Our international military role has evolved peacekeepers and rebuilders, and we have a defacto duty to continue. The American and international attention span has fallen off of Afghanistan and Canada has been forced to step up into roles for which we aren't prepared.
Canadians haven't supported huge military expenditures, but in general Canadians support the Canadian Forces in the above described role, regardless of which political party is in power. The Conservatives support the military more, and was part of the platform that got them elected. They have taken the spending from "Literally sad and pathetic" to "embarrassing".
John Manley, former Liberal Cabinet minister and one-time Liberal leadership candidate, has led up a
Non-Partisan committee on what to do with the Afghan mission. The findings were that NATO allies should be called out. Taking the matter before parliament is exactly the way it should be approached. What option? To not put it to a vote?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ace_O_Spades
...The polarizing language of the Conservatives on their new motions is scaring me. The "take it or leave it," "you support the mission in Afghanistan or you don't" approach is strikingly similar to "you're with us or you're against us" that we're all so used to hearing.
This is an utterly false dichotomy. There is always room for negotiation, but the Conservatives want an election so badly they just want a confidence motion to fail so they can go to the polls and hope for a majority. They are using these important issues as political pawns to force an election.
If the Liberals don't support the bill, they aren't supporting the troops. If they do, then they cow to the Conservatives once again in the face of their, "No negotiation, run the minority parliament like they have a majority" strategy.
If this confidence motion passes, they can still get their election with the drug bill or the violent crime bill (c-26;c-2) or with the upcoming budget.
I hope Canada bitchslaps the conservatives into realizing they can't use the lives of our troops as political bargaining chips to help them force an election.
|
There are issues where the country is split 50-50 or 40-60. The Conservatives have a minority. With a minority, every big issue is a chance to loose power, alternatively to not address big issues for 3-5 years. I'd much rather a Canadian government (Be it "C" or "L") be a bold minority than a complacent minority or a dominant and non-checked majority.
I don't see the logic of the last half of your post. I understand that you don't like the Conservatives. I'm pretty moderate with a slight right lean. Issues are being debated and voted upon. Each 'big' issue could result in the fall of the Conservatives and an election. If you don't support the leading party, wouldn't you want that opportunity to get another party in power? If you're sitting on the position that "I don't like the party in power, but I don't want an election because my party or an alternative party won't win the next election" then I don't think you really have a very solid basis of argument.