# Dion's opinions/garble.



## midget-boyd91 (8 Jan 2008)

Courtesy of Ctv.ca
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080108/libs_afghan_080108/20080108?hub=Politics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Political solution necessary in Afghanistan: Dion*

Updated Tue. Jan. 8 2008 2:47 PM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Liberal Leader Stephane Dion says Canada must "remain engaged'' in Afghanistan but at the same time give its military the flexibility to deploy elsewhere.

In his party's submission to a panel studying Canada's role in the war on terror, Dion says a decision to withdraw from combat "does not represent an abandonment of Afghanistan.''

He repeated his position that Canada should notify NATO immediately that it will end its counter-insurgency operations out of Kandahar as scheduled in February next year.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has appointed a former Liberal cabinet minister, the hawkish John Manley, to head a blue-ribbon panel to study the issue and recommend a way forward in Afghanistan.

The panel is to report by month's end; Harper has said he will bring the issue to a Commons vote by spring.

Dion says any military role to which Canada commits must allow Afghans themselves to achieve a political solution to their problems.

He says Canada's efforts in Afghanistan should include diplomatic and development efforts and a "potential continued military presence.''

He says his Liberals are open to other possible military roles in Afghanistan, including training the Afghan National Army and police, protecting Afghan civilians or spearheading reconstruction efforts.

But Dion says the party "will not accept the simple re-branding of the current combat mission as a training mission.''

"Any new military role must be crafted in such a way as to ensure that other significant Canadian Forces deployments in other parts of the world are possible,'' he wrote.

Canada must also call for "an immediate, NATO-wide solution that ensures that detainees are not transferred into a situation where they could face torture,'' the submission says.

"This may require the construction and maintenance of NATO holding facilities completely under the control and supervision of NATO personnel.''

He said the Conservative government must show greater commitment to accountability and transparency with regard to the mission.

"They must abandon the practice of abusing the excuse of national security to withhold from the public politically embarrassing information,'' he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



> In his party's submission to a panel studying Canada's role in the war on terror, Dion says a decision to withdraw from combat "does not represent an abandonment of Afghanistan.''


Really? Maybe he should try telling that to the Afghans who will be slaughtered by the Taliban should Canada leave Kandahar.



> Dion says any military role to which Canada commits must allow Afghans themselves to achieve a political solution to their problems.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there already assets in place to help with the political situation? Oh yes, thats right, the ones who write speeches for the Afghan government to deliver in parliment.



> He says his Liberals are *open to other possible military roles in Afghanistan, including training* the Afghan National Army and police, protecting Afghan civilians or spearheading reconstruction efforts.
> 
> But Dion says the party "*will not accept the simple re-branding of the current combat mission as a training mission*.''


Methinks he just contradicted himself a wee bit there. I also wonder if he knows about the OMLTs?[I think that's the correct acronym] or operations like Operation Causeway?



> Canada must also call for "an immediate, NATO-wide solution that ensures that detainees are not transferred into a situation where they could face torture,'' the submission says.


.... oh, come on. Torture can happen ANYWHERES on that side of the globe, not just in a cell. Stopping the detention of anyone because there is the possibility that torture could take place makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't it?
 I wonder what he would define as "torture" anyways? Does slapping someone around a bit count? If it does then there's a lot of torture happening all over Canada. Maybe he should call for the government to pass a bill guaranteeing that youth will not be subject to torture on school grounds by bigger people demanding lunch money.



> "They must abandon the practice of abusing the excuse of national security to withhold from the public politically embarrassing information,'' he said.


Translation: "To hell with national security, we need stuff we can milk to gain some votes."

National security isn't a joke. If something is being withheld due to threats to our national security.... keep it away from the publics eyes and ears.

midget


----------



## guns_and_roses (9 Jan 2008)

Well if he wants the flexibility to deploy elsewhere he should(if comes to power) give the military some more money so that it can expand.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2008)

Future_Soldier said:
			
		

> Well if he wants the flexibility to deploy elsewhere he should(if comes to power) give the military some more money so that it can expand.



Expansion is an issue that cant be fixed with money alone. Money doesnt buy experienced NCOs and Officers to teach new recruits. You can build all the classrooms you want with money but if you dont have anyone to teach its all for not.


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Jan 2008)

Well, Darfur sure looks out:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/64763/post-659474.html#msg659474

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## stegner (11 Jan 2008)

I would not simply discount Dion's policies, he has a very qualified advisor on the matter, someone who works for DND and has tought CF Officers, his wife, Janine Krieber.


----------



## aesop081 (11 Jan 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I would not simply discount Dion's policies, he has a very qualified advisor on the matter, someone who works for DND and has tought CF Officers, his wife, Janine Krieber.



I work for DND and i have taught CF officers. Does that make me qualified to advise on policy ?


----------



## stegner (11 Jan 2008)

Most assuredly CDNAVIATOR you are qualified to discuss certain military matters, including strategies on Afghanistan, which have merit, though perhaps not as much as your vast knowledge of flight and being super cool.  What I meant to emphasize is that Dion's wife is an internationally renowned security expert and has considerable knowledge on the Afghanistan file.  Cheers.


----------



## McG (11 Jan 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> .... he has a very qualified advisor on the matter, someone who works for DND and has tought CF Officers, his wife, Janine Krieber.


Being an academic at a military college does not make one even a semi-qualified adviser on defence, security or foreign affairs.



			
				stegner said:
			
		

> What I meant to emphasize is that Dion's wife is an internationally renowned security expert and has considerable knowledge on the Afghanistan file.


So, if she is advising, why is he not able to put together a coherent & complete proposal/recommendation?


----------



## CdnArtyWife (12 Jan 2008)

This link appeared as part of a google alert in my inbox. I thought the article was a well written response to Dion's drivel.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=379a88ea-5fb7-44f4-aedd-ffab1e14f3be

Enjoy,

CAW


----------



## stegner (12 Jan 2008)

Sorry for going against the Conservative grain on the site here.  But what exactly is Harper's policy on Afghanistan?   How is it any more coherent than Dion's? Harper is such a strong leader that he has appointed a commission to decide Canada's policy on Afghanistan, chaired by John Manley a former Liberal Deputy PM and among others, my personal favorite being Pamera Wallin of CTV fame.  Clearly the cream of the crop on this matter.   http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/10/12/afghan-panel.html :   Sorry for not wanting to blindly follow, but this PM is not any more of a leader than Dion, given such activities.  So instead of going after Dion who is not in government, perhaps we could critique the policies of Harper on the matter.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 Jan 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> But what exactly is Harper's policy on Afghanistan?   How is it any more coherent than Dion's?



An almost incomprehensibly stupid question!  In Canada we have this funny little tradition called the "Speech from the Throne" where the government lays-out it's policy ... maybe you haven't heard of it?



> ...  Nowhere is Canada making a difference more clearly than in Afghanistan. Canada has joined the United Nations-sanctioned mission in Afghanistan because it is noble and necessary. Canadians understand that development and security go hand in hand. Without security, there can be no humanitarian aid, no reconstruction and no democratic development. Progress will be slow, but our efforts are bearing fruit. There is no better measure of this progress than the four million Afghan boys and two million girls who can dream of a better future because they now go to school.
> 
> The Canadian Forces mission has been approved by Parliament until February 2009, and our Government has made clear to Canadians and our allies that any future military deployments must also be supported by a majority of parliamentarians. In the coming session, members will be asked to vote on the future of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. This decision should honour the dedication and sacrifice of Canada’s development workers, diplomats and men and women in uniform. It should ensure that progress in Afghanistan is not lost and that our international commitments and reputation are upheld.
> 
> Our Government does not believe that Canada should simply abandon the people of Afghanistan after February 2009. Canada should build on its accomplishments and shift to accelerate the training of the Afghan army and police so that the Afghan government can defend its own sovereignty. This will not be completed by February 2009, but our Government believes this objective should be achievable by 2011, the end of the period covered by the Afghanistan Compact. Our Government has appointed an independent panel to advise Canadians on how best to proceed given these considerations. ...



http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2888/


----------



## stegner (12 Jan 2008)

Yeah he mentions the commision that he made Manley the chair and Pamela Wallin a members.  Wicked sweet! That sir, is not a policy.  Harpers throne speech is a continuation of the status quo of the policies implemented by the Liberals and has lots of political platitudes but no real plan.  When you find a good plan of substance proposed by the Conservatives get back to me.  A plan of substance would look like something that General David Howell Petraeus has implemented in Iraq.


----------



## brihard (12 Jan 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Yeah he mentions the commision that he made Manley the chair and Pamela Wallin a members.  Wicked sweet! That sir, is not a policy.  Harpers throne speech is a continuation of the status quo of the policies implemented by the Liberals and has lots of political platitudes but no real plan.  When you find a good plan of substance proposed by the Conservatives get back to me.  A plan of substance would look like something that General David Howell Petraeus has implemented in Iraq.



No, it's the establishment of a body of respected public figures who will make a thorough enough analysis of the current situation and the future alternatives, thus allowing the government to actually have a valid foundation upon which to build a real policy- not reactionaryism based on public opinion polls, but something based on what the commission determines will actually work. Moreover, it's not necessary to make a new policy every other week- in some cases what's necessary is to allow the current approach sufficient time to continue bearing fruit. These things are simply not accomplished in a scant handful of years. We're in this for the long run if we want to maintain a semblance of integrity in the field of international conflict and the development following thereunto.


----------



## stegner (12 Jan 2008)

My contention is that some of these respected public figures and partisan appointments do not have the capability to make a thorough analysis.   What is wrong with appointing some old soldiers and foreign affairs people to this commission?   I would take Lew Mackenzie or Romeo D'Aillaire over Pamela Wallin any day.  By the way Petraeus  went against public opinion.  The American people wanted out of Iraq and he told Congress that that would not work and to put more soldiers in.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 Jan 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Yeah he mentions the commision that he made Manley the chair and Pamela Wallin a members.  Wicked sweet! That sir, is not a policy.  Harpers throne speech is a continuation of the status quo of the policies implemented by the Liberals and has lots of political platitudes but no real plan.  When you find a good plan of substance proposed by the Conservatives get back to me.  A plan of substance would look like something that General David Howell Petraeus has implemented in Iraq.



If you read that excerpt and can't understand that:
1.  The current CF mission is authorized by parliament until Feb. 2009;
2.  further deployment will be the subject of a vote in parliament;
3.  that is expected that they will continue to need our help until 2011; and,
4.  the government is setting-up a committee to determine in what specific from we should best provide that help,

then you are an idiot!

Dion _had _a policy of total withdrawal, however this latest nebulous idea of "remaining engaged" is a naked appeal to populism and not a policy in any way, shape or form.  The fact that you don't like the people on the committee (you know, the one that the policy said would be created) does not change the fact that it is a part of the policy in action.

stegner, do you work for the Liberal party?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 Jan 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I would take Lew Mackenzie or Romeo D'Aillaire over Pamela Wallin any day.


Then perhaps you should read the article linked below (Mackenzie's take on Dion's various "policies").



> By the way Petraeus  went against public opinion.


And Dion shamelessly panders to it ...


----------



## stegner (12 Jan 2008)

Total withdrawal would mean that Canadian Forces would be pulled out completely from Afghanistan.  Dion has not said that-note his meeting today with Karzai.   Have a look at the _Constitution Act, 1867 _ and the _National Defence Act_, CF deployments do not require the consent of Parliament, they require the consent of the Governor-in-Council, MND and CDS, so your points 1 and 2 are immaterial.   Again, I do not know why you don't want more qualified people on the committee I take that very seriously, because lives are at stake.  Exactly my point on Lew he should have been on the committee not Wallin.  In the event of Dion's policies being blind populism, democracy is driven by populism.  Last time I checked Canada was a democracy. I do not work for the Liberal Party, I just don't see why people on this site give the Conservatives a free ride.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Jan 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I do not work for the Liberal Party, I just don't see why people on this site give the Conservatives a free ride.



Have you ever read how much grief the Ruxted Group gives the current Govt. over things?

 Public Announcement


----------



## navy-nesop (12 Jan 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I just don't see why people on this site give the Conservatives a free ride.



Let me see...They support us (military), they don't cancel a contract for helicopters that we need anyway...

Maybe we should have Dion give us a speech live from Afghanistan.  Wait can't do that, it's way too dangerous.  People get shot over there.  For the people that are still debating if we need to be there or not, let me analyse you this in one minute.

If you can die from walking or driving in the city streets from a road side explosion.  If a woman can be shot right on the spot by any man without consequence.  The list goes on...  Well, someone needs to do something about it.  In this case it's us, Canada.  So we have one leader that says we need to do something and the other one is trying to find an elegant way to get out.

Military personnel have taken an oath to protect the weak and innocent.  That's what we do.  We don't need anyone to support us, we will do it anyway. (Still nice when we get support, but it's not a requirement).

Edited:  Looks like Dion went there...my bad.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Jan 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Harpers throne speech is a continuation of the status quo of the policies implemented by the Liberals and has lots of political platitudes but no real plan.  When you find a good plan of substance proposed by the Conservatives get back to me.


Actually, many "Liberal" policies were continuations of policies implemented by the Progressive Conservatives under Brian Mulroney.  The one thing that most parties have is to spin their "positions" as their own.  The Conservative Party of Canada is no different in that regard.  In my opinion, they are far from perfect; however, they do have the most effective leader (in my opinion) of the major federal parties.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 Jan 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Total withdrawal would mean that Canadian Forces would be pulled out completely from Afghanistan.  Dion has not said that-note his meeting today with Karzai.   Have a look at the _Constitution Act, 1867 _ and the _National Defence Act_, CF deployments do not require the consent of Parliament, they require the consent of the Governor-in-Council, MND and CDS, so your points 1 and 2 are immaterial.


They are not immaterial they *ARE THE F****N POLICY!!!!*  Do you not grasp that the policy is to get the agreement of Parliament rather than only the minimum required by the Constitution?!?!?!?!?  You ignore the policy and then try to argue that it doesn't exist: we aren't that stupid.  And since you're an expert on the subject please show me where the Constitution or the NDA show that the consent of the CDS is required (let alone the MND, other than as any other member of the Cabinet).



> Again, I do not know why you don't want more qualified people on the committee I take that very seriously, because lives are at stake.  Exactly my point on Lew he should have been on the committee not Wallin.


Mackenzie thinks Dion's changing policies are asinine: how is that your point?



> In the event of Dion's policies being blind populism, democracy is driven by populism.  Last time I checked Canada was a democracy.


Canada is not a democracy: it is a representative democracy (on the subject of Liberal leaders, maybe you should check into Trudeau some time).  While governing according to the polls is a well-established Liberal tactic, it isn't _policy _(let alone leadership): it is the absence of policy.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2008)

:

I see we are engaging some people, in political debate, who really don't have two clues about Current Events, let alone Politics.  They don't have a grasp on Government Stucture and how Government Policies are made and enforced.  If this keeps up, this topic will be moved to Radio Chatter.


George
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Jan 2008)

As I have recently learned on my latest OPME (CF and modern society), Canada is a liberal democracy.  This does NOT mean that a party with the name "Liberal" in it must run the country.  What it does mean is this:
It is a representative democracy (exactly as John Galt said) in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities. A liberal democracy has elections, a multiplicity of political parties, political decisions made through an independent legislature, and an independent judiciary, with a state monopoly on law enforcement.

Just putting this out there to explain our system.


----------



## stegner (13 Jan 2008)

Sounds good.  John Galt, you Ayn Rand aficionado,   I will agree to disagree with you.   I am not denying that Harper has a policy on Afghanistan. I am merely stating that it is not neccessarily as good as it could be. I think it could be better that is all I was trying to say.  I think it could have been made much better if the Prime Minister had appointed more knowledgeable people to decide such a complex and important issue, rather than .   Let's leave it at that. With respect to the CDS, Governor-in-Council and MND I would suggest reading Douglas Bland's National Defence Headquaters: Centre for Decision as it is much shorter than the _National Defence Act_  You can order it here:  http://www.fedpubs.com/subject/govern/natdefhq.htm This article is also interesting http://wps.cfc.forces.gc.ca/papers/nssc/nssc4/wingert.htm


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Jan 2008)

I've been out of the country, so am late wading into this one.  Imagine my shock at arriving home last night to find that Dion has jumped on the "visit Afghanistan" bandwagon - a bit late - yet continues to spout the same ridiculous nonsense regarding the mission in theatre that he's engaged in since assuming the "leadership".  Not a surprise, really, as his defence critic did much the same when visiting theatre a couple of months ago.  Dion's issue is that Kandahar is a problem of his party's own making, one that goes against the peacenik bent of the Liberal left-wing.  He needs to pander to the idiots who insist that Afghanistan is "Bush's War" and, concurrently, pay lip service to NATO and to the sacrifice we've paid in Afghanistan thus far.

So, what to do?  Here's the apparent Dion answer:  suggest a bunch of nonsense that would give the _appearance_ of "changing" the mission and of giving it a more warm and fuzzy tint.  Thus the Liberals have concocted alternative "roles" that are nothing of the sort:

"Protect civilians" = combat
"Contribute to security" = combat
"Train Afghan security forces" = combat
"Contribute to reconstruction" = potential combat
"Further female education" = potential combat

There seems to be this idea that Western forces can somehow operate in (southern) Afghanistan and, by some miracle, be shielded from suicide bombings, rocket attacks and Taliban opposition.  If Mr. Dion is such an expert, as some posting here have insisted he is, surely he realizes that _any_ military operations in theatre, no matter how much we cloak them in politically-correct niceties, are _combat_ operations.  The Taliban and Al Qaida hate the West, liberal democracy, and all that we stand for and no amount of "traditional peacekeeping" is going to change that.

The current Liberal policy is delusional.  Either we're in, or we're not.  Adopting a half-way policy is to abandon the Afghan Government and abandon our traditional ABCA allies and to assume the laughably cowardly policies of Spain, Germany, Italy and the rest of the European "contributors".  If this is the way ahead, Canada stands to lose enormous credibility on the world stage - just as we've gained some - and to lose any claim on influencing policy in the region.

Sickening, really.


----------



## sgf (13 Jan 2008)

perhaps parliment can have a civilized up front discussion on Canadas role in Afghanistan. Discuss why our Nato allies are so relucant to sent their military into the south, to help in the fight. To discuss why the warlords and drug barons are still running the country,why any prisoners that Canada turns over are being tortured. Whats wrong with debating, what other roles Canada can play or can we in all good faith walk away and leave the mess to others to clean up? These are things I would like to see discussed, in a long up front civilized  debate,that lasts a bit longer than the last one did.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 Jan 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> So, what to do?  Here's the apparent Dion answer:  suggest a bunch of nonsense that would give the _appearance_ of "changing" the mission and of giving it a more warm and fuzzy tint.  Thus the Liberals have concocted alternative "roles" that are nothing of the sort:
> 
> "Protect civilians" = combat
> "Contribute to security" = combat
> ...



Actually, I don't think they are delusional at all (except wrt how other countries see us): I suspect Dion has had to backtrack a little and throw a few bones to the "old guard" (as it were) to keep from being overthrown ... straight out of the playbook that served them so well from Trudeau - Chretien: say *anything* to get elected, and figure it out later (even if it is the complete opposite of the Party's electoral platform).  Sadly, a large segment of the Canadian public keeps falling for the same tricks that the Liberals are only too willing to play. 





			
				stegner said:
			
		

> Sounds good.  John Galt, you Ayn Rand aficionado,   I will agree to disagree with you.   I am not denying that Harper has a policy on Afghanistan. I am merely stating that it is not neccessarily as good as it could be. I think it could be better that is all I was trying to say.  I think it could have been made much better if the Prime Minister had appointed more knowledgeable people to decide such a complex and important issue, rather than .   Let's leave it at that. With respect to the CDS, Governor-in-Council and MND I would suggest reading Douglas Bland's National Defence Headquaters: Centre for Decision as it is much shorter than the _National Defence Act_  You can order it here:  http://www.fedpubs.com/subject/govern/natdefhq.htm This article is also interesting http://wps.cfc.forces.gc.ca/papers/nssc/nssc4/wingert.htm



As it goes against my better judgement to continue to engage in this exchange (not to mention GW's), I will leave you with a little bit of reading to show you how completely off-base you are: 



> *Legal and Procedural Requirements*(1)
> 
> *As a matter of Canadian constitutional law, the situation is clear.  The federal Cabinet can, without parliamentary approval or consultation, commit Canadian Forces to action abroad, whether in the form of a specific current operation or future contingencies resulting from international treaty obligations.*
> 
> ...


 http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0006-e.html There is no question as to where the authority lies: you might not agree as to how it _should_ be, but that doesn't change the facts of what IS.


P.S> I suspect you'd be surprised by the number of people around here who have read the NDA in it's entirety and the Constitution Acts (all three really aren't that long) AND a significant number of the QR&Os, CFAOs and DAODs, for that matter (hint: only the Constitution covers who can deploy the CF).


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> perhaps parliment can have a civilized up front discussion on Canadas role in Afghanistan. Discuss why our Nato allies are so relucant to sent their military into the south, to help in the fight. To discuss why the warlords and drug barons are still running the country,why any prisoners that Canada turns over are being tortured. Whats wrong with debating, what other roles Canada can play or can we in all good faith walk away and leave the mess to others to clean up? These are things I would like to see discussed, in a long up front civilized  debate,that lasts a bit longer than the last one did.



April 10, 2006 called ... it was wondering where you were: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?pub=Journals&doc=6&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2160384&File=0#SOB-1501305


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> perhaps parliment can have a civilized up front discussion on Canadas role in Afghanistan. Discuss why our Nato allies are so relucant to sent their military into the south, to help in the fight. To discuss why the warlords and drug barons are still running the country,why any prisoners that Canada turns over are being tortured. Whats wrong with debating, what other roles Canada can play or can we in all good faith walk away and leave the mess to others to clean up? These are things I would like to see discussed, in a long up front civilized  debate,that lasts a bit longer than the last one did.



Are you really for real?  Parliament has held these discusions, but has already been stated, it is the job of the "Government" (ie. the Conservatives) to make the decisions.  Cabinet does that, and they have made the decisions.

I question any logic on discussing why our NATO allies are reluctant to send their troops anywhere, in the House.  Those are discusions that should be discussed by our representatives at NATO in a sitting of NATO heads.

A discusion on "why warlords and drug barons are still running the country" is kind of moot.  That is a matter for the Afghan Government to make decisions on.

Discussions on why any prisoners that Canada turns over are being tortured is outside of our legal responsibility, as we are turning over to the legally elected Government of the "Host" nation.  Afghanistan.  Once they are in the Afghan "Legal System", they not being Canadians, are not really our responsibility.  As a side note; do you have proof that the statement you said, about torture, is in fact correct or are you spewing Left Wing rumours and innuendo?  What would you propose, a "Catch and Release" program?

I do believe the House has debated many times on what roles Canada can play in Afghanistan, so you seem to be out of the picture more and more as we look further into your statements.

As for debates, with some research you can find many such debates on these very subjects everywhere from here on Milnet.ca through to Hansard.


----------



## sgf (13 Jan 2008)

Parliment has held these dicussions? when? the last one was about six hours long, which is not nearly long enough for such an important decision. 
Sure its the problem of the Afghan Govt to wonder why drug lords, warlords, and bribes are such an important part of their government. Its our problem to wonder why our government (Conservatives) continue to support this government. As your comment on NATO support from certain countries; its no secret. You can read about it in any national newspaper. They have been asked over and over and simply refuse. 
Again on the question of the tortured prisioners, you are right. It is the legal responsiblity of the Afghan government, but if I have an issue with why our Conservative Government continues to do this, if they know what the prisoner has to face. 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/detainees.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/10/29/qc-afghanreport1029.html
if this problem has been cleared up, why do these stories continue to surface?


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Parliment has held these dicussions? when? the last one was about six hours long, which is not nearly long enough for such an important decision.
> Sure its the problem of the Afghan Govt to wonder why drug lords, warlords, and bribes are such an important part of their government. Its our problem to wonder why our government (Conservatives) continue to support this government. As your comment on NATO support from certain countries; its no secret. You can read about it in any national newspaper. They have been asked over and over and simply refuse.
> Again on the question of the tortured prisioners, you are right. It is the legal responsiblity of the Afghan government, but if I have an issue with why our Conservative Government continues to do this, if they know what the prisoner has to face.
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/detainees.html
> ...



So you are a disgruntled Ex-sailor?  Do we have to have a discussion in Parliament about that too?

As I said, the decisions are made by the Government (READ: CONSERVATIVES).  Discussions in Parliament have little or no affect on the decisions of the Government.  

I am sure you know darn well, as do all others in this country, as to why our Government supports the Government of Afghanistan.  Well, perhaps you don't; but that is not a national issue is it?

So?  You believe the national newspapers as to what exactly is going on in other NATO countries, when they can't even get what is going on in ours right?  And why do we have to discuss that in Parliament, and not where it should rightfully be discussed; at NATO?

So, you also know more about the treatment of prisoners in foreign jails than the Government?  It still is out of our control, unless you would like to take some into your home as being under "House Arrest"?  Get real.  

Why do these stories keep resurfacing?  Because the media is "entertainment" to our decadent society.  Why else do they want to "Sell" their news?  They don't care about the truth, only profits and being the unwitting tools of so called "human rights activists".  Browse the site a bit and tell me about the how wonderful these twits are treating Canadians.  A few examples:

 http://youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8

 http://youtube.com/watch?v=kHrtlO5Hg88

http://youtube.com/watch?v=d0B-lYfYXmM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6n3SdV2cwn4

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lFXJaEYyYjY

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3iMNM1tef7g



			
				sgf said:
			
		

> why is it a rumor, do you have a link to change my mind?



Actually, I have asked you that a few posts ago.  You seem to be working off rumour and innuendo, so perhaps you can provide us with valid proof.  We have our Canadian media making statements.  We have our Canadian Judge Louise Arbour saying that their prisons don't "comply" with our "Western" standards.  Come on.  Not every place in the world is as safe and comfy as we have it here.  There are nasty people out there.  Many of them would like to see you dead, simply because you are not of their Faith or Colour.  Have you heard anything yet on them cleaning up Turkish Prisons?  Neither have I, and they belong in NATO.


----------



## Carbon-14 (13 Jan 2008)

Sorry, no proof they aren't being tortured.  But I've yet to hear "proof" that they are beyond the allegations from the prisoners.  I've sure if you asked enough prisoners in the Canadian legal system at least one will alledge abuse.  It doesn't mean its true and it doesn't mean it false.  But who does the burden of proof rest on? I just want to point out theres very little in the way "facts" in most of those articles.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> you never know, if there can be some proof that these prisoners are not being tortured I certainly would like to read it. He made a statement, I just asked if he could back it up.. thats all.



Back what up?  I asked you for proof that the prisoners were being tortured.  I didn't say they weren't.  I said that it was none of our concern.  Is it required to have a national debate or a debate in Parliament because several States in the US have the Death Penalty?  It would seem that we even have Canadians on Death Row in some US prisons, as well as in other nations.  We are talking about a whole different situation here, where we are giving foreigners, captured in a foreign land, over to the Legally appointed Government of that foreign land.  I would think that not to do so would be a grave breach of International Law.  Their penal system is not our penal system and of no concern of our Government.  Take it to the UN.  (And we all know where that will go.)


----------



## stegner (13 Jan 2008)

Galt I said that there needs to be no consent of Parliament for the deployment of the CF.  Though the Governor-in-Council and the CDS and MND have to sign off on any deployments.


----------



## sgf (13 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Back what up?  I asked you for proof that the prisoners were being tortured.  I didn't say they weren't.  I said that it was none of our concern.  Is it required to have a national debate or a debate in Parliament because several States in the US have the Death Penalty?  It would seem that we even have Canadians on Death Row in some US prisons, as well as in other nations.  We are talking about a whole different situation here, where we are giving foreigners, captured in a foreign land, over to the Legally appointed Government of that foreign land.  I would think that not to do so would be a grave breach of International Law.  Their penal system is not our penal system and of no concern of our Government.  Take it to the UN.  (And we all know where that will go.)


if its not our concern, when we are the ones that are handing prisoners over without truly knowing what is going to happen or not happen to them, whos concern is it? Maybe these prisoners are lying, maybe they arent being tortured, maybe they just disappear . But if there is the slightest concern that torture is being carried out, and we turn a blind eye to it, thats not the Canada that I believe in.  We are the ones that are helping to prop up this government so I feel that some reassurances should be given.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> if its not our concern, when we are the ones that are handing prisoners over without truly knowing what is going to happen or not happen to them, whos concern is it? Maybe these prisoners are lying, maybe they arent being tortured, maybe they just disappear . But if there is the slightest concern that torture is being carried out, and we turn a blind eye to it, thats not the Canada that I believe in.  We are the ones that are helping to prop up this government so I feel that some reassurances should be given.



Fer Chris Sake!  Where do you want our responsibilities to begin and where do you expect them to end?  Do we now have to take over the US job of "World Policeman" and save the World?  Come on.  Get Serious.  Canada has been all mouth and no action all these years, and now you have decided we must over step our legal responsibilites and save the world.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2008)

sgf

Clear a few things up.

What do you know of handling prisoners?  Have you ever handled prisoners?

What do you know about the Law?  What do you know about International Law?

What do you know of International Agreements with regard to the Transfer of prisoners?

What do you know of NATO policies relating to the Transport and Transference of prisoners in a War Zone?

What do you know of the Legal System of Afghanistan?

Do you know of any Reciprocal Agreements between Canada and Afghanistan?  Any NATO nation and Afghanistan?

What do you know, other than some Left Wing crap that is constantly being regurgitated, not providing a solution, nor subjective to any meaningful discussion?

Actually there are many more questions, but I'll stop here.


----------



## sgf (13 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So you are a disgruntled Ex-sailor?  Do we have to have a discussion in Parliament about that too?
> 
> As I said, the decisions are made by the Government (READ: CONSERVATIVES).  Discussions in Parliament have little or no affect on the decisions of the Government.
> 
> ...



i am not disgrunted nor am i an ex sailor, what does that have to do with this conversation? The discussion/debate we shaould have is on what our present role our country is taking there and for how long this present role is going to last. I am fully aware that Parlimentary debates have little affect on government decisions but it certainly would be nice to have a bit longer debate than 6 hours. A debate without name calling and accusation from both sides of the house. 
I feel that the reason that our government is supporting this war, is because Bush wishes it to be so. and that goes for this present government and the last one. Bush rushed in and after a few successful wins, thought that war was over and pulled most of his military out  to invade Iraq. Little did he realize what a rats nest he left behind. He should have stayed and done the job in the first place. 
I also do happen to believe the newspapers regarding the support of the other NATO countries. The reason I believe them, is if these countries were going to change their role or supply more troops there certainly would have been a major news announcement by now. I must have missed that somehow. 
We are not discussing death row in the states, turkish prisons or even how Canadians are treated abroad. We are discussing what our government knows about prisioners being transferred and handed over, what happens to them afterwards. Frankly if there is any small doubt at all, correct information should be obtained. Too many false rumors out there.


----------



## armyvern (13 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> oh i probably know about as much as most of the average posters here



Mmmm,

I highly suggest that you start with a re-read of the Geneva Conventions first then to refresh your knowledge, because your posts indicate that you may _think_ that you know more than you actually do; especially so when it comes to handling detainess, POWs etc etc. 

Not knowing the basic requirements for their handling & classification -- quite often leads to those who presume to know (ie you) -- stating that they do know and that they are informed, when, in actuality, quite the opposite is true. I think we may have a case of that on our hands judging by some of your previous statements.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> We are discussing what our government knows about prisioners being transferred and handed over, what happens to them afterwards.



...and if they were uniformed soldiers of an enemy than I would care. They are not, they hide in civilian garb among the local populous.

I'm sure others will correct me here but doesn't that make them eligible to be executed under those pesky Genava Convention rules?


----------



## Armymedic (13 Jan 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm sure others will correct me here but doesn't that make them eligible to be executed under those pesky Genava Convention rules?



Not really, but as UNLAWFUL combatants they are not previledged to the rights of a POW and may be convicted of war crimes....which could lead to the death penalty if applicable in the country where they are charged.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jan 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...and if they were uniformed soldiers of an enemy than I would care. They are not, they hide in civilian garb among the local populous.
> 
> I'm sure others will correct me here but doesn't that make them eligible to be executed under those pesky Genava Convention rules?



According to the Geneva Convention, the Taliban are operating as illegal combatants.

The point of Canadian/NATO soldiers handing over Taliban prisoners where some may question their treatment is confirmed neither one way or the other.  No one has provided any proof of confirmed torture by the ANSF once handed over by Cdn/NATO troops.

Viewing the issue from a different angle, to not hand over detainees to the Afghan security forces would directly go against our and other nations' positions to only assist the Afghan government, vice "occupying" and acting on our own accord.  People can't have it both ways.

Those who assert that detainees are being tortured, provide proof -- otherwise, it remains incumbent upon Cdn soldiers to continue handing detainees over to the indigenous government forces as soon as possible.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Jan 2008)

Thanks gentlemen.


----------



## Armymedic (13 Jan 2008)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Those who assert that detainees are being tortured, provide proof -- otherwise, it remains incumbent upon Cdn soldiers to continue handing detainees over to the indigenous government forces as soon as possible.



No proof of torture exists. The "closest proof" was in G&M's Graham Smiths prisoner reports of beatings and exposure to the elements. There has been no independent 3rd person confirmation of those allegations. Inhuman treatment of prisoners has been reported in the Saraposa prison. All prisoners are chained constantly. That has been found by international tribunal to be inhumane but not torture. Unfortunately, Afghan prisons have yet to join our modern penal system where everyone get their own 8x6 ft cell, so they resort to hold multiple prisoners chained together chained to a wall, as has been the method since the crusades.


----------



## Cheshire (13 Jan 2008)

Getting back on topic......I do not like Dion or his opinions. Another Jean Cretien in a cheap suit.


----------



## armyvern (13 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> no problem, I didnt realize that one couldnt post a different opinion, I sure didnt mean to tread on anyones toes or insult anyone. Sorry if that happened. enjoy your forums.



Oh of course. The usual arguement that is heard "you are supressing me because of my dissenting opinion." We are doing no such thing. We are stating facts, and asking you to back up your self-described "knowledge" with facts. Eerily, the facts to back up your diatribes always seem to elude persons like yourself when confronted with the actualities of the Geneva Conventions etc. You sure as heck didn't tread on my toes -- and I highly doubt that if you did happen to step on them, that it'd really make one drip drop of difference in my day.

OK,

You, in all your expertise, have told us that Canada is wrong for handing over POWs. You're wrong; they're NOT POWs, they are unlawful combatants as per the Geneva Conventions.

You have told us that you know what you are talking about on par with the average poster here, to which we're saying "obviously not"; the average poster here is well aware of the Geneva Conventions and the proper classifications of pers detained -- which we have demonstrated to you -- you are not.

You have insinuated that Canada (ie we soldiers specificly) are wrong in handing over "POWs (who are actually & in reality "unlawful combatants)" to Afghan authorities who torture them. We have pointed out that there:

1) is NO substantiated evidence of torture (and actually some of those interviewed have denied that they were or that Canada had anything to do with what has previously been identified as being "inhumane" mistreatment but far from torture);

2) Your classification of them is incorrect as per the Geneva Conventions;

3) That NOT handing them over to Afghan authorities constitutes an "occupational" decision as the government of Afghanistan is democraticly elected and autonomous and therefore we, in our role to "assist" that government have no legal grounds to retain those unlawful combattants or we are THEN in contravention of the Geneva Conventions; and

4) That pers like yourself constantly yell that we are "not assisting but are occupying" when it suits your agenda, but want to see us "occupy and not assist" whenever it suits your agenda as in "keep the detainees and NOT hand them over (ie the "have your cake and eat it too comment from below").

So, you need to educate yourself as to the Geneva Conventions --- then you need to sort yourself the hell out --- then post exactly what it is you wish to see us do, keeping in full mind that Canada IS/DOES/HAS ALWAYS been in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions if Afghanistan and that should you request us to do anything different than that which we currently are doing with pers detained ... you are asking us to go against the Geneva Conventions and to act as an "occupier." 

George Bush has sweet fuck all to do with that, but it seems to be a recurring theme for those who are hungry for eating that big calorie packed slice of cake.  :


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 Jan 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> the CDS and MND have to sign off on any deployments.


 No they don't.  Stop saying that they do.


----------



## sgf (13 Jan 2008)

work for the liberals? why would you ask me that? because I am a liberal? or question the Harper government? 

 I do not have proof that torture is indeed happening to these prisoners,only what i read, like everyone else does, in the media.  But no one else has any proof that it isnt. I truly hope it isnt and I truly hope that Harper is making the right decisions. Our military went to Cyprus for 6 months and stayed for a lot longer than that, I sure hope thats not the case in Afghanistan. As i said I hope I have not insulted anyone here, that was not my intent.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2008)

Cheshire said:
			
		

> Getting back on topic......I do not like Dion or his opinions. Another Jean Cretien in a cheap suit.



Actually, I would lean towards George Bush.  If the Americans liked to make fun of "George Bushisms", it seems many Canadians may want to follow suit and elect a PM just for "comic relief" and then we can make a claim to have followed suit with our own "Stefan Dionisms".   ;D


----------



## Armymedic (13 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> I do not have proof that torture is indeed happening to these prisoners,only what i read, like everyone else does, in the media.  But no one else has any proof that it isnt. I truly hope it isnt



What difference does it make if Afghan authorities torture prisoners? It is thier country, thier laws, their citizens. We trade extensively with China, and there is documented proof that human rights abuses happen there routinely.



			
				sgf said:
			
		

> Our military went to Cyprus for 6 months and stayed for a lot longer than that, I sure hope thats not the case in Afghanistan.



As it was in the Golan Hieghts, Bosnia, Haiti and every other crap hole "peacekeeping" mission the CF has been on. Why can the CF not stay in Afghanistan for 15 years and ensure a stable democratic Islamic government in that country?


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2008)

Wasn't the saying, actually in both World Wars, "We'll be home for Christmas."?  How many years did they take again?

We still have Troops stationed in Europe, and the end of the Second World War and the Defeat of Hitler was in 1945.  Same can be said about Japan.  How is it people these days think it would only take one year to bring peace to Afghanistan or Iraq?


----------



## Armymedic (13 Jan 2008)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Anyone who was a WO would know more about the military side, Geneva convention, etc which
> he obviously can't grasp.


You can't really question his profile. It does not say how long ago he retired. Perhaps it was before the last convention was signed? Regardless, everyones opinion on this subject is based upon what they see, hear or experience. If his "experience" is limited to media only, then his arguments make sense. Anyone read the Globe and Mail comments section after any story. Everything he says is stated there repeatedly as well. Stating that, because it is repeated (just like a good rumour) does not make it so.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> You can't really question his profile. It does not say how long ago he retired. Perhaps it was before the last convention was signed? Regardless, everyones opinion on this subject is based upon what they see, hear or experience. If his "experience" is limited by media only, then his arguments make sense. Anyone read the Globe and Mail comments section after any story. Everything he says is stated there repeatedly as well. Stating that, because it is repeated (just like a good rumour) does not make it so.



.....Nor do many Non-Cbt Arms Purple Trades deal with prisoners, nor have any interest in reading up on ROEs, Geneva Conventions, etc.  The guys at the "pointy end" in all three Elements do have to deal with these things.


----------



## sgf (13 Jan 2008)

> As it was in the Golan Hieghts, Bosnia, Haiti and every other crap hole "peacekeeping" mission the CF has been on. Why can the CF not stay in Afghanistan for 15 years and ensure a stable democratic Islamic government in that country?



because it is going to take a lot longer than 15 years plus a wack of money; and the only democratic islamic govt i know is turkey, and afghanistan is generations from that.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> I do not have proof that torture is indeed happening to these prisoners,only what i read, like everyone else does, in the media.  But no one else has any proof that it isnt. I truly hope it isnt and



Yeah, while I don't have any proof that my next-door neighbour is not a child molestor, and I truly hope he isn't, etc. ... WTF?


----------



## Armymedic (13 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> because it is going to take a lot longer than 15 years plus a wack of money; and the only democratic islamic govt i know is turkey, and afghanistan is generations from that.



Then generations is what it will take. We will be there as long as our democratically elected Prime Minister says we need to be.


----------



## armyvern (13 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> now this is actually funny,* if you cant put up a good argument, * you can always resort to insults. !!!



And here we sit; still waiting to see that "good argument" backed up with some actual knowledge instead of "claimed knowledge" from you.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Then generations is what it will take. We will be there as long as our democratically elected Prime Minister says we need to be.



OK.  

You guys have now agreed "It is going to take a long time."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Jan 2008)

Folks, the topic is cleaned up a little so that maybe the discussion can continue,however I would feel no remorse if I had to stick this thread in the trash.
Bruce


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> because it is going to take a lot longer than 15 years plus a wack of money; and the only democratic islamic govt i know is turkey, and afghanistan is generations from that.



sgf, this statement is not correct.  

Afghanistan held democratic elections, and all members of parliament are democratically elected.  Why do you then say Turkey is the only democratic Islamic?


----------



## aesop081 (14 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Our military went to Cyprus for 6 months and stayed for a lot longer than that, I sure hope thats not the case in Afghanistan.



We went to the FRY for over a decade. I hope that you were saying the same thing about that mission. If not, that makes you a hypocrite and you should just stop talking.


----------



## armyvern (14 Jan 2008)

Well, and then there were the 30 some odd years in the Golan ...  :

(and we've STILL got pers there despite CanCon LogBatt 'disappearing' ...)

But, I guess since it's a blue beret _smiley-mission_ -- it must be OK.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (14 Jan 2008)

I must say that this has been a very entertaining read. I respect others opinion, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with them and that's what makes this a great country. Engaging, in sighfull and maybe sometimes a bit naive on some parties, but in all a delightfull way to spend and hour or so. Thank You.

This is for those who would like us all to live in the "ideal world". I'm sorry to inform you, but this world doesn't exist. In a ideal world, we would all be sitting down together over a nice cup of coffee, enaging in a truly Utopian conversations, we're no one disagrees or becomes angry, because there's nothing to disagree about and nothing to anger anyone. There would be no crime, wars, hunger, murders, hatred, bigotry, dictators, crimes against humanity and so forth. I must say that does sounds rather pleasing, but I think it would be just a bit boring. You get up, you get dressed, you hug and kiss your family, hug and kiss your neighbours and you tell everyone, how much you love each and everyone of them. That's a stretch, but that's my point. We're human, humans are emotional creatures and that makes the lot us of irrational, well I would say 75% of the time. The other 25% is spent beating, killing, waring and brutalizing each other. Our emotions run our lives and most decisions made by emotions are irrational. So unless someone can come up with a gene that turns of our emotions and turns us all into a plumpy lumps of goo, we'll keep on beating, killing, waring and brutalizing each other. It's human nature and like it or not we're stuck with it and no amount of talk, hugging and kissing is going to change that, sorry.

As for Mr. Dion's remarks, he has had his 15 minutes of fame, now his balloon has lost most of it's hot air and he seems to be sliding down a slippery slope heading straight for a collision with a garbage receptacle we're his good Friend Mr. Layton resides. Some people think that there are simple answers when dealing with Afghanstan, but that couldn't be farther from the truth. This is a very complex situation, involving many players and pulling us out in 09 is not going to change anything. The problems will still remain, the only difference is now that the security aspect has been removed (combat troops) more people (mostly Canadians)will be killed while trying to make a difference. I just wish some people would see this for what it is, a very big problem and one that if we ignore, we will see many more people coming back in body bags. I would then like to hear Mr. Dion's explanation or lack of on that subject, not if it happens, but when it happens, because when it happens I think he will be running for the exit door.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jan 2008)

> enaging in a truly Utopian conversations



Beg to differ RG45.  In Utopia there is no disharmony, no disagreement, therefore no discussion, no conversation, just an awful lot of bored people staring at each other over their morning coffee......Hmm, that image seems vaguely familiar.

Aside from that I have to agree.  Pass the coffee.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jan 2008)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> In a ideal world, we would all be sitting down together over a nice cup of coffee, enaging in a truly Utopian conversations, we're no one disagrees or becomes angry, because there's nothing to disagree about and nothing to anger anyone.



You already have let loose the dogs of war in Utopia......some people will demand tea  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Jan 2008)

And Thucydides does it again.....he takes us No Place.


----------



## GAP (16 Jan 2008)

Boy, Dion is a walking poster boy for the Conservatives....

Everytime this guy opens his mouth, something wonderful just pops out......atta boy Stefan....!!  ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Jan 2008)

A post at _The Torch_ on what M. Dion seems not to know:

More of M. Dion's ignorance
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/more-of-m-dions-ignorance.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RangerRay (16 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> I feel that the reason that our government is supporting this war, is because Bush wishes it to be so. and that goes for this present government and the last one.



That statement alone shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.  Those who have been there have tried to educate you, yet you insist that they are insulting you when they show you the truth.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jan 2008)

> ....
> The Liberal leader complained that Guergis announced last Saturday that he and deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff would be visiting the reconstruction team.
> 
> "She revealed where we were going, Mr. Ignatieff and me, putting at risk, not only ourselves, but also all the members of the (Canadian) delegation," Dion told reporters in Quebec City.
> ...



 :

However, if Mr. Dion had been accompanied by DFAIT personnel and police, he would be entirely safe, because Afghanistan is a diplomatic and development issue, not a military one.

I say again,  :


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jan 2008)

As others have said, Dion is the best thing ever to have happened to the Conservatives...  :

So we've gone from "pullout" to "I want a military role after 2009, but it must be more linked to security than *proactive* combat with the insurgents."

Sounds like he's giving himself flex to say that _reactive_ combat is okay.  It's only a matter of time before he grudginly admits that we are doing exactly the right balance of defence, development and diplomacy right now....you know, the mission that the Liberals directed in 2005 to move from Kabul down to Kandahar.

_*sigh*_


----------



## armyvern (17 Jan 2008)

G2G ... did you just say "Three Block War?"


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> G2G ... did you just say "Three Block War?"



When Dion starts quoting Gen Krulak and his Three Block War, I'll know the earth's poles are about to flip... 

G2G


----------



## Boxkicker (17 Jan 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> My contention is that some of these respected public figures and partisan appointments do not have the capability to make a thorough analysis.  What is wrong with appointing some old soldiers and foreign affairs people to this commission?   I would take Lew Mackenzie or Romeo D'Aillaire over Pamela Wallin any day.  By the way Petraeus  went against public opinion.  The American people wanted out of Iraq and he told Congress that that would not work and to put more soldiers in.



  General Mackenzie has spoke on this many times, there is a fantastic article in the Ottawa Citizen dated the 17th of January I do believe it would be a good read for you. 
  As for the committee, I will say I do not like many Liberals but John Manley was one I could repsect. I feel he is qualified to head something on this subject. As foreign affairs minister during 9/11 the former ambassador to the US, along with a few other jobs he has been deeply involved with this file since it started.
  You state the PM has not shown leadership, I contend that if the Liberals had not flip-flopped on a mission they started, the very day they moved to opposition we would not be going through this now. This panel was created to appease the Liberals and shut them up with a very prominent Liberal. We all know the PM's opinion it has not changed since day one, it is the Liberals who cannot make up there mind.


----------



## armyvern (17 Jan 2008)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> When Dion starts quoting Gen Krulak and his Three Block War, I'll know the earth's poles are about to flip...
> 
> G2G



No worries, they'll still blame it on the Tories & global warming, all wrapped up nicely for the left with a Kyoto ribbon.


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Jan 2008)

Don't know if this has been posted yet but seems like a good place to put it.  It's Peter Worthington's Comment in the 18 Jan issue of the Toronto Sun.

Dion will never be pal of soldiers

Mods, feel free to delete if already posted or move to a more appropriate thread.


----------



## TCBF (19 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> perhaps parliment can have a civilized up front discussion on Canadas role in Afghanistan. Discuss why our Nato allies are so relucant to sent their military into the south, to help in the fight. ....



- They are getting even with us for pulling out of the north German plain in 1970, cutting our Brigade in half, moving it to Lahr/Baden and de-nuking our Starfighters.  Nothing personal.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> well maybe he will change his position on this, who really knows. He hasnt changed his positon on the liberal policy for afghanistan. I am not blinded to politicans from every party making promises that are quickly broken once in power or playing to the voters. There will be a lot of wild statements from politicans in the months running up to the next election.  I do wish there was another leader of the libs, i do agree that Dions communication skills leave a lot to be desired, but I could say that of Harper as well.



Yes he has.  Late last year, the position was to withdraw from combat operations in 2009.  Now it is to have a military role after 2009, but one that is "more linked to security than proactive combat with the insurgents."


You can't honestly tell us that is the same policy?  ???


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2008)

This post attempts to see where Mr Dion is coming from (and also offers an endorsement of.......Army.ca!)

http://climbingoutofthedark.blogspot.com/2008/01/dion-wants-to-neuter-them.html



> Friday, January 18, 2008
> *Dion Wants To Neuter Them!*
> Dion stepped in the pooh, big time the other day, wanting to invade Pakistan. Interesting article at the Toronto Sun.
> 
> ...


----------



## sgf (19 Jan 2008)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Yes he has.  Late last year, the position was to withdraw from combat operations in 2009.  Now it is to have a military role after 2009, but one that is "more linked to security than proactive combat with the insurgents."
> 
> 
> You can't honestly tell us that is the same policy?  ???



well since you asked.. no.. its not the same policy.. but we all know only too well how often politicans change their mind.. for example harper on that atlantic accord, income trust, and putting unelected members into cabinet. all politicans do it and having said that there is a liberal policy on afganistan, and i think its a good plan


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (19 Jan 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - They are getting even with us for pulling out of the north German plain in 1970, cutting our Brigade in half, moving it to Lahr/Baden and de-nuking our Starfighters.  Nothing personal.



As I've said before, it isn't the same and hardly explains French, Italian, Spanish and other attitudes.  The cuts in the seventies - like them or not - were based on a strategic assessment made during _peacetime_.  This was the era of Vietnam, the opening of China and reproachment with the Soviet Union, including the SALT talks and the rest.  Add an anti-defence government and you end up with cuts to a _garrison_ in a foreign country that (in its opinion) faced no military threat.

In Afghanistan, NATO is engaged in combat operations - a shooting war - against an enemy that the entire Alliance agreed had to be destroyed.  Any suggestion that the European lack of willingness to step up is based on Canada's cuts to our small contribution to German defence 35 years ago is more than a bit of a stretch.

sgf:  what _is_ the Liberal policy on Afghanistan?  I haven't been able to discern one...


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Jan 2008)

sgf, to put many of our views on your arguments into perspective, this is a good example of why you have very little credibility...even with your own position, let alone us at least appreciating a reasoned argument:




			
				sgf said:
			
		

> well maybe he will change his position on this, who really knows. *He hasnt changed his positon on the liberal policy for afghanistan*. I am not blinded to politicans from every party making promises that are quickly broken once in power or playing to the voters. There will be a lot of wild statements from politicans in the months running up to the next election.  I do wish there was another leader of the libs, i do agree that Dions communication skills leave a lot to be desired, but I could say that of Harper as well.



...followed by...



			
				sgf said:
			
		

> well since you asked.. *no.. its not the same policy*.. but we all know only too well how often politicans change their mind.. for example harper on that atlantic accord, income trust, and putting unelected members into cabinet. all politicans do it and having said that there is a liberal policy on afganistan, and i think its a good plan



Those of us who have stated our view, honestly haven't changed our view...unlike Mr. Dion.

G2G


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Jan 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin: 



> what _is_ the Liberal policy on Afghanistan?



Simple: By 2009 (if not already) the CF will have sustained sufficient fatalities to demand that they stop operating in a dangerous fashion.  That's all there is to it.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## sgf (19 Jan 2008)

> Federal Liberals formally outlined their position on Afghanistan Tuesday, arguing the combat mission should end as scheduled in February, 2009, but suggesting troops could remain in the country to perform other tasks.
> 
> The eight-page written document, a formal submission to a government-appointed panel on Canada's future role in Afghanistan headed by former Liberal politician John Manley, could serve as the official Opposition blueprint on a key campaign issue in a potential federal election this year.
> 
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Jan 2008)

sgf, could you provide a reference of the full submission, please?  Thank you.

G2G


----------



## sgf (19 Jan 2008)

sure, i read this in the national post

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=223933


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Jan 2008)

Did they publish their submission to the Panel?


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Jan 2008)

Here's the Liberal's news release:
http://www.liberal.ca/story_13465_e.aspx

Full submission here:
http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/080108_afghanistan_en.pdf

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Jan 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Here's the Liberal's news release:
> http://www.liberal.ca/story_13465_e.aspx
> 
> Full submission here:
> ...



Thanks, Mark.

Cheers


----------



## Reccesoldier (19 Jan 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> As I've said before, it isn't the same and hardly explains French, Italian, Spanish and other attitudes.  The cuts in the seventies - like them or not - were based on a strategic assessment made during _peacetime_.  This was the era of Vietnam, the opening of China and reproachment with the Soviet Union, including the SALT talks and the rest.  Add an anti-defence government and you end up with cuts to a _garrison_ in a foreign country that (in its opinion) faced no military threat.
> 
> In Afghanistan, NATO is engaged in combat operations - a shooting war - against an enemy that the entire Alliance agreed had to be destroyed.  Any suggestion that the European lack of willingness to step up is based on Canada's cuts to our small contribution to German defence 35 years ago is more than a bit of a stretch.
> 
> sgf:  what _is_ the Liberal policy on Afghanistan?  I haven't been able to discern one...



Teddy, as you noted NATO is at war, but equally, as someone on this site so astutely noted, the respective citizens of our NATO allies, like their Canadian counterparts are at IKEA or the Pub.

The reason for European trepidation is political/societal, we in Canada are not nearly as far down the road to progressive utopia and political correctness (socially induced fear) with regard to the extremists in our midst as is most of Europe.  There aren't riots in the streets and have been no terrorist attacks here unlike France and Spain.  Meanwhile in Italy the political climate is such that if a politician blows his nose in the wrong way the government falls.

The Liberal policy on Afghanistan is the same policy the Liberals have on everything...  Search for the mushy middle, win a propoganda war in and with the help of the Liberal media and chase the frightened voters to an eventual victory.


----------



## TCBF (19 Jan 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> As I've said before, it isn't the same and hardly explains French, Italian, Spanish and other attitudes.  The cuts in the seventies - like them or not - were based on a strategic assessment made during _peacetime_.  This was the era of Vietnam, the opening of China and reproachment with the Soviet Union, including the SALT talks and the rest.  Add an anti-defence government and you end up with cuts to a _garrison_ in a foreign country that (in its opinion) faced no military threat.



- Notwithstanding the events of the day, our "strategic" assessment was based more on P.E.T.'s political predjudices than on reality.  The rest of NATO was not impressed with us thinning out while NATO's big stick - the USA - was tied down in an Asian war it was unwilling to win.



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> In Afghanistan, NATO is engaged in combat operations - a shooting war - against an enemy that the entire Alliance agreed had to be destroyed.  Any suggestion that the European lack of willingness to step up is based on Canada's cuts to our small contribution to German defence 35 years ago is more than a bit of a stretch....



- My statement to that effect was made by my sardonic evil twin, for whom I appologize. As for NATO's commitment, agreeing that an enemy has to be destroyed is one thing.  Agreeing on who gets to "bell the cat" is another.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Jan 2008)

As I suspected, the Liberal "eight-page" policy is hardly that.  One page is the cover page, a further two are devoted to an attack on the government and on Parliamentary tactics and the remainder has so little meat that it can hardly be described as a policy.  It appears that the Liberals would waffle, whine and manoeuvre our way into a "safer" role, when we know - categorically - that there is no such thing.  Further:


It fails to recognize that training the ANA _is_ the current mission's centre of gravity and that any such training efforts are, by there very nature "combat" operations
It talks about engaging other NATO allies, but fails to recognize the dismal failure of the Europeans to assume anything but the "hide in the North" strategy they've followed thus far.  Can Dion name the other countries that might be willing to replace us?
It talks about limiting tactical decisions to use indirect fire and close air support, a frightening prospect to any serving soldier.  These are decisions entitled to be made by commanders on the ground with full situational awareness.

Aside from blather about detainees, veiled attacks on the current government and some mumbling about "rotation", there's nothing in the way of policy here - aside from ending the "combat" mission.  What Dion and the Liberals obviously fail to recognize is that every military action - even "protecting civilians" and "training the Afghan Army" - are "combat" actions.  Our troops will be targets for the Taliban and AQ if they're repairing a dam or conducting a reconnaissance patrol.  It is shocking to me that, after six years in the country, we still have political leaders that fail to realize this.

As for the Europeans, I've said my piece before; I've nothing but distain for them - based on much too much direct operational experience.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Jan 2008)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> sgf, could you provide a reference of the full submission, please?  Thank you.
> 
> G2G



sgf, well...I read it.  I'm not overly impressed.

I have argued why we should stay until at least January 2011 in this thread.  I don't feel the LPC has done the same regarding 2009, IMO.

Regards
G2G


----------



## TCBF (20 Jan 2008)

- There is a great misunderstanding here regarding the liberal "No Combat for Canada" policy.  OF COURSE they know that we will be attacked, killed, wounded and captured doing 'nation building' stuff.  They have always known that.  We must remember, however, that their definition of combat requires us to shoot back.  As long as we are 'victims' we are peacekeepers.  Once we start shooting back or disrupting future enemy operations through direct action (seizing the initiative, in other words), we cease to be peacekeepers in their minds and become just another colonialist reactionary army.

- They have no problem with us dying, they just don't want us killing.  

- So: we should prepare for a MASSIVE spike in Canadian casualties after the Liberals become the next government.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (20 Jan 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> It talks about limiting tactical decisions to use indirect fire and close air support, a frightening prospect to any serving soldier.  These are decisions entitled to be made by commanders on the ground with full situational awareness.



Yet mere paragraphs away state:Too often when countries do commit troops to the mission, the utility
of the commitment is nullified by the unrealistic caveats  the nation places on its involvement.

Imagine that.Liberals putting down other NATO members for its caveats,then saying they would instill their own.

That whole paper offer NOT ONE solution to anything.


----------



## sgf (20 Jan 2008)

whats the conservatives official policy on afghanistan?


----------



## TCBF (20 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> whats the conservatives official policy on afghanistan?



Why not look it up?  You got everyone else to read the Liberal stuff - why don't you read the government policy?


----------



## sgf (20 Jan 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Why not look it up?  You got everyone else to read the Liberal stuff - why don't you read the government policy?



right! i got everyone to read the liberal stuff, give me a break. No one is forcing anyone to read anything here. I did look it up. I cant find it.


----------



## TCBF (20 Jan 2008)

I can't believe I have to do everything myself around here....   

..."Nowhere is Canada making a difference more clearly than in Afghanistan. Canada has joined the United Nations-sanctioned mission in Afghanistan because it is noble and necessary. Canadians understand that development and security go hand in hand. Without security, there can be no humanitarian aid, no reconstruction and no democratic development. Progress will be slow, but our efforts are bearing fruit. There is no better measure of this progress than the four million Afghan boys and two million girls who can dream of a better future because they now go to school.

The Canadian Forces mission has been approved by Parliament until February 2009, and our Government has made clear to Canadians and our allies that any future military deployments must also be supported by a majority of parliamentarians. In the coming session, members will be asked to vote on the future of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. This decision should honour the dedication and sacrifice of Canada’s development workers, diplomats and men and women in uniform. It should ensure that progress in Afghanistan is not lost and that our international commitments and reputation are upheld.

Our Government does not believe that Canada should simply abandon the people of Afghanistan after February 2009. Canada should build on its accomplishments and shift to accelerate the training of the Afghan army and police so that the Afghan government can defend its own sovereignty. This will not be completed by February 2009, but our Government believes this objective should be achievable by 2011, the end of the period covered by the Afghanistan Compact. Our Government has appointed an independent panel to advise Canadians on how best to proceed given these considerations...."

http://www.sft-ddt.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1368

and here

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2888

Enjoy!


----------



## armyvern (20 Jan 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> I can't believe I have to do everything myself around here....
> ...



Awesome on you TCBF for helping him out ...

I was doubting that he had it bookmarked into his favourites.


----------



## sgf (20 Jan 2008)

awesome, three paragraphs on such an important topic. I guess thats up there with the six hour debate. Nice that its sandwiched in, among the speech from the throne.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

>



That's OK.  The liberals worked on the forget and do nothing and it will go away policy.   :-\


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> awesome, three paragraphs on such an important topic. I guess thats up there with the six hour debate. Nice that its sandwiched in, among the speech from the throne.


There is indeed more out there, but these, sir, are snippets of a larger policy.  Also, being verbose does not make something comprehensive.


----------



## sgf (20 Jan 2008)

sir? lets not take too much for granted. I dont remember saying one way or another what gender I am


----------



## armyvern (20 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> awesome, three paragraphs on such an important topic. I guess thats up there with the six hour debate. Nice that its sandwiched in, among the speech from the throne.



Three paragraphs that someone ELSE had to provide to you.

You'd figure -- if you were as "informed" as you seem to think you are -- that YOU'D have actually looked into BOTH sides of the debate and the policy, but, by your own admission, haven't read the Conservative side ... because YOU can't find it.

Funny eh, that everyone else here can. How about YOU do your own looking and reading, and stop perpetuating another myth. There's shitloads of info out there on Afghanistan from them ...

Now, you're beginning to troll.


----------



## armyvern (20 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> sir? lets not take too much for granted. I dont remember saying one way or another what gender I am



And being an ex-WO, you'd be well used to having personnel answering the phone with a "Sir" on the end of it back in the day. IT still happens -- one day, perhaps you'll get over it.

Listen "J" -- if YOU filled out your blank profile somewhat, IT may not have occured; that's your problem -- not his. There is an option to insert your male or female status ... YOU chose not to -- best to remember that. It's not like they discriminate against we wimminfolk here. Even girls can be outted as idiots -- along with boys. 

 :


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> right! i got everyone to read the liberal stuff, give me a break. No one is forcing anyone to read anything here. I did look it up. I cant find it.



Okay, a little bit more then...

Although there are some who apparently contest whether a Speech from the Throne constitutes an official statement by the Government  : , I will repeat the part from the Throne Speech that TCBF provided, since it's something that is rather important to the issue. (ref):



> ...Our Government does not believe that Canada should simply abandon the people of Afghanistan after February 2009. Canada should build on its accomplishments and shift to accelerate the training of the Afghan army and police so that the Afghan government can defend its own sovereignty. This will not be completed by February 2009, but our Government believes this objective should be achievable by 2011, the end of the period covered by the Afghanistan Compact. Our Government has appointed an independent panel to advise Canadians on how best to proceed given these considerations...



More specifically, I would say, maintain the functional status quo.  It seems to be working, because the PM said we would carry on as we are as he formally marked the first anniversary of the Afghanistan Compact (ref to PM's speech)



> *Statement by the Prime Minister on the first anniversary of the Afghanistan Compact*
> 31 January 2007
> Ottawa, Ontario
> 
> ...




The Minister of Foreign Affairs reaffirms this in a speech to the International Conference on Canada's Mission in Afghanistan (ref)



> ...
> Along with its allies, Canada committed to supporting the Afghan government’s efforts to rebuild their economy, democracy and viable state so that Afghans themselves could be in charge of their country and their development.
> 
> It was against this backdrop that the London Conference was held in early 2006, bringing together the Afghan government and the international community.
> ...



As well, you can always spend your spare time educating yourself by reviewing the Government of Canada's website dedicated specifically to the Afghanistan issue:

http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/

In anticipation of any dismissive comments about references quoting from Government web sites, I maintain that anything that is provided by the Government of Canada to any Canadian citizen (or other people who would like to inform themselves of the Government's official position) should be considered as the Government's official position.

Regards,
G2G


----------



## sgf (20 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And being an ex-WO, you'd be well used to having personnel answering the phone with a "Sir" on the end of it back in the day. IT still happens -- one day, perhaps you'll get over it.
> 
> Listen "J" -- if YOU filled out your blank profile somewhat, IT may not have occured; that's your problem -- not his. There is an option to insert your male or female status ... YOU chose not to -- best to remember that. It's not like they discriminate against we wimminfolk here. Even girls can be outted as idiots -- along with boys.
> 
> ...


----------



## sgf (20 Jan 2008)

Good2Golf, thanks for the references, I will have a read. Much appreciated


----------



## armyvern (20 Jan 2008)

Yep.

And I have the distinct impression that even if they answered with a Ma'am -- you'd have piped up with that "I'm not a Ma'am -- I work for a living bit" ... though they were just answering the phone in a nice and polite manner; EXACTLY what Mortarman Rockpainter was doing in his post. It's called manners, apparently they're lost on some.

 :

Like I said, one day, you'll get over it.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Good2Golf, thanks for the references, I will have a read. Much appreciated



De nada.

G2G


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> sir? lets not take too much for granted. I dont remember saying one way or another what gender I am


Just going by what you said.  Call me a sexist if you will, but...I was just going by what you were typing.  "Typically" men will reply in the manner in which you have.  No offense intended.  For calling you "sir", I apologise.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jan 2008)

sgf,

YOU threw out the LPC policy without providing it. We asked YOU for it. YOU did not provide it. We found it ourselves. YOU asked for the CPC policy. WE provided YOU with MORE than YOU provided us.Then YOU come back here whining and complaining that WE haven't made a good enough argument for YOU, or provided good enough policy research? As Vern said, you're a knife edge away from being a troll. 

I've had no horse in this race, but if YOU don't start hauling YOUR weight, by providing links and research for YOUR opposing view, I'll, to put it politely, can your ass from the forum for misconduct. Better drag out YOUR debating and research skills, and quit acting like a grade eight debate team member. You're quickly showing yourself to be out of your depth, and will soon find yourself ignored by people that take the subject seriously.

No more warnings.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## sgf (21 Jan 2008)

you are right, i should have provided the liberal link. My apologizes


----------



## TCBF (21 Jan 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> awesome, three paragraphs on such an important topic. I guess thats up there with the six hour debate. Nice that its sandwiched in, among the speech from the throne.



- Not all politicians get paid by the word. 

- In the past, we had so much product sent out to Canadians that was all carrier wave and no modulation that we may have gotten used to it. 

- Clarity was almost a lost art.


----------



## Osotogari (7 Feb 2008)

Feb 7 offering from Aislin of the Montreal Gazette.  Couldn't have said it better myself

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/aislin/index.html


----------



## Flip (11 Feb 2008)

In her usual "take no prisoners" manner, Rosie tells it like it is!

 The Toronto Star  

Dion's ploy will get soldiers killed
   
Feb 11, 2008 04:30 AM 
Rosie DiManno 

Number of Canadian troops killed in combat in Afghanistan last year: 0.

This would be the combat component of the mission that Liberal leader Stéphane Dion wants ended by next February and upon which he seems prepared to trigger a national election that Canadians don't want.

Number of Canadian troops killed by improvised explosive devises in Afghanistan in 2007: 12.

Number of Canadian troops killed by roadside bombs and land mines in 2007: 11.

The last Canadian casualty in conventional combat – died fighting – came during the latter stages of Operation Medusa, four servicemen perishing during a ground offensive on Sept. 3, 2006.

Since that time, there have been deaths in rollovers, helicopter crashes, suicide bombings and accidents but none from aggressively engaging the enemy.

If Liberals are trying to spare Canadian lives – by venturing passively, ducking into calmer territory and promoting reconstruction in the absence of a secure environment – an anti-combat insistence is utterly without merit.

But it might get Canadian troops killed. An enemy that knows troops won't fight back, can't fight back because of political handcuffs slapped on half a world away, is an enemy given a blood-embossed invitation to attack at will.

An enemy that knows – as the neo-Taliban command indisputably does – how undermining a rash of killings would be in the midst of a federal election here, would predictably target Canadian troops with renewed vigour. It serves their purpose if an alarmed electorate casts ballots in favour of the get-somewhat-out party.

This is as stupid, tactically, as giving the Taliban an exact withdrawal date.

Rather than seek a political accommodation with the Tories on Afghanistan – by respecting the proposals contained in an Afghanistan report authored by the foreign policy savant who was once Liberal deputy prime minister – Dion prefers insurgency tactics of his own. And the odds are just as strong that he'd lose anyway, few convinced that a campaign fought on the back of Afghanistan would deliver the Liberals anything better than a minority, if that; more likely a leadership review that would send Dion back to the party marginalia he richly deserves.

Canadians are dying in Afghanistan precisely because they are doing what Dion and his hard-core rump want: They are training Afghan troops. They are protecting aid projects. They are leaving the security of Kandahar Air Field in reconnaissance patrols and resupply convoys and to attend Shuras. They are showing a presence that does not, for the most part, involve chasing down enemy combatants.

Indeed, they would prefer to engage and attack because fighting a conventional battle is their forte – the Taliban has never come away from such a confrontation other than defeated. That's why they stopped doing it.

Unless Dion wants Canadian troops to stay exclusively in barracks – an insupportable option because they would accomplish nothing, certainly not the Liberal preferred approach of furthering reconstruction efforts and humanitarian intervention – his intransigence on the mission's combat portion is without sense. And even someone with no military smarts should realize that.

There is no safe distance in Afghanistan. Troops doing Dion's bidding, the anachronistic peacekeeping model that can only have a chance at succeeding if security is minimally established, still need to get outside the bubble. And they will be killed because insurgents attack convoys, seed roads with explosive devices and continue recruiting suicide bombers.

John Manley's call for more troops from NATO allies as an absolute proviso will happen, even if ultimately it falls upon Americans to dispatch a battalion cavalry to Kandahar. The U.S. has reawakened to the urgency of Afghanistan.

But what the Liberals are doing out of sophistry and political self-absorption will get your sons and daughters killed.

I should mention I found this on   The Torch


----------

