# What'll CAN Coalition Mean for AFG Mission?



## The Bread Guy (1 Dec 2008)

So, IF the Jack & Gilles get their coalition, what happens to CAN's mission in AFG?

The Liberal platform promise (.pdf) is:


> A Liberal government will ensure that it is understood that Canada’s commitment to maintain a military presence in Kandahar will end by July 2011....
> 
> The Liberal Party remains committed to helping the people of Afghanistan as they work to build a stable, secure and democratic country. We are proud of the efforts of the men and women in uniform and the civilians who have taken up this challenge. The Liberal caucus took the lead in drafting and passing the motion in Parliament on the mission in Afghanistan. Our changes to the motion forced the Conservative government to accept our views that: the mission needs to change so there is a greater emphasis on training, security and reconstruction; the military mission in Kandahar needed to have a firm end date of 2011; and the government must go beyond an exclusively military focus in its approach to Afghanistan by increasing efforts with respect to development and international diplomacy.
> 
> ...




NDP's pledge (scan of web page attached below):


> ....Jack Layton and the New Democrats will:
> - Withdraw all Canadian forces from the Afghanistan combat mission, with reasonable advance
> notice and in consultation with our allies.
> - Ensure that Canada delivers on the aid and development assistance commitment made through the
> ...




And since the Bloc'll have a word in, here's a bit of their platform (scan of Google English translation also attached below):


> The Bloc Québécois stresses the importance of a rapid rebalancing of the mission for particular humanitarian aspect. Moreover, in May 2006, the Bloc Quebecois voted against the extension of the mission until February 2009 in its current form. But from the moment it has undertaken, we believe that Canada must respect this commitment and continue its military effort in the Assistance Force (ISAF) for Afghanistan. A sudden withdrawal would be fraught with consequences for the Afghan people. This gesture would be irresponsible to our allies, who rely on the collaboration of Canada....



Any way of squaring the circle?  Anyone?  Anyone?


----------



## Greymatters (1 Dec 2008)

Ref the Liberal platform:
_Committed... to build a stable, secure AND democratic country_ - yet pulling out in the next three years when it is fairly certain that the country will be neither secure nor democratic by then.
_Proud of the efforts of men and women in unifrom _ - yet failed to recognize their efforts during their previous Liberal term.
_Must go beyond an exclusively military focus _ - pretty easy to accomplish considering thats already been done.
_Greater commitment to transparency and accountability_ - The pot calling the kettle black...

The NDP platform:
_Ensure Canada delivers aid and development assistance_ - isnt that already being done?
_Ensure women human rights groups in Afghanistan can access Canadian dollars _ - isnt that already being done?
_Corruption at all levels is addresses effectively _ - very vague, what methods will be used?  Eliminate it or just reduce it to an acceptable international standard?
_Ensure the UN and not NATO or the US is the lead_ - yes, yes, we've seen how successfully that ends; it's why NATO and the US starting leading nowadays
_Peace... in line with the President of Afghanistan and leading security experts_ - apparently, neither the President of Afghanistan nor any leading security experts are involved at the moment...

The Bloc platform:
_Rebalancing of the mission for particular humanitarian aspect _ - many examples worldwide of how humanitarian aid without security only leads to dead humanitarian aid workers, or no aid at all
_Believe that Canada must respect this commitment and continue its military effort in ISAF_ - isnt joining with the Liberal and NDP parties contradictory to this concept?

Summary:
Political rhetoric.
Political posturing.
Political power struggle.


----------



## geo (1 Dec 2008)

Heh.... if you think Afghanistan is hard.... imagine other places in the world they might want to send us....

Congo?
Sudan?
Somalia?
Zimbabwe?
Haiti?

The 1st 4 countries haven't asked for any intervention - which would mean that we'd have to "invade" the country - over the standing government's complete opposition.... AKA declaring war on them........ NOT!!!

None of the Liberal / NDP / BQ parties are prepared to go that route - so they'd bring the Cdn Forces home again....


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Dec 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Heh.... if you think Afghanistan is hard.... imagine other places in the world they might want to send us....
> 
> Congo?
> Sudan?
> ...



...and promptly cut funding by 70%, sell all the weapons and vehicles, and replace them with snowshovels, fire axes, and wheelbarrows and sandbags.


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Dec 2008)

A _Torch_ post:

Hell no, we won't fight! 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/12/hell-no-we-wont-fight.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters (1 Dec 2008)

I'm expecting an announcement on the cancellation of all military weapons acquisition, replacement or refurbishment programs until they can be 'reviewed' by the new triumvirate...


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Dec 2008)

Greymatters: Then there are troikas:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=_eUtQjseKaIC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=stalin+%22second+troika&source=bl&ots=AdOTR-3NHK&sig=YqrPdi5a9PMzEAsunt6QIhtW7bM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters (1 Dec 2008)

While I dont approve of their actions, I wouldnt group them together...


----------



## Haggis (2 Dec 2008)

I was curiously waiting for this topic to appear.


----------



## Marauder (2 Dec 2008)

That flushing sound you hear is the CF being sent back up the river to buy Taliban Jack's "loyalty" (har har) and muffled silence.

I love it when the "will of the people" is put forth front and centre.


----------



## Zartan (2 Dec 2008)

I expect this to be the very topic that undoes the coalition. Perhaps we could see a new majority coalition arise from the ashes of such an event.... A Unity Government ala 1917 composed of Conservatives and likeminded liberals? I highly doubt the coalition is a very cohesive political unit - and I can't expect it to get better.


----------



## CBH99 (2 Dec 2008)

This is one big reason the folks in the Project Management Offices, Treasury Board, and Public Works need to stop justifying their jobs with red tape and get a move on things - lots of capital projects could be delayed EVEN LONGER than they already have been.  While some very good progress has been made recently in terms of signing the contract for the C-130J, purchasing 6 CH-47D for the sandbox, and a myriad of armoured vehicle & specialty vehicles for the Afghanistan mission...there are some projects that have taken forever to get off the ground.  (And in my personal, humble opinion - it blows me away as to why some projects, which seem simple enough, take forever to go anywhere....but thats for a different thread.)


Anybody else angry at the fact that a government that was not elected may be leading the country only 6 weeks after the current government was VOTED IN?  *Rant off*


----------



## Nauticus (2 Dec 2008)

Marauder said:
			
		

> That flushing sound you hear is the CF being sent back up the river to buy Taliban Jack's "loyalty" (har har) and muffled silence.
> 
> I love it when the "will of the people" is put forth front and centre.


Well, thats what a democracy is.

I just hope the Coalition government doesn't touch what Harper's government has done a decent job trying to fix as far as the military goes.


----------



## YZT580 (2 Dec 2008)

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/30/the-tories-made-them-do-it/   Andrew Coyne has taken a very lonely position vis a vis the coup I tend to agree with parts of it.  I certainly believe that these events would have occured regardless: they were just looking for a stimulus.  As for the Military Mission there will be little change over the winter but, once the NDP get comfortable at the cabinet table you will begin to see fewer expeditions outside the wire and more focus on mentoring which whilst not a bad thing in itself can't exist without the teaching by example.  By the end of next year, our involvement in peace making exercises will have come to a complete end.

As for all those contracts for ships, planes, vehicles etc.  FORGET IT  Money spent on the armed forces is wasted according to the NDP.  For the liberals, it doesn't buy enough votes so it is totally secondary.  Maybe though it isn't all wasted.  We can make Jack our foreign minister and send him to negotiate with the Taliban.  He could take Sven along as a policy advisor too.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Dec 2008)

<minor hijack>Just a reminder - before we start calling this a "coup" again, let's remember the definition:


> a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force



Sudden?  Yes
Decisive?  Nope
Illegal?  Nope
By Force?  Nope
</minor hijack>


----------



## YZT580 (2 Dec 2008)

A coup d'état is as defined above, "coup" actually means "a brilliant, sudden, and usually highly successful stroke or act".  Now you can probably present a logical argument disputting the brilliance of this act but it does fit the above description.  It doesn't have to be illegal although if we were still considered a moral nation, it would definitely be considered as immoral. PARDON my detour we now return to the topic at hand and the possible ramifications of such a parliamentary move on our mission in AFG, indeed on the Forces in general.


----------



## Greymatters (2 Dec 2008)

Not much more that can be debated until some 'proclamations' are made by the new powers...


----------



## stealthylizard (2 Dec 2008)

Under the Liberals, nothing would change.  Really not sure what would happen if the mission fell to the NDP or Bloc.  :crybaby:


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2008)

Hey Lizard,instead of  Shoulder Arms, it would be Shoulder.......nothing I guess.

The NDP would quickly disarm us....after all if you just "talk" to the bad guys, they will understand!! :rofl:


----------



## TN2IC (2 Dec 2008)

*Silly Tin mode*



((Background classical music starts playing))


> A coup d’état (pronounced /kuːdeɪˈtɑː/ AHD: [ko͞o"dā tä]), often simply called a coup, is the sudden unconstitutional overthrow of a government by a part — usually small — of the state establishment — usually the military — to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government.



Guess what some folks are thinking if this Coalition takes power... Beer Hall Putsch, here we come. ;D


*End of Silly Hat mode*   :dontpanic:


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Dec 2008)

>What'll CAN Coalition Mean for AFG Mission?

Do the arithmetic (financials); include the forecasted major capex while you're at it.  We can be pretty sure other organizations (eg. Mr Staples) have already done so.  The new government will be looking for ways to reduce whatever deficit it has to run, and will doubtless be happy to take suggestions from like-minded groups.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Dec 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >What'll CAN Coalition Mean for AFG Mission?
> 
> Do the arithmetic (financials); include the forecasted major capex while you're at it.  We can be pretty sure other organizations (eg. Mr Staples) have already done so.  The new government will be looking for ways to reduce whatever deficit it has to run, and will doubtless be happy to take suggestions from like-minded groups.



The sad thing is that if they do call "Poverty" and pull all the Troops out, as do other nations who feel that this is a Depression, they are only fueling the cause of the Terrorist organizations,  whose finances aren't affected by the deficits faced by Western Nations; who will be free to still carry on training and indoctrination, expanding their sphere of influence.


----------



## Garett (2 Dec 2008)

I would have actually voted for the Liberals to prevent all those fools from joining together. Is it too late to vote for Barrack Obama?  :blotto:


----------



## 54/102 CEF (2 Dec 2008)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Money spent on the armed forces is wasted according to the NDP.  For the liberals, it doesn't buy enough votes so it is totally secondary.  Maybe though it isn't all wasted.  We can make Jack our foreign minister and send him to negotiate with the Taliban.  He could take Sven along as a policy advisor too.



Jack is about to spontaneously combust with the Auto Industry - 400,000 Auto related jobs will vanish and bye bye major tax base 

So Jack has to DEFEND THE PEOPLE! (aka this is all a diversion to Jack's impending demise from the political scene) due to a Canadian Autoworkers union meeting at wife Olivia's tony Condo not where the poor people live

Then Jack will push his nose under the tent like the camel he is and get bit by the Dionista Chavez crew and then the fight for the table scraps will begin

So - Capt Harper has drawn out the idiots - what has he in store for the more deep thinkers of the Libs?

Where is David Emerson? Why has Monte Solberg gone on electric motors?

Torpedo Doors opening!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

One last look through the periscope and a Red and Orange Hulled Crock of $hit will be sent to the sandy bottom of Dimwit Sound.

And they laughed at his white wool sweater as he adjusts his cap at a jaunty angle and then orders the Jolly Roger run up for his return to the calm waters of the future

And then I woke up


----------



## FSTO (3 Dec 2008)

Looks like major changes to our foreign affairs if the ship of fools takes over. Get ready to invade Darfur guys.

http://embassymag.ca/page/view/coalition-12-3-2008


----------



## geo (3 Dec 2008)

Hmmm..... and we are going to invade with....... ???

I guess we can always travel as tourists & live off the land once we get there..... NOT!
Given the impossibility of showing up when the host country does not invite us in there.... reality will set in sooner or later.


----------



## theoldyoungguy (3 Dec 2008)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/30/the-tories-made-them-do-it/   Andrew Coyne has taken a very lonely position vis a vis the coup I tend to agree with parts of it.  I certainly believe that these events would have occured regardless: they were just looking for a stimulus.  As for the Military Mission there will be little change over the winter but, once the NDP get comfortable at the cabinet table you will begin to see fewer expeditions outside the wire and more focus on mentoring which whilst not a bad thing in itself can't exist without the teaching by example.  By the end of next year, our involvement in peace making exercises will have come to a complete end.
> 
> As for all those contracts for ships, planes, vehicles etc.  FORGET IT  Money spent on the armed forces is wasted according to the NDP.  For the liberals, it doesn't buy enough votes so it is totally secondary.  Maybe though it isn't all wasted.  We can make Jack our foreign minister and send him to negotiate with the Taliban.  He could take Sven along as a policy advisor too.



That would be priceless. I HIGHLY doubt anyone would place Taliban Jack as the foreign minister. I can just see him now preaching to the troops at FOB X or Y in Afghanistan about how hes supporting us by bringing us home... THAT would be completely priceless. However I do believe there are some higher up politicians or advisors that read these boards and know that politically, the vast majority of CF personal are very anti- Jack Layton. Placing Jack in that position would be opening Pandoras box if/when he visits the troops.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Dec 2008)

Something new to throw into the mix, highlights mine, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*NDP will not oppose Afghan war while in coalition*
Canadian Press, 3 Dec 08
Article link

New Democrats will stop opposing Canada's war in Afghanistan while the party is in league with the Liberals, the NDP's deputy leader declared Wednesday.

It's a significant concession for a party that has been the standard-bearer for the peace movement in Canada.

*"The NDP is putting aside its differences that have existed historically with the Liberals on such issues as Afghanistan," said Thomas Mulcair, the party's only MP in Quebec.*

"Because we understand, in the interest of the Canadian population, the overarching principle is that we act on the economy and in the interest of Canadian families."

*In order to seal its coalition with the Liberals on Monday, NDP Leader Jack Layton gave up the party's demand for a reversal of planned corporate tax cuts, but made no mention of the war.*

Asked this week whether their position on Afghanistan had changed, several New Democrat MPs laughed nervously and ducked the question.

Political observers have said the fourth-place party, long-known as the conscience of Parliament, has to make key compromises to keep the coalition together.

Mulcair declined to respond when asked whether the party's election campaign promise to impose a moratorium on further oil sands development in Alberta was also being shelved.

Liberal finance critic Scott Brison said the gravity of the economic crisis and the unravelling political situation has had a sobering effect on both coalition partners, as well as the Bloc Quebecois.

"All three parties recognize the seriousness and as such we are putting aside our differences to focus on common ground," he said Wednesday.

As his leadership was up for a vote at the NDP's 2006 convention in Quebec City, Layton pushed through a motion calling for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan.

He soon became a target for the Conservatives in the House of Commons, who nicknamed him "Taliban Jack," ridiculing his call for peace negotiations with militants.

Over the years, Layton has said Canada's role should be focused on traditional peacekeeping and reconstruction rather than front-line combat.

The NDP's demand for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan was greeted with some sympathy by factions of the Liberal party, including at the time its newly minted leader Stephane Dion.

Ending Canada's combat mission by February 2009, as originally intended, became Dion's middle-ground position - one that he eventually abandoned when the Liberals supported Prime Minister Stephen Harper's extension of the mission until 2011.

Steve Staples, of the Rideau Institute, said the policy shift wasn't unexpected.

"I suspect with the NDP helping make the decisions there will be more of an emphasis on diplomacy and efforts to end the war," said Staples, executive director of the left-leaning think-tank.

The Conference of Defence Associations, a pro-military organization that's often been at loggerheads with the NDP, welcomed the reversal but wondered whether it was political opportunism rather than a genuine conversion.

"It's difficult to understand that the NDP would all of sudden completely change its policy on our presence in Afghanistan," said the association's executive director Alain Pellerin.


----------



## T19 (4 Dec 2008)

Guys... watch the DION video once again.  forget that it is out of focus... forget that it looks like it was shot with a web cam... forget that they could not get it to the Press on time.... look at the book behind Dions head.... the title..... HOT AIR


I am not making this up


----------



## T19 (4 Dec 2008)

Harper gets permission from GG to Porogue Parliament.. buys time to get a proper budget together... also allows the Coalition to fester... 1 newly elected Ontario Liberal reports to press he cannot support this.


----------



## geo (4 Dec 2008)

Prediction.... 
Mr Harper & the Conservatives will bombard the media with a barrage of messages that'll show how "reasonnable" he has been all along, how missunderstood he has been, how outrageous the opposition parties have been  - between now & mid/end January.
Then he will come in, have a throne speech on day 1, submit a budget on day 2 and then leave himself open to a vote of non confidence - hoping above anything else that the GG will then dissolve the house and call another general election - that will be based on how unreasonnable the opposition parties have been - refusing a perfectly good january budget.


----------



## armyca08 (4 Dec 2008)

Meshing the different platforms together this is what you get.

United Nations Mission  by 2011 or Canada Withdrawls.
The UN needs to insure that Afghans work, and women and human rights groups get aid.


----------



## Haggis (4 Dec 2008)

army08 said:
			
		

> Meshing the different platforms together this is what you get.
> 
> United Nations Mission  by 2011 or Canada Withdrawls.
> The UN needs to insure that Afghans work, and women and human rights groups get aid.



The NDP fails to remember that NATO is already enforcing the will of the UN which passed several resoultions on Afghanistan (UN Security Council  Resolutions - 1386, 1413, 1444, 1510, 1563 and 1623 - relate to ISAF) and that we are there _at the invitation of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan_.  The NDP also fail to realize that, in the anbsence of such resoultions and support from the Government of the Sudan, any intervention by Canada (under either a UN or NATO flag) would and could legally be considered an i*nvasion*.  Last I checked, invasions were the other end of the spectrum from peacekeeping


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Dec 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The NDP fails to remember that NATO is already enforcing the will of the UN which passed several resoultions on Afghanistan (UN Security Council  Resolutions - 1386, 1413, 1444, 1510, 1563 and 1623 - relate to ISAF) and that we are there _at the invitation of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan_.  The NDP also fail to realize that, in the anbsence of such resoultions and support from the Government of the Sudan, any intervention by Canada (under either a UN or NATO flag) would and could legally be considered an i*nvasion*.  Last I checked, invasions were the other end of the spectrum from peacekeeping



The NDP coveniently forgets a lot of things.


----------



## armyca08 (7 Dec 2008)

NON COMBAT MISSION - eg the funny blue hats etc..



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> The NDP fails to remember that NATO is already enforcing the will of the UN which passed several resoultions on Afghanistan (UN Security Council  Resolutions - 1386, 1413, 1444, 1510, 1563 and 1623 - relate to ISAF) and that we are there _at the invitation of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan_.  The NDP also fail to realize that, in the anbsence of such resoultions and support from the Government of the Sudan, any intervention by Canada (under either a UN or NATO flag) would and could legally be considered an i*nvasion*.  Last I checked, invasions were the other end of the spectrum from peacekeeping


----------



## xxmixkexx (7 Dec 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> .after all if you just "talk" to the bad guys, they will understand!! :rofl:



that sounds like my mom
>.<


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Dec 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a comment by Canadian historian and occasional Army.ca contributor Jack Granatstein:
-------------------​http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081209.wcomilitary10/BNStory/politics/home

 How coalition politics will soften Canada's defences

J.L. GRANATSTEIN

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
December 10, 2008 at 12:00 AM EST

The Liberal-NDP-Bloc Québécois coalition may be, as columnist Mark Steyn observed, a pantomime horse with three rear ends, but there is still a real possibility, even with a less-than-enthusiastic Michael Ignatieff as leader, that it could take power after the budget vote at the end of January. If so, what could this mean for relations with the United States and for the Canadian Forces?

The implications are serious, primarily because the level of governmental anti-Americanism, recently held in check, may well increase substantially if the coalition comes to power. The reasons are obvious: The New Democratic Party has always been soft on defence and has historically trafficked in anti-Americanism; the Bloc has used anti-Americanism when it suited its purposes, which include pacifism and neutralism; and elements of the Liberals, up to and including foreign ministers and prime ministers, have not ordinarily been interested in the Canadian Forces and, when it suited their purposes, have deliberately played the anti-American card.

This has serious implications for the Canadian Forces and for relations with the United States. In the first place, the re-equipment of the armed forces, already slowed by an unwieldy procurement system, may not proceed under the coalition. The acquisition of new supply ships and Arctic patrol vessels; replacements for the navy's aged destroyers and for its frigates; the finalization of contracts for Chinook helicopters; new Hercules transports, unmanned aircraft and fighters; a replacement for the Aurora surveillance aircraft; new search-and-rescue aircraft, trucks and light armoured vehicles - all had become stuck in the sclerotic processes of the departments of National Defence and Public Works and could be killed. The Liberals have been lamentably soft on defence for the past 40 years; there is little doubt they will be even less interested in spending the very large sums that are necessary to restore the Canadian Forces if they are dependent on the NDP and Bloc.

This will have a serious impact on relations with Barack Obama's new administration, which will surely want Canada to do more in Afghanistan and in North America. The coalition document affirmed that Canada will keep its troops in Kandahar until 2011, but to do what? Will the battle group will be allowed to fight? Or would a new coalition government oblige it to pursue the passive, purely defensive role wanted by the NDP and Bloc?

Moreover, Mr. Obama cannot be less assertive in defending the American homeland than his predecessors - a Canadian government that pulls out of Afghanistan and retreats on re-equipping the weak Canadian Forces will not win much favour. And this matters on virtually every issue confronting Canada in the dramatically weakened continental economy. Could anyone doubt that the basis for a productive partnership in solving economic problems lies in persuading the new U.S. leadership that Canada is, and will remain, a reliable security partner?

A Michael Ignatieff-led coalition may not take office next month. Even if it does not, Stephen Harper's government will almost certainly be more constrained in its defence expenditures, such will be the demands for massive investments in economic stimulus in a recessionary climate, especially with a cocky opposition. Defence investments are at least as stimulative as infrastructure repairs or house-building - more so, in fact, given the high-tech nature of military equipment. But the ideological and anti-military concerns of the coalition partners will likely not permit this thought to be entertained.

The result is that we can expect military rebuilding to slow, and it is entirely possible that the Canadian Forces that leaves Kandahar in 2011 with its personnel and equipment battered and bruised will be weaker than the military that went into action there at the beginning of 2006. The new cadre of leaders that learned its trade on the Afghan battlefield will probably have little to work with in the second decade of the 21st century.

Will the government, whether coalition or Conservative, recognize that Canada's defences need to be restored in its own national interest? That a capable Canadian Forces is necessary not only to meet the U.S. demand for a secure continent but also to further our interests at home and abroad? The impact of the recent political crisis has weakened the possibility that any Canadian government in the near future will be interested in following a rational national-interest-based defence policy. Such a policy requires a strong, well-equipped military, and the chance of that has decreased thanks to Canada's political and economic uncertainty.

_J.L. Granatstein is senior research fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute._
--------------------​
If, and it’s getting to be a very Big IF, there is a coalition government in Feb 09, it is almost certain that National Defence – as a department and as a function – will be on the chopping block.

Support for the military in Canada is a mile wide and an inch deep – all those Red Friday parades and yellow ribbon decals are 100% meaningless.

Support for increased defence spending is non existent; defence ranks below symphony orchestras and ballet companies when Canadians tell pollsters who should get taxpayers’ money.

We can all agree that we are all good, unhyphenated Canadians when it comes to waving flags but I assert that we are in a 10:90 split when it comes to raising, equipping and using our military – and 90% want to cut the budget and confine the troops to fighting floods and forest fires.


----------

