judiciary and rule of law can operate independently;
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa110072005
Eric,
You actually make some reasonable posts unti;l yu let your little head do your thinking and type ‘Stupid Liberals’, which only shows you are a ’stupid myoptic moron’ at day’s end!
Try leaving out such comments. Just ask yourself how it just felt to be labelled? About like a proctology exam?
Jack [Champagne] Layton’s DREAMWORLD
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/24/america/NA-GEN-Canada-Afghanistan.php
“The New Democrats opposed the motion because they want Canadian soldiers to immediately cease combat duty in the increasingly bloody Kandahar province.”
Jack [Champagne] Layton toys with us!
He does not want an election NOW because he knows he’s going to be trashed in the vote. The Green party is going to take away his base.
The motion was defeated which was a good thing.
To bad for the Liberals that Layton and the NDP having painted themselves in a corner by insisting that the Troops be bought home now. A yes vote by the NDP would have meant that the NDP supported the mission which we all know they don’t. The NDP have nobody but themselves to blame.
How did you vote Garth? Yea? or Nay?
And the answer is…
MPs defeat motion to pull troops from Afghanistan by 2009
Thanks Jack-off Layton!
By Dumbfounded on 04.24.07 6:07 pm
List your ribbons and areas of service numbnuts! Decorated? In which army?
Pyotr,
Layton’s last best hope for a future is to get his resume in with Honda or Toyota NOW!
Maybe he can learn how to tighten nuts on the line, eh?
List your ribbons and areas of service numbnuts! Decorated? In which army?
By Pyotr Petrobitch on 04.24.07 8:23 pm
You’re obviously a simpleton so I’ll refrain from answering you except to say STATE YOUR SERVICE TO THIS COUNTRY besides your filthy mouth
Second I see so many people saying Germany is not pulling it’s weight but if the were to look it up they would find that since WWII Germany until just recently was not allowed by their constitution to have active troops outside of their country.
By dumbfounded on 04.24.07 4:59 pm
ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE! How long has Germany been a member of NATO? NATO is a mutual defence pact … requiring ALL members to participate in the defence of one another. There are NO EXEMPTIONS. Otherwise, you have nothing but HONOURARY NON-PERFORMING MEMBERS.
Sounds like the selective membership we have now, with France and Germany refusing combat missions.
Yea, Bill I shit canned all correspondence from the NDP .
They are too stupid to even know when to breathe .
Layton will be lucky to pull a half dozen seats the next election as all those borrowed votes will return to the Green-Liberals . Thank Christ they had the brains to stop vote splitting on the left .
Idiots didn’t have a clue what they were doing other than propping up more neo-con insanity .
Of course we support our troops.With a vengeance .
I say a word of thanks each and every day for their contribution and safe return .
I am Canadian after all and take immense pride in my countries accomplishments .
Our people are well trained but ill-equipped to take on the challenge as opposed to the Americans who have the best equipped forces on the, entire , planet .
God Bless Our Troops
By dumbfounded on 04.24.07 8:30 pm
You’re giving us HORSE[POOP]INGS!
Pyotr, Actually Dumbfounded is correct, it is only in the last four or five years that the German Govt has allowed their troops to leave Germany accept to train, i.e in Shilo Man when they had a maneuver center there and in Goosebay for NATO low level flight training. The former axis allies of German and Japan have consistently restricted there troops from any combat mission for the better part of sixty years. I stand to be corrected but the first deployment of Japanese Troops was to Iraq three years ago. Oh Pyotr, I can list my decorations and service locations for them if you would like.
Garth, what was the purpose of this motion? Harper defused it as a confidence motion, it would not have been binding on the Government, and the most memorable thing about it was the NDP supporting the CPC because the Lib motion did not call for an immediate “Check fire!” Strikes this voter as pointless posturing all around.
Meanwhile, we have soldiers risking life and limb, getting congratulations on the great job they’re doing, as well as the chain-of-command slant on institutional requirements, then wondering what Parliament and people back home are thinking. (Sorry, KH, I would not necessarily ask the soldiers on the ground, because they might be too close to the immediate problem.)
Is there any chance that we can take this mission beyond posturing, that Parliament can review the political parameters and military possibilities, and come up with a policy on Afghanistan that is based on fact, is objective, credible and practicable, and would serve to shape and guide the mission vice the pre-determination we have had so far?
To answer my own question, no, not with this Parliament. Perhaps the LPC should go it alone, let the country know the results, and be prepared to face a vote on it.
Maybe he can learn how to tighten nuts on the line, eh?
By Bill-Muskoka on 04.24.07 8:24 pm
I do hope he gets the multi-lug, eight spindles, with high torque, a hemi, so he can get his nuts even tighter than they are right now.
Canadians see through this decision today. Our ‘troops’ could be fully employed right here in our dear country – rebuilding and building infrastructure for Indian reservations, working to ameliorate the effects of climate change as they occur, ensuring the sovereignty of our borders in the north – so much needs to be done in Canada, to bring our own 3rd world population up to 1st world standards.
Layton/NDP shows the true colours of the NDP by supporting the Harper/Bush agenda. First Income Trusts and now, essentially inking the deal for a much longer and costly human and monetary sacrifice.
GGF: To answer your question, I’m certain the liberals will jump at the chance to enrol in Afghanistan, just as soon as all the Conservatives who supported the war join up and just as soon as Harper quits his day job to volunteer with the US army to fight in the front lines in Iraq, where he surely wanted to send our Canadian troops. PS…what “condition” do you have that prevents you from serving in a war you support? Let me guess, chronic yellow back syndrome? Chicken liver pocks? “Wet Pants” syndrome? Or some other “made up” ailment you’ll come back with to excuse away your cowardice and hypocracy.
By KH on 04.24.07 8:53 pm
THE PROMISE WAS MADE IN 2000. It was not a TRAINING PROMISE. It did NOT provide for an opting out arrangement.
We should just carry on doing whatever it is Mr. Bush wants us to do. That’s the Harper way.
marte
Jackie Chan wrote.
>Our people are well trained but >ill-equipped to take on the challenge >as opposed to the Americans who have >the best equipped forces on the, entire >, planet .
And Jackie do you know why our troops were so ill equipped? You don’t have to look any further than successive Liberal Governments. It started with Turner’s integration decision after that it was all down hill from there until the current government.
Oh Pyotr, I can list my decorations and service locations for them if you would like.
By KH on 04.24.07 8:53 pm
Sure, go ahead and list them. It certainly won’t do any harm to your credibility. I’d also like to see Dumbfounded’s military CV as well. Are you him? Or is he you?
http://tinyurl.com/lioi
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva
from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
entry into force 21 October 1950
People should check this out .
KH,
it’s been a busy, frustrating day for me, but I just registered the combat pic that leads into this thread.
Is that an infanteer firing an unsupported MG on continuous auto from a kneeling position?
Alternatively, they could find another crop which gives the Afghan farmer a similar return. For the life of me, I don’t know what crop that might be.
By Pyotr Petrobitch on 04.24.07 1:11 pm
Just some feed back concerning this one Pyotr, the operation that is on going in Helmond province with the Brits doing most of the fighting as our forces securing the eastern border, is basically concerned with the issue you raised, one of the major goals is to ensure security around a extremely large hydro electricity damn that provides power and irrigation to the southern provinces. Once this mission is successful, then repairs can be made and irrigation will again be possible which will allow for the farmers to switch to other crops that are more water intensive then the poppy which can grow in the crappiest of conditions. Anyway,,that is the plan. Here hoping.
That would be my fav weapon, A C6 general purpose machine gun, a joy to fire and b*t*h to hump (Carry) and I can tell you right now, that man has forearms like steel . I have friends who can fire it like that, but my little girlie arms prevent me from doing that for more then a couple of quick bursts.LOL
1. SWASM with Afgan Bar 2002, Kandahar and someplace I am not aloud to talk about (South West Asia Service Medal, 2.General Campaign Star, ISAF Bar Kandahar 2006-2007, 3. SSM Special Service Medal, Nato Bar,1988-92 4. CPSM, Canadian Peace Keeping Service Medal, 2001. 5. NATO-FY, with a 2 signifying two tours Bosnia and Sara, 6. CD2. Canadian Forces Decoration with a clasp signifying 22 years of service with honor.( Means I never got caught doing a lot of stupid things when I was private along time ago LOL) I have also been to the Egypt, Israel Kuwait, UAE more countries in Europe then I care to remember with the exception of Hungary, because Budapest is a wonderful place to spend a 96 hour R&R.
By Pyotr Petrobitch on 04.24.07 9:51 pm
Sorry Pyotr, What promise in 2000 are you referring to. I seem to have missed you point on this one.
Just watched a CBC review of who’s carrying the can in Afghanistan.
Apparently, the US, Canada & the Brits are carrying the lions share of combat missions.
Others, including the Dutch, are not in the most southerly provinces. They’ve launched an effective Provincial Reconstruction Team in their area because they are not operating under a potential assault from the Taliban. And, they appear to be doing a damn good job, because the locals like them.
Now, if we had some clarification of what the German and French missions were, I’d be able to get a better feeling about whether they’re committed or not. I think there are far too many qualifiers on their getting involved in any combat mission. If that’s the case, NATO, as an organization, doesn’t mean much. What defence organization permits its members to pick ‘cherry’ assignments?
KH and Pyotr,
the first contemporary German “Auslandseinsätze” – or operations in foreign countries – occurred in the ’90s in the former Yugoslavia, which was quite an undertaking considering the German track record there in WWII. There was greater debate in Germany about operating outside of the NATO area, but that has been resolved, as we know.
Cowardice or slacking had nothing to do with it. It was a question of self-censure and sensitivity to the feelings of former enemies. Let you in on a little secret: the German Forces are quite competent, including in matters of strategy, which explains their low profile in Afghanistan.
opium production is way up in afghanistan, so we are definitely helping some people out. never mind that we have no business sticking our fat noses into other countries affairs! never mind the afghans want us out! we will decide for them because we are so much more intelligent! they should be thanking us for wrecking their country.
we are fighting the arabs for the jews and that is all there is to it.
Herb, I would never question the courage of the German Forces, the mission in Yugo was of a peace keeping nature, this to the best of my memory is the first time they have deployed into a combat theater since, well you know when. As to the German role in Afgan, their govt reacted much faster then our own and secured themselves a PRT and AOR up north, Well done them. Our govt dithered and we got a more dangerous one. The country accepted the mission, lets get on with it and get it done.
Some questions. ..
1.Why is there not an exit strategy already in place for Afghanistan? Or if there is, is SH & O’C not sharing it with the rest of us?
2. Do other NATO countries make their exit stratagies known? ie: By a certain date. Or if a “specific” challange has been met? Where could one find this information if it’s available?
3. Do you think Canada should have a draft, or if not a draft, a mandatory military requirement?
Now a comment:
I’m amazed to see the Rumsfeld marketing spin working so well up here. But then he does still have an office and a staff in the Pentagon so there ya go.
All the parallels being drawn between Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran (all the same/not us here in the west) and WWII (just long enough ago). Cowboys and Indians, white and black hats, patriotism and flags and pickup trucks and football hero’s (oops friendly fire) and don’t forget plucky women. Oh yeah, that was BS too, but what an actress. (we always knew Jessica’s story was bs and suspected about Tillmen)
Afghanistan, to narrow it back down, carries along with it just some of the crap but it’s growing. That’s the sort of rhetoric we are being fed from the CPC and their typing monkeys. Patriotism, 9/11, flag waving, incorrect numbers dead, no numbers regarding the wounded that I’ve seen lately, no mention of how many Afghani civilians dead, wounded and starving.
Canadians dead, some by friendly fire (US) and still SH and O’C sit playing pocket pool because they don’t know their butts from a hole in the ground and anyone who could give them good advice dares not because” you don’t tell the boss what he don’t what to hear”. Maybe they should get Maureen to tell him he needs an exit strategy that does not come via Bush, ASAP.
By KH on 04.24.07 10:12 pm
High-Class commendable record. Tensions always produce the opportunity to do stupid things when you’re trying to rid yourself of memories from being in the thick of it.
I particularly like the Bosnia Sarejevo experience. So many factions, always wondering who to trust. I remember a young Captain, chained to a flagpole, overlooking Sarajevo from the heights where the Serbs had mounted their artillery to shell the downtown. Then, looking at the marketplace with bodies strewn all over the place. He was chained to the flagpole by a Serbo-Canadian from Edmonton. Always wondered what happened to the Serbo-Canadian. Again, silence. They still haven’t surrendered Mladic or the other guy.
Canada’s record of service has been kept very quiet … to our detriment. All of us wish to honour our dedicated people. But, we sure as hell don’t want them exposed to a dumb high personnel cost mission.
Let you in on a little secret: the German Forces are quite competent, including in matters of strategy, which explains their low profile in Afghanistan.
By Herb on 04.24.07 10:36 pm
Nobody has any doubts about their abilities. We just want them and the French to take on more of the combat load.
Sorry Pyotr, What promise in 2000 are you referring to. I seem to have missed you point on this one.
By KH on 04.24.07 10:16 pm
2000 was the year Germany committed to doing more than participating in peace missions. I know they were involved in the former Yugoslavia. I saw them trying to keep the Albanians and Serbs from one another’s throats. In the particular case I saw, they had to defend a Serbian enclave [ghetto] which was a minority in an Albanian area.
After the massacre in Srebrenica, I would not expect the Albanians to trust anybody other than a peacekeeping force.
They [the government] concealed what happened in the Medak pocket. They also concealed some of the activiities in Afghanistan. The US was pretty upset about that. In fact, they awarded our people bronze stars for their efforts. Canadians, on that assignment, which I won’t clarify, saved a lot of lives. A former US ambassador from Mass. made the presentations. Meanwhile, our military failed to even acknowledge their efforts. To put it succinctly, they were SHATT upon.
Pyotr,
Whew, a lot of posts while I watched ‘House’ and ‘The National.’
Okay, first of all, to whoever made mention of the German’s being restricted…So has Japan been, until North Korea acted up, and the Bushies said…’Hey, its okay…get your army ready’
Then to Layton…They will have to give some nuts to tighten I think Pyotr? Will that be metric or American Standard I wonder?
As to the rest of the ‘Gahn discussion…We had a term in ‘Nam for this…it was called a Cluster F—!
Anyway, it is late, and I have one more topic to peruse. Tomorrow mes amis!
True Democracy has never been achieved at the end of a gun.
Call afghan what you will. A REAL democracy they are not… Not yet….and perhaps never. Time shall tell that tale.
By SJ on 04.24.07 12:36 pm
Hmmm, would you say that Germany has true democracy now? How about Canada? We fought for our sovereignty. Is there such a thing as true democracy?
By Sean P. Hogan on 04.24.07 1:11 pm
Thats a pretty silly comment. What kind of shape was Germany 1 or 2 years later? Was it a working democracy then? OR did it in fact time, struggle, internal fighting to get things in proper order? Not to mention….wasn’t there a bloody GIANT wall built there?
As for Canada fighting for it’s sovereignty… I don’t think I remember that one. Care to bring me in on that one? America, yes, Canada? I don’t think so.
The difference with America fighting for its freedom was IT was fighting for ITS OWN freedom, not being forced into something it may or may not want.
I will stand by my statement. You cannot now, nor ever FORCE someone, or a people into becoming democratic. Just doesn’t work. If you truly think it has or will….well I say your just plain wrong.
SJ, it wasn’t a silly comment. Plus, you never stated what a true democracy is. The point is, West Germany was at least given the chance to develop instead of being stagnated by Nazism.
Canada fought against the US, look at the war of 1812.
No one is forcing democracy, what they are forcing out is a dictatorship. Then, you let them take the ball and run with it as the people choose. That is what’s happening.
Garth, I re-read your comment on this topic, I’ll be voting in a few hours. A discussion here would be helpful.
Didn’t the Liberals whip their members on this or am I incorrect? If I am correct, why would a discussion be helpful? Helpful for you to decide on how to vote?
Asked and answered. I voted as I believed was appropriate. — Garth
Jack Layton makes me sick. Nobody will forget he put Harper in power and has kept him there. Do you sleep well at night Jack?
By Keith Phibbs on 04.24.07 6:34 pm
People should pay attention to what’s going on before they post. The NDP, are bringing forward their own motion on this topic, they believe the troops should come home yesterday. This has nothing to do with ‘keeping Harper in power’, it is not a confidence vote. Try again. L
Layton’s amendment. I see Garth has two other stories up before anyone can catch their breath and see what’s really going on. First off here is part of Layton’s amendment.
In an effort to try to find common ground, let me propose the following amendment to determine whether or not the House would be willing to take the appropriate actions. The amendment would read as follows: “That the motion be amended by deleting the words after ‘operations in southern Afghanistan’ in the preamble and replacing them with the following: ‘This House call on the government to begin now to withdraw Canadian Forces in a safe and secure manner from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan and call upon the government to notify NATO of this decision immediately’â€.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/ChamberPublicationIndexSearch.aspx?retKeyword=afghanistan+%22Amendments+and+subamendments%22&retDateFrom=&retDateTo=&retParliament=Parl0Ses0&retSortBy=Publication&retMaxResults=10&retSourceDebates=True&retSourceCommitteeEvidence=False&retCommitteeAcronymList=&retBooleanSearch=False&Language=E&Mode=1&retItemDocumentId=2844346&retPublicationDocumentId=2848233#Para552640
Second the best summary on the net from ceasefire.
http://ceasefireinsider.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/what-was-stephane-dion-thinking/
It pays to dig a little before casting judgements.
Sorry Garth, I didn’t read the answer until after I posted. Thank you again for your response it straightening me out. I disagree with you on how you voted because its quite early as the Liberals previously said to Harper when he was in opposition 8 months before the mission was over. Not that I’m associating you with that at all, just the Liberals who didn’t want to discuss the mission when in government and now all of a sudden want to do it almost 2 years before end of mission.
Garth,
“Ah, Eric Armpit, the youngest member of the neo-Con goon squad, squeaks up again.”
I thought you had a 3 strikes rule and comments like this would not be tolerated… or was that just Liberal talk and no action again?
Maybe you have noticed the traffic here in the last few days? I am the best cop I can be, but sometimes things get through. Unknown to you, this blog is under assault by several people who post dozens of times a day, always using different handles and email addresses, and with very destructive messaging. It takes time to check IP addresses to try and protect the editorial integrity of this site. So hold that cheap ‘Liberal talk’ comment. It is unworthy of you. — Garth
“Control the roads, the airports, and the seaports.” –Bill-Muskoka
Bill, you do know that Afghanistan is land-locked right?
Elias,
PS…what “condition†do you have that prevents you from serving in a war you support? Let me guess, chronic yellow back syndrome? Chicken liver pocks? “Wet Pants†syndrome? Or some other “made up†ailment you’ll come back with to excuse away your cowardice and hypocracy.
Not that I have to justify myself to the likes of you, but I have severe asthma. I believe all the conditions you describe are elitist Liberal conditions.
http://www.cadets.forces.gc.ca/_docs/cato-oaic/1602B1_b.pdf
So hold that cheap ‘Liberal talk’ comment. It is unworthy of you. — Garth
By GGF on 04.25.07 1:07 pm
Another wannabe Blog cop .
Garth,
“Maybe you have noticed the traffic here in the last few days? I am the best cop I can be, but sometimes things get through.”
Yeah, I guess we’re all overworked these days…
“So hold that cheap ‘Liberal talk’ comment. It is unworthy of you.”
I apologize for that. It was out of line. Probably a little bit of work stress coming out.
“Control the roads, the airports, and the seaports.†–Bill-Muskoka
” Keep watching the skies ”
The Thing
Jihad, which is the only state in which Islam can exist, is an interesting phenomenon. Modern jihad is not fought by armies, and it’s easy to see why. Iraq had the most powerful army in the entire Muslim world. During its war with Iran, it inflicted terrible devastation on its enemy. But when confronted by the United States military, it was unable to present any opposition whatsoever. That’s why modern jihad is being fought by civilians.
Uniformed soldiers are liable to be shot on sight. Thanks to what we mistake for humanism, civilians who ambush and blow up our soldiers in Afghanistan are subject to criminal prosecution, the so called “due processâ€. The reality convincingly demonstrates that the “due process†is totally senseless in the context of modern jihad. Therefore, the jihadists are fighting us unopposed.
It is the same with Taliban, Al-kayeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. Contrary to what you hear from Western politicians, they do not have to disarm. The formidable goals of these organizations cannot be fulfilled without a prolonged armed struggle. Those goals are wholeheartedly supported by tens of millions of seemingly moderate Muslims who constitute their power base. Taliban is not responsible to neither Western governments nor naïve Western pacifists. They are solely responsible to those who put them in power. And those who put them in power want them armed, because Taliban defend their interests.
Therefore, if you want to take power from Taliban, disarming them is not an option, because those who put them in power will eventually find a way to arm them again. Physically exterminating Taliban is not an option either, because those who put them in power will find plenty of others willing to fill the vacancies. Physically exterminating those who put them in power is not an option either, because that would have inevitably amounted to genocide, and our civilization prefers to succumb to genocide rather than inflict one.
The only remaining option is to attempt to eradicate Islam without eradicating Muslims, because Islam is the motivation behind jihad. Technically, this is possible (remember World War II?), but only technically, because Islam is a religion, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the enlightened Westerners.
So, what’s the solution? There is none, unless we decide to fight jihad in earnest. But there is no danger of that. Today Canada has found it to its political advantage to resist the calls for withdrawal in Afghanistan. Tomorrow, as it has happened so many times in the past, it will change; Canada will be instructed by voters to stop in the middle of a battle, and Islam will be handed yet another victory it could have never won on the battlefield.