Canada's uncertain role in Afghanistan - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

spindles · 02-11-2008, 09:59 PM

This might be a little off the side, but during the recent Australian election Iraq was a sizeable difference between the two political parties, but Afghanistan was not - both parties publicly said that they would 'stay the course' in Afghanistan. Our troop numbers (from a quick bit of googling) are similar to Canada's. Personally, I think that the reasons to go in, in the first place, are still there. 1000 troops might not sounds like a lot, but every little bit counts.

host · 02-11-2008, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leto

ffs. give it up. Come up with a refreshing and original argument. As was stated, let's not circle that drain yet AGAIN.

You took my comment out of context.

I had the same reaction to post #4 as Martian did and described in post #23:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

Your original post was only tangentially related to the discussion, added nothing of value, contained thinly veiled insults to Canada and Canadians and seemed designed to do nothing more than incite arguments. I'm going to go with yes.

If you want to discuss the American military, get a thread split or start a new one. This thread was created to discuss the Canadian forces and their role overseas. If you have anything to contribute to that discussion, go ahead. Otherwise, please take it elsewhere.

I think Canada has it's national spending priorities in admirable order. Canada budgets and spends for the defense of it's borders, with enough left over to honor it's mutual defense international treaty commitments.

...and here it is slipped in again, in post #33

Quote:

.....Bullets, Bombs, and Toilet paper cost money. The Canadian government does not supply much to the military and they run short on things.....

Charlatan · 02-11-2008, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I think Canada has it's national spending priorities in admirable order. Canada budgets and spends for the defense of it's borders, with enough left over to honor it's mutual defense international treaty commitments.

While I am not advocating increasing the spending to US levels (as a percentage of budget) I think it is safe to say that Canada is *not* and had not been spending enough on its military.

This is especially true as it concerns our borders in the arctic.

host · 02-11-2008, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

While I am not advocating increasing the spending to US levels (as a percentage of budget) I think it is safe to say that Canada is *not* and had not been spending enough on its military.

This is especially true as it concerns our borders in the arctic.

Have you seen these discussion boards?

Arctic Security / Sécurité de l’Arctique
http://sdfdiscussionboard.ca/viewforum.php?id=43

Afghanistan
http://sdfdiscussionboard.ca/viewforum.php?id=35

Ustwo · 02-12-2008, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Have you seen these discussion boards?

Arctic Security / Sécurité de l’Arctique
http://sdfdiscussionboard.ca/viewforum.php?id=43

Afghanistan
http://sdfdiscussionboard.ca/viewforum.php?id=35

Ummm it would help if there was some real discussion on those boards.

The most recent reply to a post is...July.

Of the 3 or 4 replies total, combined, on both boards.

dc_dux · 02-12-2008, 09:31 AM

Neither Canada, nor the US, nor all of NATO combined can succeed in Afghanistan, regardless of the length of stay or the number of troops, as long as our good friend Pakistan harbors and provides safe haven to the "insurgent" Talaban and "terrorist" al Queda in its NW provinces.

Ustwo · 02-12-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Neither Canada, nor the US, nor all of NATO combined can succeed in Afghanistan, regardless of the length of stay or the number of troops, as long as our good friend Pakistan harbors and provides safe haven to the "insurgent" Talaban and "terrorist" al Queda in its NW provinces.

I agree with you, we should invade Pakistan.

dc_dux · 02-12-2008, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I agree with you, we should invade Pakistan.

Not quite.

We (NATO) should be fostering the return of a truly secular democratic government, one that is not controlled by the military, that represents the majority of the people in Pakistan and one that would be an ally and we could assist in controlling the threat to the stability of the region posed by the NW provinces.

Willravel · 02-12-2008, 09:46 AM

Hey, we appreciate that you had our backs. I don't really think that Canada has a dog in this fight, though, and I'd hate to see anything happen to your troops. I mean I hate seeing anything bad happen to any troops, but I really don't think that Canada is a terrorist target. Everyone loves Canada. Not everyone loves the US.

Ace_O_Spades · 02-12-2008, 11:15 AM

To begin... FUCK! I just wrote a huge post and then had the forum delete it. GREAT.

Anyway... I'm gonna try to get the thread back on track with this:

Linky

Quote:

PM open to compromise with Liberals on Afghan mission
The Conservative government will consider tabling a new motion to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan until the end of 2011 that could include elements from the Opposition Liberals' proposed amendment, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Tuesday.

The move could lead to a deal between the two parties to avoid a spring election being triggered over the current motion, which the prime minister has declared a confidence vote that could topple his minority government if defeated.

Earlier Tuesday, the Liberals released details of an amendment calling for an end to Canada's Afghan combat mission by next February. The amendment, which still must be tabled in the House of Commons, also calls for the mission to refocus on reconstruction and training, followed by a complete withdrawal of Canadian troops by July 2011, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion told reporters at the National Press Gallery in Ottawa.

Just over an hour later, Harper called the Liberal amendment a "positive development" that is "moving the debate in the right direction" on Afghanistan, away from the "fundamentally different position" of the NDP and Bloc Québécois, which have called for the immediate withdrawal of Canadian forces.

"The government's objective is to see common ground here so we will look at these in great detail," Harper told reporters from the foyer of Parliament.

MPs were expected to vote in March on the current government motion to extend the Afghan mission until 2011.

It states only that "the results of progress in Afghanistan, including Canada's military deployment, will be reviewed in 2011."

Under the government plan, Canada would agree to extend the Afghan mission past an existing 2009 expiry on two conditions:

Another NATO country would have to send 1,000 troops to fight alongside the 2,500 Canadians.
Ottawa would have to procure transport helicopters and reconnaissance drones to help the force avoid ambushes.
Afghan mission 'must change': Dion
However, Dion said Canada must reshape its priorities in the mission to better suit its skills in reconstruction, but indicated the post-February 2009 mission could involve combat to protect reconstruction efforts.

"The mission must change," Dion told reporters. "The mission must have a clear end date. The mission must be more than about the military.

"Without compromising our principles, the wording of the motion has been carefully chosen to maximize the possibility of an agreement for the sake of Canada, Afghanistan and the mission."

The Liberal leader said the government has had difficulty attaining the additional troops recommended in the Manley report to support Canadian forces in Kandahar province because Canada's mission lacked a "clear, firm timeline."

"You see how much NATO was surprised and unprepared by the request by Canada. We cannot repeat the same mistake," Dion said.

Dion dismissed concerns that the amendment would create a policy tantamount to the very caveats that have restricted the use of Canada's NATO allies in Afghanistan, leaving the bulk of combat to Canadian, Dutch, British and U.S. troops in the south and east of the embattled country.

"I don't call it a caveat," Dion said. "I said it's a clear design for a new mission."

For his part, Harper praised the "greater clarity" of the Liberal position, saying it backs away from any suggestion that politicians would dictate any operational decisions to military commanders.

"Afghanistan is a extremely dangerous environment, and I don't think it is realistic that military commanders would be phoning 24 Sussex every other day to ask whether they could undertake certain operations and not other operations.

"I don't think it can be a Conservative mission or a Liberal mission. It must be a Canadian mission."

Tories willing to accept 2011 end date

Earlier Tuesday, CBC News learned that the Conservative government is willing to end Canada's military mission in Afghanistan in 2011 if Parliament votes to let the mission run until then.

Sources say the government would accept that date to end questions about how long the military will have to stay in Afghanistan.

In an interview with CBC News on Tuesday, government House leader Peter Van Loan called the dispute over the wording "a constitutional nicety," but said there was "an awful lot of common ground" to find a solution.

"We cannot tie the hands of a future Parliament, but our objective is quite clear to have this mission completed by 2011 and that's reflected in our motion," he said.

Amendment calls for transparency, special envoy
The Liberal amendment also calls for maintaining the current suspension on the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities until "substantive reforms of the prison system in Afghanistan are undertaken so the systemic risk of torture is eliminated."

Dion is also demanding more transparency from Conservatives regarding the mission.

He said he wants the government to submit quarterly progress reports to Parliament, and will ask for cabinet ministers to make monthly appearances before a new Commons committee on Afghanistan.

The amendment also calls for the appointment of a special envoy dedicated to ensuring "greater coherence" in Canada's diplomatic initiatives in the region and the fair treatment of Afghan detainees.

Bravo! This Liberal motion was everything I was looking for out of this debate. I'm impressed Harper backed up on his refusal to negotiate; it would appear they would refuse to negotiate with the hard-line stance of the Bloc and the NDP, which I didn't agree with anyway.

Everything hinges on NATO supplying the troops, which I believe they can do. It's time for other NATO countries to help shoulder the load of slogging through the most dangerous area of the country.

I also agree that if Pakistan can't deal with the terrorist activity in its border region with Afghanistan, the international community should be able to help them out with that. And to think, remember how badly Dion got jumped on for even suggesting it? I think it's going to happen, because success in Afghanistan doesn't happen when they can retreat to Pakistan at will.

It kinda makes you wonder if Bush just got Iraq and Pakistan confused when he was deciding which country to invade next. Dictator subverting democracy? Check. Weapons of mass destruction? Check. Harboring terrorists? Check.

But you know, all those middle eastern countries are pretty much the same anyway...

Ustwo · 02-12-2008, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Not quite.

We (NATO) should be fostering the return of a truly secular democratic government, one that is not controlled by the military, that represents the majority of the people in Pakistan and one that would be an ally and we could assist in controlling the threat to the stability of the region posed by the NW provinces.

Interesting.

And here I thought countries like Pakistan, Iran, and dare I say Iraq could never have a true, free democratic and representative government, at least thats what I've been told about Iraq.

But we digress, this is about Canada, and to a lessor extent the crumbling NATO alliance.

Ace_O_Spades · 02-12-2008, 12:44 PM

Ustwo, I think the problem stems from assuming democracy = western democracy, and modernization = westernization. Democracy is a concept that has been around for a LONNNGGG time while existing in different capacities with different structures.

It's about the Afghanis, Iraqis, Pakistanis finding their own road to a functioning democracy that both works for them and ensures the human rights of their citizens as guaranteed by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Easier said than done however.... Now if you'll just hand me that piano.

Plan9 · 02-12-2008, 12:50 PM

Ya know... I was actually in Afghanistan for all of 2006.

I traveled from Kandahar to Gardez to Ghazni to Sharana to Zormot to Bagram to WazaKwa.

We went up and down the entire east side of the country at least once a month.

Kinda odd, but I didn't see a single Canadian outside of Bagram's chow halls.

Martian · 02-13-2008, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Ya know... I was actually in Afghanistan for all of 2006.

I traveled from Kandahar to Gardez to Ghazni to Sharana to Zormot to Bagram to WazaKwa.

We went up and down the entire east side of the country at least once a month.

Kinda odd, but I didn't see a single Canadian outside of Bagram's chow halls.

There's about 2500 Canadian troops there, mostly deployed around Kandahar and throughout the south. The current number killed in hostile actions over there is 78, which admittedly is a fraction of the 282 you guys have lost, but then our deployment is much smaller. From what I've been able to dig up, America has sent about 8000 troops to Afghanistan. 78/2500=~3.2%, 282/8000=~3.5%. I haven't found overall casualty counts yet (including both wounded and non-combat actions) but I would imagine the ratio is pretty similar.

No disrespect meant, dude. Just, y'know, our boys are fighting and dying too. You may not have seen them on your tour, but they're there.

I think even Dion has moved away from the idea of pulling our boys out. They need to be there, nobody's denying that. The question is, again, how can we best stabilize the country so that all NATO forces can bring the troops home. This isn't just Canada's responsibility, or America's responsibility. It's the responsibility of all the NATO forces and I'd be interested to hear solutions coming from any quarter. Right now one of the most viable solutions is for our allies to step up and fulfill their commitments.

Bossnass · 02-13-2008, 10:53 PM

My understanding is there are a few more american forces (from 2006-present) than 8000. In and around 28000-30000, with roughly half being part of the NATO security force and half being under no jurisdiction. The % killed per capita since 2006 is very much skewed onto Canada.

And that is exactly the problem, as Martian pointed out. US forces are there in 10x the number with 100x the budget, and since 2006 the brunt of the resistance has been met by British and Canadian forces. Where the Americans were and are under no illusions of the intent of the mission, the NATO forces are there under the context of a security force, not an active combat force. I also agree that more forces in the south, in combat roles, are required from other countries.

I like the compromise that has been found between the liberals and conservatives. The firm stance of "must pull out in early '09" was contrary to NATO and Canadian intent.

Charlatan · 02-14-2008, 12:25 AM

It should also be noted that the US population is ten times greater than Canada's.

Leto · 02-14-2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Ya know... I was actually in Afghanistan for all of 2006.

I traveled from Kandahar to Gardez to Ghazni to Sharana to Zormot to Bagram to WazaKwa.

We went up and down the entire east side of the country at least once a month.

Kinda odd, but I didn't see a single Canadian outside of Bagram's chow halls.

Unlike y ou, I have not been to Afghanistan. I'm just a working stiff in Toronto. But I have pulled over to the side of the 401 high way - AKA the Highway of Heroes on several occasions as the motorcade of hearses bearing our soldiers passes by. Every overpass along this highway is filled with emergency response vehicles with their lights wig-waging, civilians holding up flags, veterans saluting as the procession heads down to the coroner's building downtown.

You may not have seen these guys, but I know they've been there, and have made the ulitmate sacrifice.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...0824/20070824/

Quote:

'Highway of Heroes'
Updated Fri. Aug. 24 2007 1:34 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The stretch of Highway 401 running from Trenton, Ont., to Toronto will be officially renamed the Highway of Heroes in remembrance of Canada's fallen soldiers.

Ontario's provincial government consulted the federal government, municipalities along the highway and the Royal Canadian Legion about the name change on Friday.

The highway will not lose its official designation at the MacDonald-Cartier Freeway, but signs will be erected designating the route as the Highway of Heroes.

The design of the signs has yet to be determined.

The man behind the online petition in support of renaming a section of Canada's busiest highway says he has been overwhelmed by the response.

Jay Forbes had been receiving between 400 and 500 signatures a day in support of the name "Highway of Heroes" but the amount of people signing the petition has rapidly increased over the last few days.

"In the first four days I had 4,500 signatures," Forbes told CTV's Canada AM on Friday morning. "But now...I (have) 20,000."

Forbes decided to create the petition after seeing positive feedback toward an article on the Internet about renaming a section of Highway 401 the Highway of Heroes.

"I just had enough time and I whipped up a petition," Forbes said.

The support for the petition has come at a time when, residents, police officers and firefighters have been gathering to salute and wave flags on Highway 401 overpasses while motorcades carrying the bodies of soldiers killed in Afghanistan make their way to the coroner's office in Toronto.

Forbes' actions have been supported by retired Lt.-Col. Peter Dawe, whose son Capt. Matthew Dawe was killed in Afghanistan in July.

Dawe said that his son would have been supportive of renaming a section of the highway.

"I think there's a need for Canadians to show support for the troops to recognize the sacrifice," Dawe said.

It would also provide healing and support families of fallen soldiers, he said.

"At the same time I think we need to keep our eye on the rest of the military who are putting it on the line for our great country every day," Dawe said. "So somehow, you've got to balance that."

Nevertheless, Dawe feels the support from a cross-section of Canadians gathering on the highway overpasses is an "incredible phenomenon."

It's a show of support that the creator of the petition has successfully transferred to the online realm.

"It's truly amazing to see and it just goes to show how many people do support the troops in Canada," Forbes said. "It's just great."

With files from The Canadian Press

Ace_O_Spades · 02-14-2008, 09:19 AM

just nitpicking, but could you throw that article in quotes? makes it easier for people who want to reply

Leto · 02-14-2008, 09:49 AM

done. Had to figure out how.

host · 02-14-2008, 10:34 AM

Just as in the US, if your own political leadership sincerely believed the fight was worth the cost, there would be no reason to do this:

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200604280...s-caskets.html

Conservative government bars images of Canadian soldiers' caskets

Tue Apr 25, 01:04 AM EST

OTTAWA (CP) - The Conservative government has taken steps to keep the public from seeing images of flag-draped coffins when fallen soldiers are returned home from Afghanistan.

For the first time since the Afghan mission began, the government will shut down an Ontario airfield when the remains of four soldiers killed over the weekend are returned Tuesday. Government officials said the new directive is permanent.

It echoes a policy attempted by the Bush administration. Concerns that a stream of images of coffins draped in the Stars and Stripes would diminish public support for the Iraq war prompted the White House to impose a publication ban.

With Canadian public opinion evenly divided on the Afghan mission, it appears the federal government may have similar political concerns.

The move comes after Canada suffered its worst one-day combat loss since the Korean war, when four soldiers were killed last weekend in a roadside explosion.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor insisted politics had nothing to do with closing the Trenton air base for Tuesday's return ceremony.

"I have made the most appropriate decision during this most emotional time for the families," O'Connor said.

"The repatriation of our fallen soldiers back to Canada is a private and solemn event between the families and the Canadian Forces."

Senior government officials said the decision to restrict access to CFB Trenton was O'Connor's.

But other government sources said the edict came directly from Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office, and that defence brass were ordered to keep the media at bay.

Canada's death toll in Afghanistan has reached 16 since 2002, and Conservative government officials fear the mounting casualties could present a political problem.

The government took a pounding from the opposition Monday for ending the Liberals' recent practice of lowering Parliament Hill flags when soldiers are killed.

Liberals called the move "callous." And they said the decision to restrict viewing of soldiers' caskets was unprecedented for a Canadian prime minister.

"He has lifted a page from the Bush book and borrowed the Bush modus operandi," said Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh.

"Dare I say president Harper is following in the footsteps of President Bush?

"(He wants the tragedy) out of sight, so that possibly it might remain out of mind."

MP Robert Thibault, who supports the Afghan mission, said an increasing body count is no reason to stop lowering the Peace Tower flag or shield Canadians from the human cost of the conflict.

But Conservative MP Brian Pallister said the situation in Afghanistan has changed, and so must the government response.

Canadian soldiers are "closer to the action" that at any time in recent years, he said, and the impact of casualties returning home must be taken into account.

"That really is the challenge in this: how do you give credit and honour those who made a sacrifice, on the one hand, without hyping the fear of more casualties in the future in the minds of Canadians?"

On the weekend, retired major general Lewis MacKenzie predicted "an adjustment in the political reaction" given the increasingly likelihood of more frequent casualties.

"You don't have to have the entire symbolic leadership of the forces and the nation for the fatalities coming back," said MacKenzie, a one-time federal Progressive Conservative candidate.

"I don't know how you scale back the media," he added.

Leto · 02-14-2008, 11:01 AM

yep. they did that to much chagrin. They don't do it anymore. That's an old story

Democracy in action.

Ace_O_Spades · 02-14-2008, 03:12 PM

One of the rare times the media has straight up called out the Conservatives. They should do it more often considering the contempt for the media the current administration has.

Charlatan · 02-14-2008, 04:22 PM

It's kind of interesting to see how the Canadians dealt with this issue compared to the Americans. I suppose this is the power (or lack thereof) that is to be found in a minority government (not to mention a governmental system where the leader has to stand in front of question period week after week).

Ace_O_Spades · 02-14-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

It's kind of interesting to see how the Canadians dealt with this issue compared to the Americans. I suppose this is the power (or lack thereof) that is to be found in a minority government (not to mention a governmental system where the leader has to stand in front of question period week after week).

I've often imagined Bush in question period and it always gives me a nice little chuckle.

Minority governments have given Canada some of its most celebrated legislation.

Gay marriage, and universal healthcare to name a few. Not saying this should turn into a debate about these things... But I'm just saying that Canadians would never give them up, and they arguably never would have happened without minority parliaments. There is power in minority parliaments. You just need to be willing to play ball.

Baraka_Guru · 02-14-2008, 07:46 PM

My brother-in-law went to Afghanistan when the shit went down. He's said he'd go back in a heartbeat if given the chance at another tour. But then again, he wasn't out there fighting the Taliban. As an engineer and driver, he was there building schools, bridges, etc. and helping villagers with distribution of goods and local mediation. This is the kind of role Canada should focus on. Our mission must eventually shift into this role (in addition to security) or the current mission will fail.

I do give Harper credit for the shrewd political moves he's done regarding this issue. Either way, the Liberals will come out looking either bad or compliant. Harper isn't sitting in a bad spot even though the government might fall on either this or the upcoming budget at the end of the month. (I'm thinking the Liberals are going to push for the budget to fail; that way, they won't look so bad on the Afghanistan thing....not yet, anyway.) And I suppose there's that crime laws motion too, but I'd put my money on the budget being the cause of a fall; it's already been said that it won't be supported. (i.e. The Bloc and the NDP won't support it, so it's up to the Liberals.)

Charlatan · 02-14-2008, 08:14 PM

If the government falls, I don't predict a Liberal win. At best it will be another Conservative minority, at worst... majority.

Dion is not the leader the liberals need to regain power.

Baraka_Guru · 02-14-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

If the government fall, I don't predict a Liberal win. At best it will be another Conservative minority, at worst... majority.

Dion is not the leader the liberals need to regain power.

Agreed.

Ace_O_Spades · 02-14-2008, 11:06 PM

I dunno... strange things can happen. in 2004 I would have said, "Creepy Stephen Harper will never be prime minister" but here we are. I predict another Conservative minority in the next election.

02-11-2008, 09:59 PM	#41 (permalink)
spindles Mine is an evil laugh Location: Sydney, Australia	This might be a little off the side, but during the recent Australian election Iraq was a sizeable difference between the two political parties, but Afghanistan was not - both parties publicly said that they would 'stay the course' in Afghanistan. Our troop numbers (from a quick bit of googling) are similar to Canada's. Personally, I think that the reasons to go in, in the first place, are still there. 1000 troops might not sounds like a lot, but every little bit counts. __________________ who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

02-12-2008, 09:31 AM	#46 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Neither Canada, nor the US, nor all of NATO combined can succeed in Afghanistan, regardless of the length of stay or the number of troops, as long as our good friend Pakistan harbors and provides safe haven to the "insurgent" Talaban and "terrorist" al Queda in its NW provinces. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 02-12-2008 at 09:37 AM..

02-12-2008, 12:44 PM	#52 (permalink)
Ace_O_Spades The Death Card Location: EH!?!?	Ustwo, I think the problem stems from assuming democracy = western democracy, and modernization = westernization. Democracy is a concept that has been around for a LONNNGGG time while existing in different capacities with different structures. It's about the Afghanis, Iraqis, Pakistanis finding their own road to a functioning democracy that both works for them and ensures the human rights of their citizens as guaranteed by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Easier said than done however.... Now if you'll just hand me that piano. __________________ Feh.

02-12-2008, 12:50 PM	#53 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Ya know... I was actually in Afghanistan for all of 2006. I traveled from Kandahar to Gardez to Ghazni to Sharana to Zormot to Bagram to WazaKwa. We went up and down the entire east side of the country at least once a month. Kinda odd, but I didn't see a single Canadian outside of Bagram's chow halls. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

02-14-2008, 12:25 AM	#56 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	It should also be noted that the US population is ten times greater than Canada's. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-12-2008, 09:46 AM	#49 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Hey, we appreciate that you had our backs. I don't really think that Canada has a dog in this fight, though, and I'd hate to see anything happen to your troops. I mean I hate seeing anything bad happen to any troops, but I really don't think that Canada is a terrorist target. Everyone loves Canada. Not everyone loves the US.

02-13-2008, 10:53 PM	#55 (permalink)
Bossnass Détente Location: AWOL in Edmonton	My understanding is there are a few more american forces (from 2006-present) than 8000. In and around 28000-30000, with roughly half being part of the NATO security force and half being under no jurisdiction. The % killed per capita since 2006 is very much skewed onto Canada. And that is exactly the problem, as Martian pointed out. US forces are there in 10x the number with 100x the budget, and since 2006 the brunt of the resistance has been met by British and Canadian forces. Where the Americans were and are under no illusions of the intent of the mission, the NATO forces are there under the context of a security force, not an active combat force. I also agree that more forces in the south, in combat roles, are required from other countries. I like the compromise that has been found between the liberals and conservatives. The firm stance of "must pull out in early '09" was contrary to NATO and Canadian intent.

02-14-2008, 09:19 AM	#58 (permalink)
Ace_O_Spades The Death Card Location: EH!?!?	just nitpicking, but could you throw that article in quotes? makes it easier for people who want to reply __________________ Feh.

02-14-2008, 09:49 AM	#59 (permalink)
Leto Junkie Location: The Danforth	done. Had to figure out how.

02-14-2008, 11:01 AM	#61 (permalink)
Leto Junkie Location: The Danforth	yep. they did that to much chagrin. They don't do it anymore. That's an old story Democracy in action.

02-14-2008, 03:12 PM	#62 (permalink)
Ace_O_Spades The Death Card Location: EH!?!?	One of the rare times the media has straight up called out the Conservatives. They should do it more often considering the contempt for the media the current administration has. __________________ Feh.

02-14-2008, 04:22 PM	#63 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	It's kind of interesting to see how the Canadians dealt with this issue compared to the Americans. I suppose this is the power (or lack thereof) that is to be found in a minority government (not to mention a governmental system where the leader has to stand in front of question period week after week). __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-14-2008, 07:46 PM	#65 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	My brother-in-law went to Afghanistan when the shit went down. He's said he'd go back in a heartbeat if given the chance at another tour. But then again, he wasn't out there fighting the Taliban. As an engineer and driver, he was there building schools, bridges, etc. and helping villagers with distribution of goods and local mediation. This is the kind of role Canada should focus on. Our mission must eventually shift into this role (in addition to security) or the current mission will fail. I do give Harper credit for the shrewd political moves he's done regarding this issue. Either way, the Liberals will come out looking either bad or compliant. Harper isn't sitting in a bad spot even though the government might fall on either this or the upcoming budget at the end of the month. (I'm thinking the Liberals are going to push for the budget to fail; that way, they won't look so bad on the Afghanistan thing....not yet, anyway.) And I suppose there's that crime laws motion too, but I'd put my money on the budget being the cause of a fall; it's already been said that it won't be supported. (i.e. The Bloc and the NDP won't support it, so it's up to the Liberals.) __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-14-2008, 08:14 PM	#66 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	If the government falls, I don't predict a Liberal win. At best it will be another Conservative minority, at worst... majority. Dion is not the leader the liberals need to regain power. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by Charlatan; 02-14-2008 at 09:42 PM..

02-14-2008, 11:06 PM	#68 (permalink)
Ace_O_Spades The Death Card Location: EH!?!?	I dunno... strange things can happen. in 2004 I would have said, "Creepy Stephen Harper will never be prime minister" but here we are. I predict another Conservative minority in the next election. __________________ Feh.