# 2006 Parliamentary Debate on AFG Mission



## RogueMedic (29 Mar 2006)

As a former Canadian soldier I am appalled by the suggestion to hold an open debate on whether we should be in Afghanistan or not.  I applaud the Prime Minister for holding steady and not allowing men like Jack Layton to tarnish the honor of the sacrifices made by our fallen soldiers and by the soldiers on the ground currently standing up for what’s right.  It is because of men like Jack Layton that our military has had to struggle to regroup itself after being starved and pillaged by the previous governments.  I know first hand what challenges the men and women in uniform face being on tour.  The last thing that we as Canadians should be doing is stomping all over their dedication and sacrifice because of some casualties.  What many politicians fail to realize is that we are locked into a struggle with an enemy that is truly dedicated to their cause and shoots to kill.  There will be casualties and we will mourn as a country.  We cannot however abandon the Afghanistan population when they need us most.  This does not represent the values that we as Canadians hold dear and it surely doesn’t represent the core values of the Canadian Forces.  Has any one of these politicians thought about the consequences of showing weakness?  It will only encourage further and stronger attacks against our forces.  In World War II when our Canadian Forces were faced with stiff opposition on the battlefront against the Axis forces, did we hold a parliamentary debate on whether to be in the war or not?  If it was not right then, what makes it right now?  Our Canadian Forces have distinguished themselves in the international community and I know that our forces will make Canada and the international community proud when they distinguish themselves once again.

Don’t dishonor our soldiers by suggesting retreat.  We have the best trained soldiers in the world and they are a true force to be reckoned with.  Let them finish the mission.  Let the soldiers not the politicians tell Canada when its time to come home.


----------



## GAP (29 Mar 2006)

I agree. The more we seem wavering, the greater the pressure on the troops. Believe it or not, but the insurgents are able to access the news also. Think about the message we are sending them also.


----------



## scoutfinch (29 Mar 2006)

Yes. But if a debate could also demonstrate Canadian resolve and put an end to the question once and for all.  As it stands currently, this issue will continue to pop up so long as we have troops in Afghanistan.  

In my opinion, a debate will render our presence in Afghanistan apolitical.  Until a debate, one party or another will try and score points with the electorate on the backs of our colleagues who are busting their asses.  

I would rather get it over and done with and have a strong showing of support.


----------



## Sabre1918 (29 Mar 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> I agree. The more we seem wavering, the greater the pressure on the troops. Believe it or not, but the insurgents are able to access the news also. Think about the message we are sending them also.



Right, good point.......something we should all think about the next time another Canadian soldier is killed, and another, and another.....
What message do you think they are sending us ?  :


----------



## GAP (29 Mar 2006)

> something we should all think about the next time another Canadian soldier is killed, and another, and another.....
> What message do you think they are sending us



So we should just leave...they're not playing fair??? :crybaby:
Take a look at regimes and organizations that utilize terror and insurgency to get their way. Take a look at Afghanistan. Do you really think that over the last 30 years any of the warring factions sat down and "just talked it out". To them "Might makes Right". If you waver in your commitment, then you are perceived as being weak and will be treated as such. It might take awhile, but they've got the the time...it worked before.  ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Mar 2006)

email your views to Jack Layton (in a measured, reasoned tone).  Political parties respond to public pressure...

/www.ndp.ca/contact


----------



## Murneydevil6 (29 Mar 2006)

These opposition members dont care about the Canadian Soilder they just care about getting into power. Its all a game. Like when the Liberals attempted to unifie the RCAF, RCN and The CA it had nothing to do with efficenecy or better fightin it was all about thinking they could appease thoose Republicans in Quebec who dont care about the military anyways by removing the Royal.And it wasnt about cost savings or effiecency it was about political agendas, as Cheritcan said he wants us to be like "boy scounts" And the NDP isnt known for support for the Military and Neither is the Bloc Quebecois, both want power in some way and they'll do anything to get it...even take attempt to take away what out 11 boys died for. If it was my way the Bloc would be ilegal anyways. Nothing but traitors.


----------



## Murneydevil6 (29 Mar 2006)

And by Republicians in Qubec I dont refer to French Canadians as a large part of our armed forces is French....Sometimes it seems like most. But Im refering to the group of french canadians that make a bad reputation for the beautiful province of Qubec...Sepratists, they work so hard to appease these B8st*rds that they stomp on our culture.


----------



## scoutfinch (29 Mar 2006)

I think it is important to note (albeit this point is not germane to this thread) that the Taliban or other Afghani insurgent groups genuinely believe that they are giant slayers and were responsible for the demise of the Soviet Union.  It is a well developed cultural myth that they alone brought the Soviet Union to its knees.  I have no doubt that the current Taliban and other insurgents believe that they can do the same with coalition forces.  

The Canadian public NEEDS to understand that if we cut and run at this point in time we will simply embolden the Taliban such that they will feel that all Western powers will retreat as soon as they push back a bit.  Canadians need to understand that this is the time for us to go in harder than before.  Canada needs to understand that the security of this nation depends on the Taliban permanently losing any prospects of power.  

If we don't do it now, we will just be back there in 5 years.

I think the electorate is smart enough to get it.  They just need to hear it.


----------



## Sabre1918 (29 Mar 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> So we should just leave...they're not playing fair??? :crybaby:
> Take a look at regimes and organizations that utilize terror and insurgency to get their way. Take a look at Afghanistan. Do you really think that over the last 30 years any of the warring factions sat down and "just talked it out". To them "Might makes Right". If you waver in your commitment, then you are perceived as being weak and will be treated as such. It might take awhile, but they've got the the time...it worked before.  ;D



I've taken a real good look at Afghanistan....frankly, there's not much there that I truly believe needs/wants to be saved. By us or any other nation for that matter. Our western world for some odd reason, thinks that we have all the answers. Answers, that generations upon generations before couldn't get them to adapt to. What makes you think that they will listen to us now ?


----------



## monika (29 Mar 2006)

RogueMedic said:
			
		

> As a former Canadian soldier I am appalled by the suggestion to hold an open debate on whether we should be in Afghanistan or not.



Open debate, in an elected parliament is one of the things men and women fight for. At least that's what we've been taught in school.



			
				RogueMedic said:
			
		

> The last thing that we as Canadians should be doing is stomping all over their dedication and sacrifice because of some casualties.



The only stomping most Canadians are doing is in the pursuit of information. Most of us know nothing about Afghanistan today, 30 years ago, let alone the previous 2000 years. Canadians like to keep the words of their politicians and the actions of their military separate. We can still support the people in the trenches and sand boxes *without* loving our government. This is the first time in my generation that Canada has openly been involved in such a potentially painful and prolonged conflict.



			
				RogueMedic said:
			
		

> Our Canadian Forces have distinguished themselves in the international community and I know that our forces will make Canada and the international community proud when they distinguish themselves once again.



That opinion, from the "average Canadians" I have spoken with is true. Over all we love and respect our squaddies.  All the more reason to get info from all political and military sides. We can handle coffins coming home if we know and understand the reasons it is happening. We won't like it, but we can handle it.



			
				RogueMedic said:
			
		

> Don’t dishonor our soldiers by suggesting retreat.  We have the best trained soldiers in the world and they are a true force to be reckoned with.  Let them finish the mission.  Let the soldiers not the politicians tell Canada when its time to come home.



It's not about suggesting retreat. It's about being told openly and honestly what we can stand to lose, what the exit strategies are, and what ballpark timeframe they might occur.

Now, please forgive if I am indeed "out of my lane" but I thought the way Canada is structured, that it is indeed the politicians(PM) who tells the CF when to come home. If I'm wrong on that let me know.


----------



## The_Falcon (29 Mar 2006)

Alright, I am going to make this abundantly clear cause it appears that some people here as well as most Canadians and some policticians, are ignorant of the fact the *THERE WAS ALREADY A DEBATE!!!!! * As was pointed out in a Toronto Sun editorial a week or so ago, *THERE WAS A DEBATE* held on Tuesday Nov 15th, 2005, from approximately 1900-2300hrs about the CF role in Astan, particularly the move to Kandahar, and the dangers we would face, as well as this being more of a combat role.  Here is the link to the particular issue of Hansard where this was recorded.  You can all go and read the debate yourselves.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/150_2005-11-15/HAN150-E.htm#OOB-1471139

Just so we are crystal clear, the same liberals (and some NDP) who are now calling for a debate, already had one, where THEY described the mission and what it would entail.  All this talk now is political pandering, because they were turfed, and they are loath to admit they sent us to Astan and Kandahar in the first place.


----------



## The_Falcon (29 Mar 2006)

Here is the Debate (well the opening bits anyways)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/150_2005-11-15/HAN150-E.htm#OOB-1471139



> *Canada's military mission in Afghanistan*    (House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 21, Mr. Chuck Strahl in the chair)
> 
> 
> * Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) * moved:
> ...




If you want to read more go to the link, and I edited certain things link removing the bits were it says translation, english, as well as bolding and enlarging certain things.


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 Mar 2006)

Sabre1918 said:
			
		

> I've taken a real good look at Afghanistan....frankly, there's not much there that I truly believe needs/wants to be saved. By us or any other nation for that matter. Our western world for some odd reason, thinks that we have all the answers. Answers, that generations upon generations before couldn't get them to adapt to. What makes you think that they will listen to us now ?



Tough problem.

All of the soldiers I have to talked to, who are either there right now or have recently come home, have said the answer to the problem of staying lies with the younger kids. To leave now or 3 years from now condemns those kids to a short, brutal life, especially for young girls. Staying there, and staying strong, gives them something altogether different. That has to be a major factor to consider.

Canada is there now. Lets not let a vocal, ignorant minority in this country screw up the future of another country by pulling the plug.


----------



## QV (29 Mar 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> . Lets not let a vocal, ignorant minority in this country screw up the future of another country by pulling the plug.



And there is always going to be a vocal, ignorant minority group that is against all military action no matter what the greater good is.


----------



## Armymatters (29 Mar 2006)

I fired off an angry e-mail through the normal channels inside the NDP (if you all remember, I am a member of the NDP), which stated very bluntly, now is NOT the time to be questioning what our troops are doing; they are right now trying to do some good in a place that has seen hell, and even though it may not be traditional peacekeeping, we are doing something very similar, just with a bit more muscle. We don't want something similar like the Rwandan Genocide, where a few Belgian troops get killed, and the Belgium government gets cold feet and yank everyone out leaving the locals at the mercy, destabilizing the region.

That is in short what I sent. I haven't got a response back yet, but I think I sent a strong message.


----------



## bigjeff (30 Mar 2006)

MY MOM SAYS WE SHOULDN'T BE IN AFGANASTAN...BUT ITS WAR..AND WE ARE NEEDED....THEN SHE SAID, "THATS NOT WHAT WE ARE FOR".....I SAYS "MOM ITS THE xxxxxxx ARMY,THATS WHAT THEY DO!"







PM inbound


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Mar 2006)

Have your mom read this in its entirety.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29913.0.html


----------



## pbi (30 Mar 2006)

It is interesting that many of us in the military seem to fear or resent the idea of a debate about our commitment in Afghanistan. These worries sound like they are based on the preconception that Canada would automatically "cut and run" as a result of such a debate. I am not sure this would be true. It is worth remembering that during our decade or so of major force commitment in Yugo, there were periodic calls to bring our troops out of what was seen (and depicted by the media) as a bloody, confused and pointless situation. We lost soldiers there, and we killed bad guys too. Despite that, public support remained sufficiently strong that we were able to see it through.

In Kosovo, when we were actively dropping bombs with absolutely no pretense whatsoever at a "blue hat mission", public support at one point (IIRC) was about 70% for our involvement there. We did not "cut and run", even under a Liberal govt. Granted, Kosovo was a much shorter, sharper op.

While  I understand that the PM does not want to be seen "stabbing us in the back" by encouraging Parliamentary debate while our soldiers are in harm's way. I do believe that in the long run, in a democracy (especially one with our political culture), the act of putting Canadian men and women in harm's way should be done with full transparency, debate, and the support of the Canadian people. If we go to a place where we will probably kill and be killed, and things will get ugly, and may drag on, we need our country behind us. Otherwise we risk being marginalized once again, our mission and our tactics misunderstood, and ill-informed decisions being made.

And that brings me to what I believe underlies much of our fear and suspicion of  the idea of a debate: a conviction that it would be badly misinformed, and probably misled by what we see as a biased media, mindless anti-Americanism, and pacifist-isolationist-do gooder B.S. thinking. If that is the case, then we have an information battle on our hands, one that the last Govt and the CDS started over a year ago, and one that we are carrying on now. And, I have to say, based on some of the Canadian reportage I have read and watched,  a battle we are continuing to wage with some limited success. Most of what I have read in the way of reportage (NOT editorial writing) has varied from excellent to fair. Personally, I have yet to see any really biased reporting. 

And who are our biggest guns in this battle? The soldiers themselves. Canadians see and hear them being interviewed just about every day, and read their comments in the paper. Our soldiers universally come across as modest, professional, dedicated and quietly proud. If anybody will win the info fight, it's our soldiers. Few members of the public will trust a politician, perhaps a few more will trust a General, but I think that most would have a hard time not trusting a soldier.

In the long run, a debate over our commitment probably can't be avoided. It will take place, either in normal Parliamentary process where there are at least some rules, or as part of an election campaign in which, as we all saw in the last election, anything goes. IMHO our job, if we believe in what we are doing in Afgh, and want to honour the lives we have already lost in that country, is to work to educate our fellow Canadians. 

Cheers


----------



## GAP (30 Mar 2006)

> I've taken a real good look at Afghanistan....frankly, there's not much there that I truly believe needs/wants to be saved. By us or any other nation for that matter. Our western world for some odd reason, thinks that we have all the answers. Answers, that generations upon generations before couldn't get them to adapt to. What makes you think that they will listen to us now ?



Ah, but you are looking at it from Canadian eyes..We are such a rich country, we OFTEN assume the rest of the world wants to be like us. Given their druthers, that's not such a bad idea, but there's a problem....we came to this empty country and started filling it with people and ideas (many of which sucked big time), but we had the luxury of not being corralled/controlled by history/tribal allegiances/class structure. (well maybe not class structure...we're still working to get rid of that). The point is, that if you took the children of Afghanistan and moved them to the resource rich Canada, with it's education system, values, freedom to choose...you would see, within a generation, a typical Canadian.

We can't do that, so what we can do is offer a little slice of security, some general improvement in lifestyle, and can educate and expose the next generation to the possibilities of what is possible. The "ART of the POSSIBLE" is what it is all about. Look at any regime that has control of it's populace, and I would venture to say the for the most part the people have been kept in ignorance. (see classic examples-Middle East/Arab countries) But to them it is not ignorance...it's the picture frame of 'their' world. They have never had the opportunity to choose and fail, choose again, until they find their niche...they were told where they fit in and after awhile_ 'even the cow gets used to being milked, with only the occasional swish of the tail to show their displeasure'_. 

If we are going to go into Afghanistan as tourists..then lets do it and then get on home. That way, the Afghan people can see the tourist for what he/she is and get about the job of surviving. If we are serious about helping, then lets,1) give them something to work with, 2) introduce them to education on an unbias/consistant basis , 3) then protect them while they get used to it. It is the next generation that will absorb the lesson and not want to go back to the way it was. 

I think Scoutfinch phrased it right...





> The Canadian public NEEDS to understand that if we cut and run at this point in time we will simply embolden the Taliban such that they will feel that all Western powers will retreat as soon as they push back a bit.  Canadians need to understand that this is the time for us to go in harder than before.  Canada needs to understand that the security of this nation depends on the Taliban permanently losing any prospects of power.
> 
> If we don't do it now, we will just be back there in 5 years.
> 
> I think the electorate is smart enough to get it.  They just need to hear it.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2006)

The "Debate" debate is being driven by factors outside our control:

1. Prime Minister Harper wants/needs to set the agenda, shaping the debate on all government policies and actions on his terms. Forcing the Liberals, Bloc and NDP to react to his agenda has worked very well so far; and he intends to capitalize on this technique to push forward the five major policy planks. 

2. Most of the people who are now demanding a debate are simply partisan hacks (Yes, Bill and Jack, that means you). Their eloquent silence on the issue from 2002 until the election of the Conservatives should be proof enough. We should loudly and pointedly ask why a debate was not required then?

3. The overriding objectives in demanding a debate is to try and put Prime Minister Harper on the defensive (i.e. not promoting his message), whipping up the Anti-American wings of the party and,

4. Like the "Copperheads" in the American Civil war or the MSM now on the subject of Iraq, create a climate of war weariness to encourage voters to withdraw support from the Government and elect a "peace" party. 

We can indeed set the terms of the debate ourselves, the Ruxsted editorials have been one means, informed and thoughtful soldiers on deployment can write and blog about their experience from the ground, we can sustain the push through letters to the editor, speaking to friends and colleagues outside the military, perhaps public speaking (arranged through the chain of command) and so on.

The points I think should be emphasised are:

1. The conditions on the ground wherever the Taliban and AQ have achieved control (i.e. *what we are fighting against*)
2. What actions we are undertaking in theater (i.e. humanitarian assistence, training local police and ANA etc.)
3. This is a huge project which will take many years or even decades to complete
4. We have been comitted to do this since 2002, pulling out now would leave far to much work undone.


----------



## pbi (30 Mar 2006)

Roger that, a_majoor.

Cheers.


----------



## The_Falcon (30 Mar 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The "Debate" debate is being driven by factors outside our control:
> 
> 1. Prime Minister Harper wants/needs to set the agenda, shaping the debate on all government policies and actions on his terms. Forcing the Liberals, Bloc and NDP to react to his agenda has worked very well so far; and he intends to capitalize on this technique to push forward the five major policy planks.
> 
> ...



These points were covered in the debate, that happen 5 months ago, the one I posted about on the first page.  It was an all party Parliamentary debate.  Stephen Harper, needs to cut these yellow-bellied cowards off at the knees, and remind that they infact already held a debate on this subject, and it was the liberal themselves who outlined our mission and the fact that this was going to be more dangerous the previous ISAF mission.  The fact that the media never really picked up that this debate occured, just reinforces the notion that they are lazy and unwilling to do their own newsgathering/research, they have to have someone hand them a story before they do anything.  

When the time comes in another year or so to decide how long we are going to stay in Astan, then by all means a debate in parliament should be held.  But now is not the time.  We HAD A DEBATE 5 months ago!!!!  The situation has not changed drastically in that time frame, as the problems now facing us, were discussed at that time.  So in case anyone misses what I said

*WE HAD A DEBATE ALREADY!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## mdh (30 Mar 2006)

> We can indeed set the terms of the debate ourselves,



And that's the critical point - the CF needs to help define the argument and help shape the debate so that the public understands the priorities of the Afghanistan mission. 

We need to accept that political debate on the mission is _inevitable_; we should have a strategy in place to meet the rigours of that debate and ensure that the Canadian public understands the CF's point of view. 

Opposition parties will undoubtedly challenge the assumptions behind the policy and as PBI noted that's the democratic way of doing business.


----------



## scoutfinch (30 Mar 2006)

I suspect efforts are being made with respect to the CF shaping the message conveyed to the public; hence, the embedded presence of the good Ms. Blatchford.


----------



## mdh (30 Mar 2006)

> I suspect efforts are being made with respect to the CF shaping the message conveyed to the public; hence, the embedded presence of the good Ms. Blatchford.



Oh I certainly agree - and so far the embeds have been a resounding success; but embeds are just one tactic in the wider war to influence public opinion. To address a-majoor's point - we need a full-fledged campaign  that takes us over the long haul (a much trickier proposition and tough to manage) and we have to prepare for the inevitable criticism (interesting to note that there was question asked by one journalist about reports of civilian casualties in the recent Sangin District firefight which was denied. See today's National Post)

cheers


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2006)

Friends and allies:

http://soapbox22.blogspot.com/2006/03/enough-is-enough.html



> * Enough is enough *
> (en francais)
> 
> After I read this article yesterday, I spent most of the evening composing a reply in my head. I just couldn't quite settle on the words. Most times I was too angry and that bled through in my attempts. Trying to be rational in my approach didn't help much either.
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (31 Mar 2006)

Very good read.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (31 Mar 2006)

bigjeff said:
			
		

> MY MOM SAYS WE SHOULDN'T BE IN AFGANASTAN...BUT ITS WAR..AND WE ARE NEEDED....THEN SHE SAID, "THATS NOT WHAT WE ARE FOR".....I SAYS "MOM ITS THE FUCKIN ARMY,THATS WHAT THEY DO!"



You swear to your Mother?...........


----------



## Franko (31 Mar 2006)

bigjeff,

PM inbound


----------



## bigjeff (31 Mar 2006)

only when shes being silly, shes german


----------



## armybuck041 (15 May 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/15/debate05152006.html

Wednesday afternoon 6 hour debate followed by a *VOTE* to pull out in Feb 07, or extend to Feb 09.

I guess i'll find out if i'm building up or tearing down this time around....


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 May 2006)

A post on this at "The Torch":

"Afstan: Extending Canadian commitment to 2009"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/05/afstan-extending-canadian-commitment.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (16 May 2006)

On a personal note, I believe we need to be there for the long haul, in order to help our friends over in Afghanistan build the institutions they need to achieve a peaceful, consensual society.

I also believe the usual suspects will be cauterwauling in parliament and the MSM about how we are not "peacekeeping" and should leave right now, abandoning the Afghan people to an unstable society and allowing for the very real possibility of the return of the Taliban to power. (Its rather odd that the Left seems to have no issues with the Taliban/Radical Islamic veiws on subjects like justice, educating children, womens rights, gay marriage etc.)

Remember, Terrorism is Information Warefare disguised as military action. 

_We_ can take the fight to parliament and the public as well, via blogs, newspaper and magazine editorials, personal contact with our MPs, friends, co workers etc. *Letting everyone know what we have done in Afghanistan, what we hope to achieve and what is still needed to reach those goals is the priority mission for each and every one of us*. Cutting and running sends a clear message to the Taliban and AQ that we are weak and easily intimidated, tells the Afghan people (and any others we might want to "save" in the future, like the people of Dafur) that we are fickle and unreliable friends and allies, and destroys our credibility with our NATO and Anglosphere allies.

When should we leave? The answer is easy, we will leave when there is a stable society that allows the elected government of Afghanistan take the reins and formally request the end of our mission.


----------



## armybuck041 (16 May 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Cutting and running sends a clear message to the Taliban and AQ that we are weak and easily intimidated, tells the Afghan people (and any others we might want to "save" in the future, like the people of Dafur) that we are fickle and unreliable friends and allies, and destroys our credibility with our NATO and Anglosphere allies.
> 
> When should we leave? The answer is easy, we will leave when there is a stable society that allows the elected government of Afghanistan take the reins and formally request the end of our mission.



Totally agree'd..... We are finally gaining some real credibility externally.   

Due to a good portion of the population (who steer the public opinion polls) having a total lack of understanding of our role on the world stage, I truely believe this vote could go either way.


----------



## GAP (16 May 2006)

"Quote from: a_majoor on Today at 11:56:34"

For a classic example look at the credibility loss the US endured after leaving Somalia. In the publics' view, they cut & ran, and they still get stuck with the pin occasionally when the opposition wants to make political points. The movie didn't help, it just reinforced the memory of them being there.


----------



## North Star (16 May 2006)

I love the Tory strategy behind this debate: Put up or shut-up. This will force the Liberals to take a position before they change their "opinion" to suit the polls (which is ironic because they're the architects of this changed role many of them are now starting to complain about). The NDP will be forced to present their usual shallow "George Bush and the Oil Conspiracy" arguments on short notice. The Bloc will probably just sit around. Our allies will get a firm commitment from the government, backed by parliament.


----------



## Ahkenaten (16 May 2006)

It's a good time to email your federal M.P.

Just an email will go along way, I am in a position to know this. While you're at it, email the 'loser' in your riding to let them know your position.

If you do not know your M.P. and would like to find information on them including their email you can phone, free of charge, 1-800-O-CANADA or 1-800-622-6232.

It's best to keep the subject matter respectful and above all, to the point. If your position can be summed up in 5 words or less consider using it in the subject header.

More information on guidelines for writing your MP can be found here:

http://www.taxpayer.com/main/content.php?content_id=15

I hope that is helpful. If you care about this then follow through, because we all know that 'follow-through' a pucculi-wearers weak area.





Ahk
"Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds." 
--Buddha


----------



## Enzo (16 May 2006)

I'm currently watching _CBC_ as the duly elected debate with their usual decorum in the great house on the hill. As a side note, I'm always left in awe of the process, knowing that children are held to a higher standard of communicative etiquette. Having said that, I still prefer having our politicians face one another on a basis in this forum as opposed to other systems, but that's just one opinion.

As for the upcoming debate, I'm all for it, but it's almost as if the Liberals forgot that they were the ones who committed the CF without a debate years ago. And after the comments made by Layton and McDonough this morning, I was actually lambasting my tv (waking my cat from his peaceful slumber, poor little guy has to tolerate quite a lot these days : ) If I hear either of those two speak *"for the troops out of respect,"* I may actually begin to lose faith in the system 

I try to maintain a certain levity when it comes to politics, but wow, talk about a bunch of politically driven hypocrites fighting for their 15 minutes eh. This black & white, short term, sound bite mindset that has become de rigueur in our times is dangerously laughable with its oversimplification of the issues.

Carry on...


----------



## GAP (16 May 2006)

Sent to Alexa McDonough


> Having had the opportunity to go to Afghanistan recently, I trust you were able to see the humanitarian side of the issues over there and the good that is being done regarding issues and rights we take for granted.
> 
> Please don't let politics get in the way of helping these people. The issue of Darfur will probably be resolved in favor of some form of commitment by Canada, so don't let Darfur cloud the vision of the help the Afghan people need.
> 
> ...



Also an edited version to Pat Martin


----------



## jwsteele (16 May 2006)

In terms of military and foreign matters why does the entire House of Commons have so much power?  Perhaps somebody more in the know can clear some things up for me.  It seems to me that the actual governing body should be making these decisions.  My real question is why is Parliament voting tomorrow to further our committment in Afghanistan?  It makes no sense because our current governing body (Conservatives) want us to stay so why does there need to be a vote?  This may sound immature but it seems like they are catering to the wishes of the NDP and Jack Layton and I'm not convinced that dummy has any business discussing military matters.  If I hear him talk about "traditional peacekeeping missions" one more time I'm going to go bonkers.  There is no such thing as peacekeeping in Afghanistan.  Isn't peacekeeping when you stand between two sides to keep them from hurting each other.  So what are those politicians thinking?  Do they think Canada should be in Afghanistan to stand between the US and the Taliban?  Idiots!  They're also concerned about us not having the deployment ability to deal with other large scale conflicts and being able to render assistance.  I don't think that is their problem to worry about...more like a military logistics officer...not some politicans assumption.  So bottom line is...I don't understand why the parties that weren't elected by the people even have a say in these matters.  And one other thing, why do they keep whing about mounting casualties.  The last time I checked the CF was a volunteer organization and everyone in the organization knows the risks and are willing to accept them.  Just because they don't have the balls to go into harms way doesn't mean they should be pulling the people out that do have the balls to make a difference on the front line and the only line in my opinion.  So what do you all think?


----------



## armybuck041 (16 May 2006)

Harper and McKay speak up on the topic:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/16/debate05162006.html



> Prime Minister Stephen Harper will lead off Wednesday's debate on whether to extend Canada's military mission in Afghanistan.
> 
> The debate, scheduled to begin at 3 p.m. ET, will decide whether Canada's 2,300 troops will come home next February or stay in Afghanistan until early 2009.
> 
> ...


----------



## Franko (16 May 2006)

What ever happened to the days when the Liberals owned up to what they started?

Oh yeah, that's right....never.

A debate and a vote on finishing something we signed on for just when the going got tough.....     :

What next? Lets blame the Conservitives for the Adscam as well while we're at it.

/rant

Regards


----------



## ArmyRick (16 May 2006)

This pure comedy. The NDP wants us to do a UN peace keeping mission in Sudan. Not a NATO or Coalition mission but a UN one. It look so good or WTF is his reasoning? He is a clown. Canadians please don't take his drivel seriously.

Liberals? The who? Weren't they the once "do no wrong" party of Canada? Didn't the Canadian people say **** you liberals during the last election? Didn't they start this mission in Afghanistan? Who cares, their finished because Canada is slowly waking up.


----------



## a_majoor (16 May 2006)

The Liberals and NDP are counting on the support of _THESE_ people......

http://freewillblog.com/  15 May 2006



> *Anti-War Activist Unfamiliar With The War*
> 
> Did you vote for John Kerry? Then this may roughly approximate your level of foreign affairs knowledge. http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/slant_presented/
> 
> ...



Sigh..............................


----------



## KevinB (16 May 2006)

This disgusts me.  The Liberals have NO right to complain about Afghanistan, they initiated it.  Furthermore they have sent Canadian troops elsewhere (HINT) without informing the Canadian public and now attempt to act as Angels...  :.


----------



## paracowboy (17 May 2006)

> Liberals lie


 Message Ends.


----------



## chaos75 (17 May 2006)

In the end no matter our opinions, the decision of the elected house is the final decision like it or not.  So if they say stay we stay, if they say no we do our best till Feb then come home till were called upon again, thats our job.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 May 2006)

chaos75 said:
			
		

> In the end no matter our opinions, the decision of the elected house is the final decision like it or not.  So if they say stay we stay, if they say no we do our best till Feb then come home till were called upon again, thats our job.



+1


----------



## North Star (17 May 2006)

What the House says means nothing in this particular case. According to our system of government, the deployment of the military is the responsibility of Cabinet (via Order in Council). The debate in the House is a "take-note" debate and the resolution being debated non-binding on the government. It would, however, be very embarassing to lose. If Parliament opposes a military deployment, it can do what it is traditionally supposed to do - withdraw funding by overturning a budget. It could also debate a straight-out non-confidence motion naming the military deployment as the reason. Either of these options will lead to the collapse of the government and either an election or the appointment of a new PM, depending on what the Governor General wants. 

What the Conservatives want is an end to the whining of the left-Liberals and NDP since neither party has the guts to put forward a non-confidence motion, nor defeat a money bill this early. The Liberals have no leader, money, or public respect. The Auditor General's findings that Liberal Cabinet members may have violated the Financial Administration Act (itself a criminal offence) will make them especially tame today. The NDP will continue to live in their dream-world, but don't have enough seats to have a significant effect on this issue. The Bloc will probably either skip the debate, or else split down the middle. 

If any Liberals vote against this motion, they should be ashamed. They should have resigned from "Team Chretien/Martin" and taken a principled stand when the original deployment decision was made. But hey, what do you expect from slavish poll-followers?


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 May 2006)

The inside poop on tonight's vote in the Commons:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060517/nato_afghan_060517/20060517?hub=Canada
'...
CTV's Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife told AM it was "going to be a very close vote."

"The big news is that the Liberals, who decided to send the troops to Afghanistan in the first place, will switch sides and vote against extending the mission tonight."..

If the motion fails to pass, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be honour-bound not to extend the deployment during this mandate...'

Should that happen it will be the end for Canada as a serious member of NATO, and no country that counts will take us seriously as a factor in international affairs (to the very limited extent that we are taken seriously even now).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## North Star (17 May 2006)

Great. Liberals showing their true colours once again. We care about international stability and law, but will do nothing to enforce it when the going gets tough. I hope Bill Graham and Ujjal Dosahnj (The Defence Critic) can sleep well at night knowing they sat in the Cabinet meeting when Kandahar was chosen as Canada's Area of Responsibility.


----------



## a_majoor (17 May 2006)

Time to get those poisioned pens and word processors out and remind Canadians at every possible opportunity that the Liberals initiated this mission (without debate) and now it is the Liberals who are cutting and running.

Besides destroying our credibility, the Liberals are also attackig the men and women they sent to Afghanistan starting in 2002 (although given their last ad campaign, are we really surprised?), and the Afghan people who are looking to the western community for help in rebuilding. Such cowardly opportunists need to be dug out of their ridings at bayonet point, one by one. 

Anyone who has dirt on sitting or former Liberal MPs and cabinet ministers should start coming forward. After all, convicted criminals cannot be sitting members (especially while serving time).


----------



## foerestedwarrior (17 May 2006)

May be a little one sided on this vote if the papers are correct....
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060517/nato_afghan_060517/20060517?hub=TopStories

"The Bloc Quebecois and the NDP have announced that they will vote against a motion to extend the mission by two years."


----------



## foerestedwarrior (17 May 2006)

We are in a war on the border of another country???
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/17/afghanistan-debate.html

""We will not be supporting the new mission, with so many questions, that's being proposed by the Conservatives," Layton told reporters following a caucus meeting.

The NDP supported Canadian troops in a peacekeeping role, which were the terms of the current deployment, scheduled to end in February 2007, said Layton.

An extension to 2009 is a "very different kind of mission ... that engages us in warfare on the border with another country," said Layton."


----------



## armybuck041 (17 May 2006)

The plot thickens.....

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/17/afghanistan-debate.html



> The Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party will vote against extending Canada's mission to Afghanistan by two years, while the Liberals say their MPs can vote according to their conscience.
> 
> Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said Wednesday that the deployment is unpopular in Quebec and that his party couldn't support the motion, which MPs will debate beginning at 3 p.m. EDT.
> 
> ...



And with the highest repects to the very recently deceased, I hope that this latest casualty is not used to blindly steer todays debate.


----------



## scm77 (17 May 2006)

Here's what some average Canadians think (If you consider CBC viewers "average"  ).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/yourspace/afghan_vote.html



> I'd like to hear Mr. Harper explain exactly what national interests our troops are protecting. According to what I read there's been no meaningful improvement in the lives of Afghans.
> 
> —Francis Penny | A Canadian abroad


I guess women being allowed to work, and girls allowed to go to school isn't meaningful.



> The Canadian government should not extend the period of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.  *This Conservative government is just trying to get on the good side of the Americans.*
> 
> —Inez Walker | Vancouver





> I just want to register my support for the Conservative position on keeping our troops in Afghanistan. Since we cannot do everything for every situation in the world, lets persevere in this important project.
> 
> 'Bandaids' in Africa are important, too, and we can lend whatever financial support to that situation, rather than compromise our work in Afghanistan. Better to do one thing right than two things poorly.
> 
> —Clarence denBok | Edmonton


Finally someone reasonable.

For some reason when ever I read "Your Letters" on the CBC website I always find myself  : 'ing alot.

If you'd like to add your own (I did), click on the link I posted and scroll to the bottom.


----------



## North Star (17 May 2006)

Hmm. The MND really needs to sum Jack Layton up. Hard. In parliament. In front of cameras. He's now reduced himself to outright lying.


----------



## Caleix (17 May 2006)

I have this sick feeling in my gut that if we pull out of Afghanistan now rather then stay and help the country reach a point where it can safely stand on its own, that other countries will think Canada and its armed forces won't go the distance. I'd like to know what everyone else thinks...so if you could post your views on this it'd be much appreciated...

Caleix


----------



## Highland Laddie (17 May 2006)

Caleix said:
			
		

> I have this sick feeling in my gut that if we pull out of Afghanistan now rather then stay and help the country reach a point where it can safely stand on its own, that other countries will think Canada and its armed forces won't go the distance. I'd like to know what everyone else thinks...so if you could post your views on this it'd be much appreciated...
> 
> Caleix



+1 - I feel the same way.


----------



## scm77 (17 May 2006)

Here's the comments I posted to the CBC website.  I encourage you to do the same.



> I fully support the Canadian mission in Afghanistan and I hope that later tonight the vote will be in favour of extending the mission.
> 
> The Liberals started the mission when they were in power, sending our troops to Kandahar originally in 2002, to Kabul in 2003, and approved the move from Kabul back to Kandahar in 2005.  All with no debate or vote in Parliament
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (17 May 2006)

Posted to CBC website



> Comfortable??? furnace keeping the house warm? Police car driving down the street on patrol? Thinking about a little vacuuming right after you tell Canadians their role in the world? Ahh..what a typical village Afghan would do to have that peace and security, the comfort and security of a life where political, religious and warlord masters are not demanding a portion of your meager fare and adherence to strict doctrine, or you pay with your life. Child sick? Pray...cause that's all you got. You North Americans with your NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude, are really hard to stomach. You claim to want to be helping, but all you can do is putter around at self serving intellectual tidbits to "show" how enlightened you are...pitiful. The moment we go to help you criticize it, but won't lift a finger prior to or during to help anyone but yourself. At least have the decency to learn the issues, take a good look at the people other than what a 1/2 hour documentary on CBC showed you and then if you really are bursting with a comment...sit VERY still for a little while..the feeling will go away..hopefully


----------



## Caleix (17 May 2006)

I'm watching the question period right now, and not even 5 minutes ago (typing now due to Rant i started giving Tele 5 minutes prior) I heard some Liberal MP going on about the international funding were providing to Afghanistan and how much was going to Kandahar where "ALL" of Canada's troops are stationed.......i nearly threw my clicker through the Tele, does he just have a lapse of memory of all the other places our people are over there....like the firebase that Pte. Costal was killed.....or is he just that arrogant and misinformed....

Caleix


----------



## Caleix (17 May 2006)

and as to GAPs post....that there is what really mess's me up...people thinking were pullin out cause we've got the taste of blood!

Caleix


----------



## armybuck041 (17 May 2006)

Caleix said:
			
		

> I have this sick feeling in my gut that if we pull out of Afghanistan now rather then stay and help the country reach a point where it can safely stand on its own, that other countries will think Canada and its armed forces won't go the distance. I'd like to know what everyone else thinks...so if you could post your views on this it'd be much appreciated...
> 
> Caleix



My whole reason for starting this thread.....

It kinda reminds me of the joke we used to have about guys who would be in theatre for a little over a month and then get sent home because of personal issues they kept secret from the Chain of Command..... "Operation Reel Me In Honey"......  Then some poor bastard would get sent over on 2 days notice because of the individual not having their S**T together.

I'd really hate to see and would be very embarrassed/disgusted if this nation caused something like that at an international level...... Question is, who is the poor bastard that would have to replace us.


----------



## Caleix (17 May 2006)

i'm not too sure....because doesn't every NATO country already have some sort of a Task Force in Afghanistan? 

Caleix


----------



## Highland Laddie (17 May 2006)

Ah, the wonders of the internet and email. Took just ten minutes to email every single MP in my province to urge them to vote in favour of the extension. Hope everyone else does the same.....


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 May 2006)

My contribution to the CBC; let's see if they publish it:

"Afstan is not George Bush's mess. It is the UN's. The UN Security Council has repeatedly and unanimously endorsed both NATO ISAF and US Operation Enduring Freedom, most recently through Resolution 1659 (2006) and Resolution 1623 (2005). In light of this UN mandate surely Canadians should support the effort enthusiastically. 

It is noteworthy that the following countries are making substantial troop contributions to NATO ISAF: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and The Netherlands. Are they Bush's poodles?

Our forces in Regional Command (South) are indeed now under US Operation Enduring Freedom.  However they are scheduled to transfer to NATO ISAF command (under a British general) on July 31.

Since the overthrow of the the Taliban in 2001 some 3.5 million Afghan refugees have returned home from abroad.  To my mind that is an indication that things are indeed getting better there.  It is Canada's duty to stay there (along with the more than 30 countries contributing to ISAF) to ensure: a) that no return of the Taliban takes place; and b) that the reconstruction of Afghan society can continue successfully.

The Liberals know what the current mission entails; they sent the troops there.  All the  government is now proposing is to continue the same/same mission for two years.  Liberals need no new information in order to vote in favour of the continuation.  And Liberals who do not so vote will be acting out of pure political opportunism."

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## facemesser (17 May 2006)

me personally, i think we should stay to show that Canada has some guts, but of course it's going to be no to many dead as much as I hate a dead comarade i believe we should stay and help.


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 May 2006)

Speaking of the Polaris Institute: on "CBC News: Today from Toronto", just before 1300 EDT, Peggy Mason of the Polaris Institute had a lengthy interview with Nancy Wilson in which Ms Mason expressed her opposition to the Canadian Forces' mission in Afghanistan. The fact that the Insitute is rather, shall we say leftish, was naturally not mentioned.

One of her key points was that our forces are now under US Operation Enduring Freedom (true) and that we don't know when they will transfer to NATO control. Totally false. The transfer is scheduled for July 31.
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=667782006&source=somnia

If Ms Mason does not know this simple fact she has no business commenting on Afghanistan, or else she is dissembling. And the ditzy host, Nancy Wilson, should have known enough (good luck!) about the subject to call Ms Mason on her misrepresentation.

Sadly, this is all too typical of the sort of "journalism" one has come to expect from the CBC.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace (17 May 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> If Ms Mason does not know this simple fact she has no business commenting on Afghanistan, or else she is dissembling. And the ditzy host, Nancy Wilson, should have known enough (good luck!) about the subject to call Ms Mason on her misrepresentation.
> 
> Sadly, this is all too typical of the sort of "journalism" one has come to expect from the CBC.


No need to have actors 're enact' on This Hour has 22 Minutes, if we can see the real thing.   ;D


----------



## scm77 (17 May 2006)

Just one reason why we need to finish what we've started.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-05-16T141233Z_01_ISL278847_RTRUKOC_0_US-AFGHAN-VIOLENCE.xml&archived=False


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 May 2006)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Afghan schoolgirls attacked, six wounded
Tue May 16, 2006 10:12 AM ET



By Tahir Atmar

MAZAR-I-SHARIF, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Suspected Taliban insurgents tossed a crude bomb into an Afghan girls' classroom, wounding a teacher and five students, a headmaster and police said on Tuesday.

Taliban have launched numerous attacks on schools as part of an intensified insurgency that has produced some of the worst levels of violence since the end of Taliban rule in 2001.

Headmaster Gul Mohammad said a small bomb was thrown through a window into a girls' class at his school, in the Chamtol district of the northern province of Balkh, on Monday.

A teacher was seriously wounded and five girls were slightly hurt with burns in the attack, he said.

Another school in the district was burned down early on Tuesday after its guards were beaten up, police said.

"The Taliban are behind this," said district police chief Mohammad Hashim, referring to both attacks.

The militants attack schools as symbols of the Western-backed government and foreign influence. Seven children were killed when a rocket hit a school in an eastern town last month.

The Taliban were ousted by U.S.-led forces in late 2001 after refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden, architect of the September 11 attacks on the United States.

But nearly five years later, their insurgency shows no sign of ending.

AIR STRIKE, OFFICIALS BEHEADED

Violence has surged in recent months and more than 500 people have been killed this year.

The unrest comes as NATO members are sending reinforcements to boost their peacekeeping force from 9,000 to 16,000.

With about 23,000 troops, the United States now has its largest force in Afghanistan since its military involvement began in October 2001. The United States had been hoping to trim its Afghan force to 16,500 by early this year.

Elsewhere on Tuesday, U.S.-led forces killed four militants in an air strike in Uruzgan province in the volatile south, the U.S. military said.

"The extremists were responsible for launching numerous attacks against civilians and the Afghan National Army," the U.S. military said in a statement.

In other violence, Taliban raided two police posts near the Pakistani border, killing two policemen and wounding six.

A government office in the same area was attacked and a woman in a nearby house was wounded, a Khost provincial police spokesman said.

Security forces later captured 13 suspected Taliban, including some who were burying a body, he said.

In the southern province of Helmand, where British forces are in charge of security, police found the beheaded bodies of two government workers who had gone missing last week.

In Ghazni province, just south of the Kabul, a man had his hands blown off and was blinded when a mine he was planting exploded.

His target was believed to have been a U.S.-funded road project, a provincial security official said.

(Additional reporting by Yousuf Azimy and Kamal Sadaat)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.


----------



## North Star (17 May 2006)

It seems all the radical lefties are coming out of the woodwork brandishing misinformation. 

The hope for the passing of the resolution this evening rests on individual MPs of the Liberal Party, who have been told it's a free vote. Let's see if some of them look past their party's interests and take a stand.

That being said, I'm not too hopeful.


----------



## George Wallace (17 May 2006)

CTV Newsnet should be carrying the Vote live at 9 pm Eastern.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 May 2006)

Peter McKay(SP) just called the NDP the Neville Chamberlain of the 2000's.


----------



## vangemeren (17 May 2006)

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060517/nato_afghan_060517

*PM would extend Afghan mission for one year * 
CTV.ca News Staff

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday he will continue Canada's military mission in Afghanistan for one year if opposition MPs vote down a two-year extension.

"What we would do is proceed cautiously for a year," Harper told the House. "If we have to go further beyond that, we would seek a mandate from the Canadian people."

MPs are currently debating in the Commons whether to support a motion to extend the mission, with a vote expected for this evening.

The Conservative government earlier accused opposition MPs of flip-flopping on whether to prolong Canada's military presence in the war-torn country.

"On Sunday, the foreign affairs critic of the NDP (Alexa McDonough) said it's not a question of should we be in Afghanistan," Harper said during question period. "And yet today, they said they'll vote against it. Maybe if we wait a few days, we'll get a different position."

However, McDonough told Mike Duffy Live she only supports the mission as originally intended by the Liberals.

"We absolutely have commitments to Afghanistan that we have to follow through with, but that's not the same thing as talking about entering into a new mission," she said.

The Bloc Quebecois and the NDP have announced that they will vote against the motion.

Conservative MP Laurie Hawn accused Liberal and NDP members of using the Afghan mission to advance their partisan interests.

"For months the Opposition called for a vote on our role in Afghanistan, and our prime minister has agreed to that vote," Hawn said.

"Opposition members are now playing politics with our mission in Afghanistan. Liberal and NDP members just weeks ago supported this mission."

Liberal leader Bill Graham said Wednesday he would leave it up to his MPs to decide how they wanted to vote.

"We've had a gun put to our heads ... without knowing all the details," Graham told reporters.

"We find this process abusive and strange ... and we will not play politics with this."

Michael Ignatieff, one of the front runners for the Liberal leadership and one of the more bullish supporters of the Afghanistan mission, supported extending the mission during the debate.

"I express unequivocal support for the troops in Afghanistan, for the mission, and also for the renewal of the mission," he said.

Ignatieff argued that Canada must shift from a "peace-keeping paradigm" to one that "combines military, reconstruction and humanitarian efforts together."

However, he said his support was conditional on the mission equally combining these three elements.

UN Peacekeeping

Meanwhile, an Ottawa think tank has slammed the government for "virtually abandoning UN peacekeeping."

In a report released ahead of Wednesday's six-hour Commons debate, the Polaris Institute said Canada had already spent $4.1 billion on Afghan operations since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Polaris analyst Steven Staples told an Ottawa news conference that Afghanistan accounts for 68 per cent of the $6.1 billion spent on international missions between the fall of 2001 and March 2006.

Staples said operations in the war-torn country were "consuming all available resources" and preventing vital resources being diverted elsewhere, such as in Darfur.

"It's clear that we have virtually abandoned UN peacekeeping today," he told reporters, adding that Canada ranks 50th out of 95 countries currently contributing military personnel to UN missions.

Harper's Conservatives surprised opposition parties when they announced late Monday they would be introducing a motion calling for the Afghan mission to be extended to February 2009. 

The Globe and Mail reported Wednesday that the government's sudden decision to call a debate and vote was in part because NATO wants Canada to take over command of the entire Afghan mission in 2008.

CTV's Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife told Newsnet that he suspected the government would win, but it was "going to be a very close vote."

"The big news is that the Liberals, who decided to send the troops to Afghanistan in the first place, could switch sides and vote against extending the mission tonight."

Canada has around 2,300 soldiers in Afghanistan, with most stationed at Kandahar Airfield on a mission that is scheduled to end in February 2007.


----------



## aesop081 (17 May 2006)

I just watched yet another NDP member make an ass of himself ( a former navy officer at that)..........I am embarassed by the NDP


----------



## Jake (17 May 2006)

If anyone wants to watch the debate live on your PC you can do it here http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&section_id=392&template_id=392&lang=e


----------



## Jake (17 May 2006)

It's pretty tough to follow the translator so I hope you're bilingual  ;D


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (17 May 2006)

Thanks Jake, Im finding the English to be pretty easy to follow...


----------



## Jake (17 May 2006)

Anytime   I guess there was a few minutes when I first started watching that was kind of rough. It seems to be ok now.


----------



## Milhouser911 (17 May 2006)

How many are watching this?  The things that come out of these peoples mouths are utterly unbelievable.  "The mission in afghanistan has increased violence and instability..."

Outrageous.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (17 May 2006)

Thanks Jake, its not to bad for me yet. though it is only a conservative now.


----------



## armybuck041 (17 May 2006)

I'm beginning to believe that some of these Members of Parliament need to be spoon fed information like a toddler his apple sauce. What kind of people can show up to a debate so completely uninformed (by their own actions) and yet have the audacity speak as though they are educated on the situation?


----------



## ImanIdiot (17 May 2006)

I am not a doctor, so I wouldn't go into a hospital and tell a surgeon to do something different than what he is doing. To do so would be both ignorant and potentially dangerous. I wish these politicians could understand that concept.


----------



## blacktriangle (17 May 2006)

And of all of a sudden...they cared about the soldiers...


----------



## foerestedwarrior (17 May 2006)

So apparently according to the Burnaby NDP MP, we are there for the support of the UN mission? not the US one.....and we should be deploying humanitarian aid with a helping hand, not the end of a gun. It is no the Canadian way(paraphrasing).


----------



## GAP (17 May 2006)

I have watched it from the start, and it's pure hypocrisy..plain and simple. It's all "I support the troops, but..." Crap!! If they supported the troops, this politicking wouldn't be happening. They have had literally years to form an opinion, and now suddenly they're unsure. (I think they are unsure of votes...not the mission)

Then they turn around and cry that nobody understands Parliament and the politicians...Oh we understand them very well thank you

rant out


----------



## FSTO (17 May 2006)

The Liberal Member from Canso-Cape Breton is supporting the motion. His speech was heartfelt and articulate. It is almost turning into another Urban/Rural split (at least in the Liberal Party)


----------



## GAP (17 May 2006)

CTV newsnet has Mike Duffy on...good coverage also


----------



## armybuck041 (17 May 2006)

FSTO said:
			
		

> The Liberal Member from Canso-Cape Breton is supporting the motion. His speech was heartfelt and articulate. It is almost turning into another Urban/Rural split (at least in the Liberal Party)



Exactly... Finally someone besides the Conservatives with some common sence on the situation. Probably because half of his constituants have sons and daughters in the CF


----------



## Jake (17 May 2006)

A few of these guys say that they are too uninformed to make a decision, yet they've already said even before the debate that they know what they're voting.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (17 May 2006)

armybuck041 said:
			
		

> Exactly... Finally someone besides the Conservatives with some common sence on the situation. Probably because half of his constituants have sons and daughters in the CF



Best one I saw speak in the hour I watched it.....to bad he will get drowned out by a bunch of morons blathering on about how this is an insult to us(the military) to give them such short time to forumlate a decision.......then that same MP sais he has been in the house for 5 years.....thats 4 years to make your decision.....


----------



## GAP (17 May 2006)

Gee, Alexa must be a white woman... Wasn't it always shown in the tv shows that the white man/woman spoke from both sides of his/her mouth...classic example


----------



## armybuck041 (17 May 2006)

Are the Dutch and the UK not in Afghanistan anymore???

I seem to recall passing them on the roads and visiting their camps during Athena Roto III.

So why does the NDP keep saying there not there?

Do they not understand that we are in the Handover Phase of OEF back to ISAF? Somebody had to pony up to do it.... We should be proud of this fact.


----------



## Franko (17 May 2006)

Both the Dutch SF and the Brits are there.

The NDP are smokin' up as usual and talking out their backsides    :

Regards


----------



## ImanIdiot (17 May 2006)

oooh, vote time. The speaker of the house said he believes the motion will pass.


----------



## Enzo (17 May 2006)

Y'think?  ;D


----------



## Jake (17 May 2006)

They have voted in favour of an extension to our commitment in Afghanistan


----------



## Jake (17 May 2006)

I think, sorry my 1st time watching one of these not sure how it works exactly.


----------



## armybuck041 (17 May 2006)

146 yeas by my count......

[Edit] 149.....


----------



## Jake (17 May 2006)

That's less than half right? Half is 155?


----------



## armybuck041 (17 May 2006)

Not sure, but I see John McCallum voted against.... Hypocrite


----------



## GAP (17 May 2006)

Yes!!! it passed 149 to 145


----------



## Jake (17 May 2006)

That's good news!


----------



## scm77 (17 May 2006)

I can feel Jack Layton squirming from here.  >


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 May 2006)

Did Paul Martin vote?


----------



## armybuck041 (17 May 2006)

Well Troops, like it or not, you've got some firm direction......


----------



## Jake (17 May 2006)

I think I heard a couple with the name Martin vote against it but I couldn't tell you if it was him.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (17 May 2006)

Does anyone know the actual partisan split by party?


----------



## armybuck041 (17 May 2006)

100% of both the Bloc and the NDP against the motion from what I saw...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (17 May 2006)

armybuck041 said:
			
		

> 100% of both the Bloc and the NDP against the motion from what I saw...



Figures.  Malcontented asshats.


----------



## Jake (17 May 2006)

I think they said 25 or so Liberals voted for it.


----------



## GAP (17 May 2006)

Paul Martin was not there


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 May 2006)

Craig Oliver: IMO generally a media scum bag, but he said this: " it is shocking that Paul Martin did not have the moral courage to show up and vote ....  "


----------



## William Webb Ellis (17 May 2006)

"asshats"  I like it......Premission to use it?


----------



## TCBF (17 May 2006)

Clearly, NOW is the time for the CPC to call a federal election.  The Liberals are broke and leaderless, and the guvmint can use the mis-informed statements of the opposition to show Canada that they need a chance to fill parliament with REAL Canadians who understand the REAL Canada.

Tom


----------



## a_majoor (17 May 2006)

I have no animosity towards the NDP or Bloc in this issue; they have been consistent nay sayers or fence sitters, so they have been consistent. Consistently wrong.

*But look at the Liberals. They were willing to throw the Afghan people to the wolves, destroy the credibility of Canadian servicemembers, diplomats and aid workers wherever they go and take away Canada's newly won credibility with our allies and all for what? To steal a few votes away from Jack Layton. *

What a bunch of disgusting, unprincipled opportunists. Readers have my permission to cut and paste the paragraph above into letters, emails, op ed pieces and wherever else it may do some good. Oh, be sure to email it to a Liberal MP as well.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (17 May 2006)

William Webb Ellis said:
			
		

> "asshats"  I like it......Premission to use it?



If you're asking me, go for it.  I can't take credit for that term.  It's pretty common around these parts.  

a_majoor, the only thing I find curious about your bang on post is the out-of-place surprised tone to it.  Surely the self serving and morally bankrupt nature of the Lieberals could not catch you off guard?


----------



## William Webb Ellis (18 May 2006)

Ya Hoo.........ASSHATS


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 May 2006)

For what it may be worth:

"A Close Run Thing"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006521.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 May 2006)

Good one Mark!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 May 2006)

Gen MacKenzie's response to Jack Laytons speech about going back to typical Blue Beret missions went something like this:  The UN doesn't do any missions like that anymore because they don't work.  He then went on to say how the Sudan Gov't would dick us around and we'd be killing people over there to stop further killings and rapes.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (18 May 2006)

The vote itself I watched.  Interesting that the Liberal leadership candidates didn't all "toe the party line"....and Mr Graham said yes?  Wow.  Wasn't he the MND when previous TFs were deployed???   

I also found Maj-Gen MacKenzie's response to Jack Layton Just plain funny.  It was classic even.  Maybe, if Jack Layton watches a replay of it he will realize he is so far out of his lane he couldn't correct himself to save his life.  My advice?  Hire someone to talk to you, or to teach you about "whats going on in the world".  Must be the happy-grass he smokes.

Now maybe the House of Commons will get on with the job they are charged with on behalf of Canadians' and let our professional military leaders get on with it.


----------



## a_majoor (18 May 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> If you're asking me, go for it.  I can't take credit for that term.  It's pretty common around these parts.
> 
> a_majoor, the only thing I find curious about your bang on post is the out-of-place surprised tone to it.  Surely the self serving and morally bankrupt nature of the Lieberals could not catch you off guard?



Anger makes me tone deaf  :rage:


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 May 2006)

Graham voted FOR the mission to continue. Good for him. I guess he was looking to the leadership race - or perhaps he does have a conscience.  Apparently some other Liberals put aside partisanship for this also.  Anyone here going to give them the credit they're due for that?


----------



## paracowboy (18 May 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Apparently some other Liberals put aside partisanship for this also.  Anyone here going to give them the credit they're due for that?


nope. A gang-banger doesn't jaywalk one day, he's still a criminal to me.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 May 2006)

One of the other Liberals who is making a run for the leadership (his name escapes me) also vote for the renewal.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> nope. A gang-banger doesn't jaywalk one day, he's still a criminal to me.



 :rofl:  Bloody classic!!


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (18 May 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Graham voted FOR the mission to continue. Good for him. I guess he was looking to the leadership race - or perhaps he does have a conscience.  Apparently some other Liberals put aside partisanship for this also.  Anyone here going to give them the credit they're due for that?



Personally I wouldn't give any Liberal enough "credit" for a stick of Juicy-Fruit.  But that's just me.  I heard a rumour that they owe some money back into the Gun Registry, so they get no more credit in my books.  They would have to...fix the whole in the ozone layer...or make red meat cholesteral-free or something to get any credit from me.


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 May 2006)

Quagmire: Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison (Liberal leadership candidates) voted for the motion.

"Leadership hopefuls Joe Volpe, Maurizio Bevilacqua, Hedy Fry, Stephane Dion and Ken Dryden voted against it.

Former prime minister Paul Martin wasn't present."
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060517/nato_afghan_060518/20060518?hub=Canada

Mr Dithers indeed.  To be kind.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 May 2006)

Michael Ignatieff I believe was the one mentioned who according to the coverage I watched is a bid supporter of the stuff the CF is doing now.  Which lead to the wonderings about the Liberal Leadership race and if this will divide the party.
Its also rumored that no not because of the extension but because of how the Conservatives went about the whole thing.


----------



## GAP (18 May 2006)

It was reported on CTV last night that Michael Ignatieff and 11 of his supporters voted for the extension. He has always been for the deployment and Brison, ever the opportunist (see Atlantic support for the CF), supported it also.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 May 2006)

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060517/nato_afghan_060518

Afghan mission extension 'no surprise' to soldiers 
CTV.ca News Staff

Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan have reportedly welcomed Wednesday's Commons vote to extend their mission by another two years.

Just hours after Canada suffered its first female combat death in the war-torn country, MPs voted by a narrow margin of 149-145 to extend the Canadian military mission to February 2009.

Capt. Nichola Goddard, 26, was killed during a firefight with Taliban insurgents Wednesday. 


CTV's Janice Mackey Frayer, reporting from Kandahar, said although there hadn't been any official reaction to the vote, soldiers she had spoken to had shown "a degree of inevitability" about the mission being extended. 

"When foreign minister Peter MacKay had his surprise visit here last week, there was talk that perhaps Canadian troops would be staying longer," Mackey Frayer told CTV's Canada AM Thursday.

"The fact that the mission is being extended comes as no surprise because very few, if anybody here, believe that the task would be done by February, 2007."

Warrant Officer Bruno Wissell likened the Afghan mission to Bosnia.

"It's going to be similar to Bosnia, where we were there for 10 years and we had people that were doing two or three tours," he told reporters from Kandahar Thursday. 

"Once you get into a mission, you always want to finish what you started." 

Sergeant Scott O'Neill also approved the mission's extension, calling it "a no-brainer."

He told The Canadian Press that the coalition is only starting to make headway and needs to keep at it until the job is done.

Motion

After the Conservative motion passed late Wednesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper walked across the floor and shook hands with Liberal Opposition Leader Bill Graham, who voted in favour of the extension. 

Graham was defence minister when the current Afghan mission was deployed. 

"I'm obviously pleased, the vote was obviously much closer than we thought even 24 hours ago," Harper told reporters.

"Support for the mission is a lot stronger than the vote. There were a lot of people in there who just wanted to vote against the government."

Harper accused the Bloc Québécois of playing political games over the issue, and attributed his narrow victory to Conservatives and "certain Liberals who acted on principle." 

While Graham voted in favour, another former Liberal defence minister, John McCallum, voted against the motion.

Leadership contender Michael Ignatieff voted for the extension, while rivals Stéphane Dion, Ken Dryden and Joe Volpe voted against.

The vote leaves the Liberal Party deeply divided over an issue that will likely dominate the coming Liberal leadership campaign. 

A defiant Harper led off the debate Wednesday by declaring he would extend the mission by a year in any case, with or without the support of the House, and would be willing to call an election on the issue. 

"We cannot walk away quickly," Harper told the House. "If we need further efforts or further mandate to go ahead into the future, we will go so alone and go to the Canadian people to get that mandate." 

The Conservatives announced the debate and vote for a two-year extension on Monday, and MPs spent about six hours debating whether Canada's troops should come home as scheduled in February 2007, or stay until 2009. 

The Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party voted against the motion.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said the mission would see Canada straying from its traditional role as peace keeper.

Meanwhile, Graham allowed Liberal MPs a free vote and in the end Graham and 29 other Liberals supported the motion. 


Graham earlier criticized the government for holding a vote without providing enough time to debate the issue. He said his party supports the troops and the mission in Afghanistan, but that MPs were voting "with a gun to our heads." 

Canada has around 2,300 soldiers in Afghanistan, with most stationed at Kandahar Airfield.

The Globe and Mail reported Wednesday that the government's sudden decision to call a debate and vote was in part because NATO wants Canada to take over command of the entire Afghan mission in 2008.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 May 2006)

I find it interesting that CTV reported Harper shook hands with Graham, but CBC did not.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 May 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Michael Ignatieff I believe was the one mentioned who according to the coverage I watched is a bid supporter of the stuff the CF is doing now.  Which lead to the wonderings about the Liberal Leadership race and if this will divide the party.
> Its also rumored that no not because of the extension but because of how the Conservatives went about the whole thing.



I wouldn't be surprised to see another Lieberal good MP/bad MP play like they did with Dithers taking over from Cretin.  That whole "he's a bad guy/ you go pound it" donkey show was just a thinly veiled stunt to capture publicity.  Look at how much press that got them, they got to make Cretin the big bad boogie man and Dithers the new golden boy who was being picked on because he was such a straight up guy.  Smart people management.  And low and behold, a Lieberal victory in the face of huge scandal in the previous federal election.
Now, you have a Lieberal leadership race (what is it up to now, 37 hopefuls?) and you see the front runners going against their party.  The poorly worded polls didn't sway Canadians feelings about the troops, and the insiders would know the real information behind the stats they skewed.  The front runners can now paint themselves as rogue upstarts, bravely foraging against the grain for the good of Queen and Country.  Contrary votes get press no matter what.  No matter what we think of them (and it is pretty piss poor) the Lieberals are good at media manipulation.  Don't be surprised when Dithers starts to be made out as a lightning rod and the front runners "just can't be silent any longer in all fairness to Canadians everywhere".  I'm calling bullshit.


----------



## Hot Lips (18 May 2006)

Well, well...I watched most of the debate off and on yesterday and of course the vote late last evening...it sickens me to think that regardless of what the others think of Harper, what the others think of the Liberal party that they were willing to vote, not on what was at hand but on the principle of how it was presented to the members of Parliament.

For the love of god, would these overgrown, overpaid individuals just suck it up and vote to support the mission already!!!!
When do they shut down the politicking and get to work...decisions at hand...that require real attention, not attention seeking behavior.
Nevertheless I was happy to see the motion passed...

I would have to concur that General Mackenzie's remarks about Jack Layton were extremely amusing and so very accurate in depicting the fact that Jack Layton doesn't have one iota of an idea what he is talking about...the statement from Gen. Mackenzie to the effect that Jack Layton needs to realize we don't do these touchy feely peacekeeping missions any more...was hilarious...and that no one is doing that kind of peace keeping (Layton's reference of peacekeeping) no one in the world...it cracked me up...he's an amazing individual in my opinion...

Well that's the end of my 2 cents

HL


----------



## a_majoor (18 May 2006)

Harper is far smarter than any of us think. This vote was a test of the waters, and soon our friend David Emmerson might find some of his old pals sitting on his side of the floor. What a test by fire,_ who _ is a party drone, and _who _ has the potential to do the *right* thing (in all senses of the word)?

Technicolour dreaming? Maybe.........or maybe not


----------



## Hot Lips (18 May 2006)

a_majoor,

I do agree that Harper is intelligent and strategic in his thinking and actions...I'm a big fan of his ballsy political style...and I agree the waters were definitely tested last night on more ways than one  

HL


----------



## Enzo (19 May 2006)

Yeah. I concur with majoor's thinking about Harper. That was definitely a toe in the water.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 May 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Technicolour dreaming? Maybe.........or maybe not


Hopefully not, but what does "Ken Ore, Ya mo tsuki" actually mean???


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 May 2006)

Here is an interesting _opinion_ piece by *Eugene Lang*, copied, under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, from today’s _Globe and Mail_.

Mr. Lang is a partisan Liberal but, unlike me and, I suspect all of us, he was there, in the room.  Some may doubt his motive and some may suspect that he ‘tailors’ the facts, as he remembers them, to support his case but we should not doubt his honesty – not without real proof.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060519.wxcoafghan19/BNStory/specialComment/home


> We never discussed the real Afghan option
> 
> EUGENE LANG
> 
> ...


Lang say that: “Officials in the Department of National Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs, frequently at odds with one another, dithered and bickered for about a year and a half over where Canada's PRT should be located.”  I’m sure that’s true but I think he might have been a touch more accurate had he said something like: “Officials and political appointee staffers in the Prime Minister’s Office, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs, frequently at odds with one another, dithered and bickered …”

Lang fails to point out that bureaucracies (including military bureaucracies) like political parties, change their minds – sometimes, even often to reflect the views of a new leader.  It appears, to me, that DND (and, in part, DFAIT) changed their minds in 2005.  New leadership was and remains intent on _transforming_ the CF and part of that transformation is to get rid of the _namby-pamby_ image and mind set (throughout the government and the country) which bedevils the CF today.

Those points being made I accept the crux of Lang’s position:

•	Canada did, indeed, _ditrher_ its way into dangerous Kandahar;

•	There were options available to PMs Martin and Harper – both made choices, perhaps in ignorance and by default, but choices none the less;

•	Parliament’s debate was narrow.


The responsibility for the dithering rests 100% with the Martin government in which Mr. Lang served in a senior political capacity.

PM Harper has made a choice.  It is a ‘legitimate’ choice based on defensible foreign and defence policy grounds.  Mr. Lang may not like the choice but two dozen Liberals did and another dozen were too timid to show up for the vote.

The fact that parliamentarians failed to deal with a complex question in a sensible, professional manner speaks to the low quality of too many elected members which, in turn, speaks to the low quality of the political process – in all parties – in Canada.  Mr. Lang, as a senior political _operator_ bears some responsibility for that, too.


----------



## GAP (19 May 2006)

I keep getting the feeling that we should apologize for aggressively going after the insurgents. Everything is couched in politically correct terms and in a roundabout manner. 

What is so terrible about going out and kicking A#$ and being proud of do it?


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 May 2006)

A good and realistic column by Richard Gwyn in the Toronto Star, May 19, "The choice before us is not whether we stay or go; it is whether to try to hide in the past or plunge into the future":
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1147989015328&call_pageid=968256290204

Excerpts:
'...
There's no doubt whatever, though, that political pressure is going to build on the government to get our 2,300 troops out as soon as decently possible...

There is a strong pacifist sentiment in this country. It's strongest in Quebec for historical reasons.

But it's widespread; it explains why, until quite recently, Canadians had come to regard our military as a kind of police force that went around the world handing out sacks of flour and in the meantime helped out at home during ice storms.

Those days are long gone. They're never going to come back...

In Afghanistan, the mission isn't to prevent a war between nation-states but to build a nation-state, from virtually nothing.

This has to be a long-term project. It can't be done, by many allies as well as ourselves, in under five years.

The attempt to do this may fail, of course. It's excruciatingly difficult.

To win, the enemy, the Taliban, does not need to win militarily. It only needs to kill enough people, both Afghans and the foreign troops, until it has won politically.

Political victory for the Taliban will happen when and if public demand in Canada forces the government to opt out of the mission...

It will be a victory for the forces of darkness, of hatred, of those who refuse to accept that all people everywhere have the right to a chance at a decent life...'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Hot Lips (20 May 2006)

Well put...
It's a shame why we can't just get on with supporting this mission, which was started by the Liberals and stop all the debates already...how much time and money has been spent debating...would have better been spent on supporting...IMO

HL


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 May 2006)

"Mr. Martin, who was never keen on Canada's presence in Afghanistan, reluctantly approved this expanded mission, principally because he was told it would not preclude a second significant Canadian Forces deployment to Darfur or Haiti, both of which were preoccupying him. There was also an understanding at that time that the combat part of the Kandahar mission would be in place for one year only, but that the PRT would likely stay beyond that point. I was in the room in the spring of 2005 when those decisions and commitments were made."

If this statement was true, then perhaps Dithers should have SHOWN UP and had his say.  Seems like that would have been a pretty big political stick to swing, if it existed.  Pretty easy for Mr. Lang to throw around now that he is not in the "game".  

+1 for Edwards assessment of our time wasting, largely usesless Parliamentary procedures.  It's hard to believe that we even have running water in this country with that gong show making decisions for us.


----------



## North Star (21 May 2006)

The NDHQ grapevine says that yes, there was dithering and as such we ended up with Kandahar. But it was "political" dithering between members of cabinet. I suspect the Globe article was indeed taliored a bit.


----------



## armybuck041 (21 May 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> +1 for Edwards assessment of our time wasting, largely usesless Parliamentary procedures.  It's hard to believe that we even have running water in this country with that gong show making decisions for us.



Now thats funny......


----------



## Hot Lips (21 May 2006)

+1 for Edwards assessment of our time wasting, largely usesless Parliamentary procedures.  It's hard to believe that we even have running water in this country with that gong show making decisions for us.
[/quote] LMAO ROTFL...omg how true is that.

HL


----------



## McG (21 May 2006)

armybuck041 said:
			
		

> Are the Dutch and the UK not in Afghanistan anymore???


They are there, and both nations are providing a BG sized force to same Canadian led OEF Bde that ORION is a part of.



> *Afghanistan mission vote 'risked lives'*
> *Dallaire attacks Harper gov't 'fiddling'*
> Andrea Sands, The Edmonton Journal
> Published: Sunday, May 21, 2006
> ...


Could these same acusations not be made against anyone that voted against staying in Afghanistan?


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 May 2006)

Regarding the Dutch (May 11): I think it noteworthy that no Canadian media carried this report (as far as I can see).  No wonder so few people (ordinary, media, politicians) have any serious understanding of what is going on.  And this is the sort of detailed info the government should have given to the House during the debate on Afstan.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C05%5C11%5Cstory_11-5-2006_pg4_22

'Dutch confident about Afghanistan mission

Helicopters, engineers and armoured infantry are helping make the commander of Dutch troops in southern Afghanistan confident of success in their mission in Uruzgan, where now only an handful of special forces are taking on the Taliban...

Despite parliamentary delays in approving the mission amid a heated national debate about it, Morsink [Dutch force commander] said he believed 80 percent of parliamentarians supported the deployment, “and that is very important for the soldiers”. The political support could prove decisive: Western military officials in Afghanistan think the Taliban will try to play on the doubts of the Dutch public in a bid to force their withdrawal.

The about 800 soldiers who are already in Uruzgan, waiting for the arrival by the end of July of some 550 more, have had been engaged by militants twice in the past weeks. The first time was “quite heavy”, involving rockets, grenades and machine-gun fire, Morsink said, adding the soldiers had coped “extremely well”.

...The commander will have at his disposal six Apache attack helicopters and, in a few months, eight F-16 fighters [our forces can but dream]. “They are my Apaches so nobody can tell me in a case of emergency, ‘I cannot help you.’ I have my own means to help myself,” he stressed. The soldiers also will undergo special training in Kandahar before leaving for Uruzgan. AFP'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Enzo (21 May 2006)

> Canada must send its military into wartorn regions to support civilians who are fending off extremists while struggling to set up stable democratic systems.



Canada *must*? Uh, yeah.  : Internal civil matters are not an issue for immediate involvement.



> The federal government should also send 1,500 troops into the Darfur region of Sudan, or at least contribute 500 soldiers to a UN rapid-reaction brigade already operating in the country, Dallaire told reporters.



And these troops are coming from where exactly? Not to mention the logistics and ROE, etc.



> "Canada's role is to get off its butt and to do something and continue the effort that Prime Minister Paul Martin started when we went over and we decided to reinforce the African Union."



Ok, let's use our civil and political elements to pursue such matters, i.e., contining to support the African Union and rally against states that sell arms to the combatants, etc.



> A shaky peace treaty was signed May5 to end Darfur's three-year civil war, which has killed at least 180,000 and displaced about two million people.



Yeah, *"shaky"* is the word and last time I checked only one faction (albeit the largest) signed that treaty. Anyone want to step into the middle of that nonsense?

Dallaire got rooked and he needs to deal with his demons. I don't concur with his rationale and to be so fervent is misguided and potentially harmful.


----------



## McG (21 May 2006)

Enzo said:
			
		

> Canada *must*? Uh, yeah.  : Internal civil matters are not an issue for immediate involvement.


Maybe, but it sounds like another good reason to stay in Afghanistan.


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 May 2006)

When will Sen. Dallaire, and ourmedia, deign to notice THAT NO UN FORCE for Darfur has been authorized by the UNSC?  And that no Chapter VII force likely will be given the opposition of Khartoum, Beijing and Moscow.  Our media fail dismally in giving a complete picture--but then that is not of interest to them, rather the political story here.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 May 2006)

>"If that's the case, then it's the prime minister who's going to carry those bodies on his back, because he didn't need to see that split in that debate in the House."

Refresh my memory, please.  As I recollect the events of the past few months, the Conservatives were not the ones agitating for a debate on the Afghanistan mission. If my recollection is correct, then if the senator wants to chastise a political party for seeking a debate, perhaps someone could steer him in the correct direction since it would appear instead that his memory has failed him.  If he believes that a Commons debate was inappropriate and not required, he can tell them that also, and instruct them that Prime Minister Harper should simply give the orders.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 May 2006)

The whole thing stinks of political manoeuvring by the LIBERAL senator Dallaire.  The argument *for* his beloved mission in Darfur applies equally to our current mission in Afghanistan.  Also, as anyone knows, a principal of war is Offensive Action.  So, for those who say that we should do "peacekeeping, but ready to defend" are dupes.  Sure there was no need for offensive action in Cyprus (1974 notwithstanding), but this sure as heck isn't Cyprus, the Golan, or anything like that.  As witnessed over the past few years, there are those "over there" who would do not only us, but the citizens harm.  Had we adopted the attitude of "doing good, but able to defend", well, even in defensive operations a key Principal of war that applies is Offensive Action.

(rant off)


----------



## Hot Lips (22 May 2006)

Here, here vonGarvin,

Seems like quite a bit of commonsense in what you say  :

HL


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2006)

Former Liberal Defence Minister John McCallum defended his decision to vote against continuing the Afghanistan mission in a letter to the _Globe and Mail_ which is repeated, below, in accordance with the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060522.LETTERS22-2/TPStory/?query=McCallum 


> Didn't 'cut and run'
> 
> *JOHN MCCALLUM*
> Member of Parliament for Markham-Unionville
> ...



His ‘defence’ doesn’t add up.

First, he admits _( “… the Prime Minister … drove natural supporters such as myself to oppose his motion.”)_ that partisan politics, not principle caused him to vote ‘No.’

He complains that parliament did not have _”weeks of discussion”_ – what arrant nonsense; what balderdash!  Politicians and the media have been talking about little else for weeks.  Elected MPs in Ottawa have excellent research facilities and top rate research staffers (in their own offices and in the Library of Parliament).  If _”appropriate information”_ did not reach them it is because, and only because they, elected MPs, are either: lazy or too deeply involved in their own, internal, partisan, party business – on the taxpayers’ dime – to do their jobs.

Canadians need to be _”united in condemning”_ MPs like McCallum who have put partisan political advantage ahead of their sworn duty to their country.

Resign, Mr. McCallum!  You are, by your own words, unable to meet the low standards we Canadians have come to expect from members of our national parliament.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 May 2006)

Edward, I totally agree.  I have inmates on my floor right now who have more have more plausible BS than Mr.McCallum does.

No debate?........well, I guess I will put any of my integrity aside, put my thumb in my mouth and make a fool of myself.

I second the resign petition, Mr. McCallum.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 May 2006)

As we used to say about the generals in the old army when they made a stupid statement or a boneheaded decision, one never knew if they were drunk or stupid. To Mr McCallum's credit, he was able to overcome his drinking problem a few years ago.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 May 2006)

:rofl:


----------



## vonGarvin (22 May 2006)

McCallum is a revisionist, pure and simple.
WEEKS of pre-ISAF meetings?  With whom?  Remember how that one came out of left field, mere months after saying "we dont' have the resources to replace the 3 PPCLI battlegroup in Khandahar"?  Also remember that JC and the boys were flip flopping on Iraq, sending mixed signals to the US in the months leading up to OIF to the point that the US didn't know if we were coming or going?  Remember how rushed the deployment was to the point that vehicles were taken off BTE, shipped to Montreal for a rudimentary check prior to sending to Kabul?  Remember the RUSH RUSH RUSH to get us over there so that we could option ourselves OUT of any participation in OIF?  Remember that our "official" opposition to OIF began ONLY AFTER our commitment to ISAF was firm?  Remember our politicians BEGGING to lead ISAF?  Remember the General (I forget his name) resigning after the announcement because ISAF wasn't even on the radar prior to the sudden announcement by the government to send TWO THOUSAND soldiers, sailors and airmen to ISAF?  Don't forget, 3 PPCLI battlegroup was only a few months back on the ground after saying we couldn't replace those some 900?
The Conservative Party had supported the current mission to Khandahar when in opposition.  They are elected and SUDDENLY this is a neo-con plot to support OIF indirectly.  This stinks.  I think I'll buy a flag pole, put it in my front yard, put the Canadian Flag up there proud and strong.  Next to it, in a pile of manure (of which I have plenty: I have a hobby farm with a manure-producing young calf out there), I will put a banner of the liberal party and burn it nightly.
By the way, my flag will fly 24/7, properly illuminated in periods of darkness (which I believe is the proper protocol)


----------



## McG (22 May 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> The whole thing stinks of political manoeuvring by the LIBERAL senator Dallaire.  The argument *for* his beloved mission in Darfur applies equally to our current mission in Afghanistan.


I believe that was intentional on his part.  He does say to stay the course in Afghanistan & do the Sudan.

However, his comments about the inappropriateness of the Prime Minister's actions could be just as easily applied to members of other parties.

Was this not the second Parliamentary debate on the Op ARCHER mission (a mission which is now almost one year old and was not debated until following the deployment of roto 1)?


----------



## vonGarvin (22 May 2006)

Just in case you were wondering how the respective members of the house voted on the 2 year extension, go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/025_2006-05-17/han025_2220-E.htm#Div-9


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 May 2006)

How is it these people can (or claim to) remain so profoundly ignorant of current affairs that they can't step into the House with an argument pro or con (and perhaps both) prepared in their mind, together with a provisional decision whether a motion is worth supporting or not on its own merits?  Did McCallum go in there to be persuaded, to persuade, or to simply register a vote of protest?  And why, if they are so ignorant, do we continue to grant them so much power?


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> How is it these people can (or claim to) remain so profoundly ignorant of current affairs that they can't step into the House with an argument pro or con (and perhaps both) prepared in their mind, together with a provisional decision whether a motion is worth supporting or not on its own merits?  Did McCallum go in there to be persuaded, to persuade, or to simply register a vote of protest?  And why, if they are so ignorant, do we continue to grant them so much power?



Too true!  As Pogo said: _”We have seen the enemy, and he is us!”_

We are the problem because we elect these clowns; we bitch and moan between elections but we trudge back to the polls and vote for them again, and again, _ad infinitum_.

Mr. McCallum isn’t a stupid man or even a dishonest one; he’s just ‘playing the game’ according to the ‘rules’ which have been in place since, at least, I was a small boy.  These ‘rules’ were _validated_ by Messers. Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien, Martin and Harper – one party is as bad as another – and are supported by Graham, Duceppe and Layton, too.

When I want games I can always watch the Oilers (it’s next year, again, for us Senators fans); when I watch parliament I want ideas, options and, finally, sound decisions.  I am being cheated.  Mr. McCallum and his colleagues, including Harper and O’Connor, are taking my money under false pretenses: they promised to govern (and offer alternatives) for the greater national good; they act only for their own narrow, partisan purposes.

This is an apolitical rant: Tories and Liberals, Bloc_istes_ and NDP_ers_ too are all equally blameworthy – 90% of each party are cheap, ward heeling, worthless party hacks.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 May 2006)

How can McCallum squall about not having enough time to prepare a debate?   ???  IT WAS HIS FRIGGIN IDEA!  If anyone should have been informed and prepared to argue, it should have been him.  This is just another shining example of how much disdain and disrespect the Lieberals have for the citizens of this country.  
"OOOO, look Canada, shiny baubles, pretty mirrors,  OOOO, ya want 'em, you need to believe us,  MMMM, really pretty!"

Can anyone Photoshop the heads of the Lieberal front runners onto the below posted photo?  Because that's what that party is:  a bunch of Jackasses in a run away cart going down hill fast.


----------



## C/10 (25 May 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> "OOOO, look Canada, shiny baubles, pretty mirrors,  OOOO, ya want 'em, you need to believe us,  MMMM, really pretty!"
> 
> Can anyone Photoshop the heads of the Lieberal front runners onto the below posted photo?  Because that's what that party is:  a bunch of Jackasses in a run away cart going down hill fast.



ROFLMAO


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 May 2006)

This is from today’s _Globe and Mail_; it is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060525.wafghanistan0525/BNStory/Afghanistan/home 


> Afghan exit strategy involves staying put until 2009: O'Connor
> 
> CHRIS MORRIS
> 
> ...



First, it is good to see that O’Connor does understand the major speed-bump on the road to rebuilding the army.

Second, I think that LGen Leslie was and still is right when he says this will be a 20 year mission.  I agree we should reassess our position in 2009; we should reassess in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and so on, too.  O’Connor should not _suggest_ that 2009 is any kind of end date – it is, simply, the year which Parliament has agreed should be the term of the current mission.  O’Connor is correct when he says that in 2009 the government of the day will have to decide to _“… continue in Afghanistan, downsize, upsize, leave or whatever.”_  but I think he was being too cute by half and I think too many people will focus on a *promise* to withdraw in 2009.


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 May 2006)

> Last week, the UN Security Council resolved that a large UN force should take over peacekeeping in Darfur from the under-equipped African Union mission that has failed to end a three-year conflict.



No it did not.  It merely voted for planning.  Why can our media not report accurately?  Do they even want to?

The resolution only says:



> concrete steps should be taken to effect the transition from AMIS to a United Nations operation
> 
> accelerate transition to a United Nations operation



See this guest-post at "Daimnation!"

"Darfur: Another reason not to trust "Canada's National Newspaper"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006516.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (26 May 2006)

"Romeo Dallaire, the former commander of the UN peacekeeping mission during the Rwandan genocide of 1994, has said Canada should send 1,500 troops into Darfur, or at least contribute 500 soldiers to a UN rapid-reaction brigade already operating in Sudan.

“Canada's role is to get off its butt and to do something and continue the effort that Prime Minister Paul Martin started when we went over and we decided to reinforce the African Union,” Mr. Dallaire said."

When is this two faced has-been going to get a butt stroke to the grill to shut him up?  I think someone has some ghostly Rwandan faces in his nightmares, and a bit of self recrimination.  

And can someone please explain why the next UN inspired mission ABSOLUTELY HAS TO  be manned by Canada?  ???  Seems for all the anti-American rhetoric that gets thrown around, the Lieberals really want us sticking our noses into a lot of places.


----------



## North Star (26 May 2006)

Didn't he flip-flop on this issue? I remember before an election (either this last one or the one prior when the Liberals were reduced to a minority) he was fending off MPs on the government's behalf by saying The Sudan was an African problem.....

Maybe somebody should look up his comments on this, and take him to task...


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 May 2006)

> Dallaire...has said Canada should send 1,500 troops into Darfur, or at least contribute 500 soldiers to a UN rapid-reaction brigade already operating in Sudan.



I have searched the web and can find no mention that UNMIS has any such thing as a "rapid-reaction brigade".

I don't think Dallaire has any idea what he is talking about.  The UN force for Southern Sudan (UNMIS) has the following strength, May 2006:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/bnote.htm#unmis

"troops 8,034; military observers 635; police 596; international civilian 671; local civilian 1,242; UN volunteer 99"

This is from the UNMIS site:
http://www.unmis.org/english/military.htm

"Of the 10,000 peacekeepers, there will be 750 UN Military Observers (UNMOs), who will carry out monitoring and verification activities in their respective areas of responsibility.

Of the 10,000, approximately 4,000 peacekeepers will make up a protection force, which will be responsible for protecting UN staff, equipment, and installations as well as helping Sudanese authorities to protect any civilians who come are in imminent danger.

Another 4,000 peacekeepers will be involved in administrative and logistical support activities, along with demining and reconstruction work."

If the protection force's main duty in protecting UN assets it can hardly be a rapid-reaction force.  Helping Sudanese in only a secondary function.  

The reporter, Chris Morris of CP, should do a little more work before taking Sen. Dallaire's statements at face value.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Hot Lips (27 May 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> How can McCallum squall about not having enough time to prepare a debate?   ???  IT WAS HIS FRIGGIN IDEA!  If anyone should have been informed and prepared to argue, it should have been him.  This is just another shining example of how much disdain and disrespect the Lieberals have for the citizens of this country.
> "OOOO, look Canada, shiny baubles, pretty mirrors,  OOOO, ya want 'em, you need to believe us,  MMMM, really pretty!"
> 
> Can anyone Photoshop the heads of the Lieberal front runners onto the below posted photo?  Because that's what that party is:  *a bunch of Jackasses in a run away cart going down hill fast.*


 You nailed it on the head with your last comments Zipperhead_cop...LMAO ROTFL
 :rofl:
HL


----------



## North Star (29 May 2006)

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2006/05/09/1571083-sun.html

Unlike Peter Worthington, I think Dallaire's opinion on Darfur changes to fit the political bill rather than anything else. When he wasn't a Senator, he advocated intervention. When he was appointed to the Red Chamber, he seemed to back off. Now he's back, convenient considering his party is in opposition. 

Nothing would please me more than to intervene and carve a separate state out of the Sudan a la Kosovo. But hey, like paracowboy I know the resources situation all to well..


----------

