Skip navigation

Ottawa mulls role in Afghanistan past 2011

Globe and Mail Update

During visit to Kandahar, MacKay says there are several roles Canada could play in future, including delivering aid ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Auroran Bear from Montreal, Canada writes: And the campaign to fool the people begins anew.
  2. jamie yavis from Canada writes: You gotta be kidding! Two more years of Canadians being killed for some wishy washy political nonsense!

    Ill trained, ill equiped, and lots of ill bush-like rhetoric coming from generals and our boy wonder defense minister.

    Hopefully the Conservative will be gone soon and this madness can stop.
  3. gar gurr from Canada writes: As one who supported the Conservatives and also a veteran if this is fact they had better see all 32 NATO countries contributing fighting troops or Harper government will be toast in the next election. Lets see some of the guts our troops have displayed by the Harper government by laying it firmly on the line to NATO.
    We are not human fodder to keep our government looking good to foreign powers.
  4. C K from Canada writes: lie to get elected...
  5. albe plumer from victoria, Canada writes: This Peter Mackay , the one who interned with tyhssen
    steel corp in Germany, he probably is.
    Afganistan is a quagmire or sand castle, take your pick. I agree Canadians should not be Fodder , the taxpayers don't have a long memory, and history has fallen out of fashion. That may be, but how come a large population of Afghans have departed for California.
    About 200,000 last count. Why not ask them to help their country? Many Afghanis live in Toronto ask them to help,why not? Oh i forgot ,we should not think outside the box. Bad for us Ottawa says, Harper best watch the polls a squeeze on the taxpayers is here and the Afghan melee is not our responsiblity.
    Sorry, i know the elitists claim a possible genocide is in the offing. So get used to it, social darwinism maybe the way of the world.
  6. Mike Walton from Sherwood Park, Canada writes: jamie yavis........ill trained and ill equipped? Canadian soldiers are some of the best trained on the planet. Ill equipped? Well I think we can blame Cretien and Martin for destroying the military, finally some investment is being made into new equipment.

    Let's not forget who took us to Afghanistan in the first place, the Liberals. Now when the going gets tough you want to run away? I'm glad we didn't have the attitude 60 years ago.
  7. Naomi Y from Canada writes: Once again, Harper lied to Canadian.
  8. Randy Hyland from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Good one Peter , this ought to be good for a few couple of more percentage points drop for the Harper bungling crew in the next round of polls.

    Mike Walton.. Here we go again with it is all the Liberals fault. Unbelievable :~|
  9. Ivan Wilson from Canada writes: Liar, liar, pants on f@cking fire!
  10. Judith Sol from Abbotsford, Canada writes: Watching the Mulroney lies and his testimony of his very close relationship with Elmer MacKay in their SECRET private-gained promotion of light armoured vehicles made in Germany for the UN and all the other military equipment, should make all Canadians see clearly that these men, along with son Peter MacKay are all cut from the same cloth. They all need to go to jail. WHAT THE HELL ARE CANADIAN TROOPS DOING BY CONFISCATING LAND FOR THEIR DAMNED OIL PIPELINE ALLIES? = ALL LIES!!! SHAME ON THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA. SHAME ON THE MACKAYS et al. PETER MACKAY IS A DAMNED LIAR, SO IS HARPER ET AL. FIRE THEM AND GIVE THEM NO PENSIONS!!!!!!!!!
  11. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes: Ya! Ya! Ya!. Over 100 dead for nothing and 50 billion later. Get Real MacKay.

    Durgan.
  12. sherry smith from Canada writes: Can they just disregard the end date of 2011 without consulting the Canadian people? I will be very angry if this happens without discussion of this change of direction.
    This seems to be happening all over the World in many places, and it's always so sad for the people who live in that Country to be caught in the crossfire of the killers on both sides. I do not agree with the way the Conservative Government are just bullying Canadians into their own agenda.
  13. Misery No one from Toronto, Canada writes: So it was just as I expected another lie. I never believed him then when he said we'd be out by 2011. The conservative had lied to the people so many times lets hope they will be gone soon.
  14. j p from Canada writes: I know Iggy wants to raise the bar a little in Ottawa, but can he first beat them with it!!!!

    It is easier to raise the bar when in power.

    Vote for Iggy not the piggy.
  15. Morgan Sampson from Windsor, Canada writes: j p, I would never vote conservative (actually, I wouldn't vote for any politician to decide my will); however, Ignatieff would not be any better on military issues than Harper is. Regardless of who is in power, the mission or war in Afghanistan will be extended. Are you unaware or have you just forgotten that Ignatieff was one of the loudest supporters of the war in Iraq? Any citizen who believes that Ignatieff is a better option than Harper on military issues is fooling themselves. While I think that Ignatieff is a better option as Prime Minister over Harper, he is more extreme than Harper is on all military issues.
  16. T T from Canada writes: You lot do realize that this is an aid committment, not necessarily a military one like we have now, right?

    Get over your sensationalism.
  17. DAVID DIVER from Comox, Canada writes: T T from Canada writes: You lot do realize that this is an aid committment, not necessarily a military one like we have now, right?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That's if you believe McKay and I don't. 2011 is the date for withdrawal, no if's or but's - an aid committment should be done by NGO's not the military. Remember what Hillier said? The military is not in the peace keeping business, we are trained to kill...

    We realize that this government of ours is more concerned with keeping a good neighbour relationship with the US than honouring its promise to the Canadian people, so 2011 can turn out to be smoke and mirrors.
  18. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    'We've said time and time we're going to respect Parliament's voice on this,” McKay said. We can't come to Afghanistan and help them develop their democracy and not respect our own.”

    That said, It's rather obvious from the vitriolic statements above that people either did NOT read the story, do not understand how our extension came about, or don't really care except to blast away with their own drivel.

    I have personally been against this occupation for 5 years yet for an extension to transpire, a new motion would have to be passed that garners a majority in the HOC.

    For those with faulty memories, the last vote extension had BOTH the Conservatives and almost all Liberal MPs voting for the extension and that Ignatieff was a BIG influence for continuance!

    March 13, 2008: The motion passed by a vote of 198 to 77. The Liberals voted in favour of the motion.

    55 of 77 LPC MPs voted in favour--20 Liberal MPs didn't bother to show up!

    Both the BQ and the NDP voted against it, having consistently rejected any extension of the mission.

    Got it??
    .
  19. Canadian born liberal-conservative Muslim from Ottawa, Canada writes: I love it how Globe and Mail makes such misleading headlines! Canada is going to STOP it`s combat role in Afghanistan in 2011! Harper never said Canada would completely withdraw it`s troops from Afghanistan. He perfectly said many times that the Canadian troops will stay in Afghanistan well beyond 2011 but be involved in reconstruction efforts, peace keeping, humanitarian efforts and etc and that in the end of 2011, Canada will CEASE it`s COMBAT role only. Don`t be suprised if the Canadian troops are there in 2015 as the Canadian government has not given a timetable for Canadian troops to leave the country.
  20. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    sherry smith from Canada writes: Can they just disregard the end date of 2011 without consulting the Canadian people? I will be very angry if this happens without discussion of this change of direction.
    ----------------------
    We would both be angry, but that is NOT the way it works.

    A brand new motion would need to be presented in the HOC with an exact wording of what the extension was all about and it would need a majority to pass.

    As has been the history mentioned above, the BQ and NDP have consistently voted against any extension.

    On this one, the Liberals truly held/hold the balance of power and The Liberals have backed the CPC on 2 extensions with Ignatieff being solidly in the corner of the CPC philosophy.

    Those are the facts whether one likes them or not! The Liberal Party had an opportunity to end this craziness if it would have voted with the BQ/NDP in 2008 yet decided to back Harper.......AGAIN!
    .
  21. John Brown from Maritimes, Canada writes: Mike Walton from Sherwood Park, Canada writes: jamie yavis........ill trained and ill equipped? Canadian soldiers are some of the best trained on the planet. This much of what you say is absolutely correct and as for the rest only partially correct. In any event, Canadians had to know the current government promise to withdraw in 2011 could not happen which is not really surprising; but to be fair (I can not believe I am saying this) this whole situation is beyond their control and Canada needs remain committed. Yes the Liberals put us there but not in the role to which we have currently evolved. It was a vote in the HoC which extended out committment and changed our role there. Rick Hillier was correct when he said our troops do not train for peace-keeping with that being said, even during our peace-keeping mission soldiers died it just did not gather the attention it does today because now we are at war. To extend beyond 2011 is no surprise but hopefully they will remain committed to changing the role our soldiers play. Not withstanding, Canadians must realise soldiers will continue to perish at the hands of fanatic religious zealots who do not want their way of life changed, this war has been going on for thousands of years with no end in sight. As a retired member I am extremely proud of our young men and women in Afghanistan defending and teaching democracy.
  22. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    And just to make sure my Liberal friends know where Ignatieff stands, here are his 2006 quotes-not 2008-his 2006 quotes and voting for the Afghanistan extension:

    Wed. May. 17 2006:

    During the debate, Michael Ignatieff -- one of the frontrunners for the Liberal leadership and a bullish supporter of the Afghanistan mission -- supported extending the mission.

    '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.'

    Quite clear!

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060517/natoafghan060517?sname=&noads
    .
  23. Canadian born liberal-conservative Muslim from Ottawa, Canada writes: John Brown,

    The Canadian Forces may be well trained but Israel can easily take this country over. Canadian Forces one of the best trained in the world? Isn't that bit of an overstretch? Our inferiority complex of other countries makes us say some wild statements sometimes haha ;)
  24. Kevin Desmoulin from TO, Canada writes: Boy if people think just because Canada role switches to delivering Aid instead of a combat role is changed anything with all the Taliban look at us is dreaming.

    Time to get out. We did our bit in the religious war. It is stipud to go there for any reason, it would be wise to get out.
  25. O. Canada from Fairplay, Canada writes: The problem is that Harper's top man is busy elsewhere.
    He solved our environmental issues.
    He'll soon have the economy humming with his expedited infrastructure spending.
    Just switch John Baird to Minister of Defense and our worries will be over.
    Intellectual.... visionary..... philosopher..... diplomat
    John Baird has it all
  26. Neo Cynic from Bahamas writes: Canada is not engaged in air strikes...

    Oh really? Perhaps someone ought to explain the following to our Minister of Defence:

    Canada-ISAF-NATO-USAF-NATO-ISAF-Canada
  27. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: NATO has agreed that its troops shouldn't deliver humanitarian aid: food, medical treatment because those things should not be tied to a political/ military agenda and to do so puts civilian humanitarian groups at risk. NATO still intends to deliver development: roads, schools etc.

    Canada doesn't need to have any troops in theatre to deliver aid or development. NGOs. international organizations and development corporations can work with the Afghans and PSCs can provide whatever security is required. McKays story about 'aid' is spin to confuse Canadian about his plan to extend the mission.

    The CF just announced its plan to award a 'combat badge' was canceled. I suspect its because by awarding it to everyone with a claim would have made the governments definition of 'combat role' difficult to explain. Watch for an announcement next year from McKay that the helicopters, PRT and mentors aren't combat missions.
  28. Tee Kay from Vancouver, Canada writes: Anyone that thought the Conservatives were being truthful, give your head a shake! This was the most obvious of lies.
  29. Beansy Boy from United States writes: 'Canada has the best trained troops on earth'.

    No you don't. Your military budget as compared to Canadian GDP is the same as Paraguay ratio to it's GDP. You're buying thousands of military trucks right now from the US because you can't build them yourself. Your military leaders have already said the Canadian military will need a year off to rest after you retreat from Afghanistan. The US is adding ten times as many troops as the entire Canadian contingent. I seriously doubt if a nation with an international reputation for being cry babies, keeping your head low and blaming others for your problems would have the best trained troops in the world.
  30. Tee Kay from Vancouver, Canada writes: R. Carriere,

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/104946403339720?sname=&no_ads=

    'Stephen Harper has told Fox News in the U.S. that most Canadians outside Quebec support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, despite our government's decision not to take part in the war.

    In an interview with the American TV network, Harper said he endorsed the war and said he was speaking 'for the silent majority' of Canadians. Only in Quebec, with its 'pacifist tradition,' are most people opposed to the war, Harper said.'

    Quoting is fun!
  31. 4Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: I wonder if we voted the NDP in if they would/could get us out of Afghanistan as they have been asking the other two parties to do from the beginning?

    It seems clear we are not the masters of our own destiny and will never be until we have a more representative government.

    There will be a revolution and it looks more and more as though it will be a bloody one after all.

    We just can't seem to control ourselves.
  32. Pamela Achurch from Peterborough, Canada writes: Continuing to protest that we have nothing to do with the bombing of civilians is ridiculous. Grieving Afghans are not assigning grades to culpability, they want it to stop. The myth that the foreign forces are there by invitation gives the false impression that Afghans really have some say in the direction the country is taking. Canada is equally guilty. We are there by virtue of self interest. It is clearly a US war despite the NATO smoke screen. Our continued presence is a foregone conclusion. The question is in what capacity? We have to stop lying to ourselves about this war. Canada, the peacekeeper, is finished unless we have a national dialogue about our foreign policy that drastically changes our relationship with the US and NATO. Where do we sign to reenlist?
  33. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th, 2008 AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country And On Top Of That I Believe It May Finally Be Time For Harper To Go (And I Don't Mean To The Loo), Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    And just to make sure my Liberal friends know where Ignatieff stands, here are his 2006 quotes-not 2008-his 2006 quotes and voting for the Afghanistan extension:

    Wed. May. 17 2006:

    During the debate, Michael Ignatieff -- one of the frontrunners for the Liberal leadership and a bullish supporter of the Afghanistan mission -- supported extending the mission.

    '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.'

    Quite clear!

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

    Mornin' 'neighbor'...hope you're enjoying this rainy Victoria Day!

    Excellent post...was going to post it myself before the CPC bashers arrived here en masse with posts of 'Harper lied again'....

    SO...JUST FOR THE BLINDER IMPAIRED....

    A) THIS IS NOT NEW MATERIAL:

    'PLAN FOR CANADA'S AFGHAN BASE STRETCH TO 2015'

    http://thefilter.ca/articles/canada/plans-for-canadas-afghan-base-stretch-to-2015/

    B) READ the article above...(again blinder removal a necessity):

    'Mr. MacKay said Canada's role is changing to delivering aid to city dwellers “rather than simply focusing on holding swaths of land.”'

    C) ONCE AGAIN...Harper said Canada's CURRENT MISSION (combat) will end in 2011...not necessarily a withdrawal:

    'The motion passed by Parliament last spring that pushed the end-date out to 2011 was vague enough to give Harper wiggle room to ask for even more time if he wanted. It simply stated that the federal government “notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011.”'

    http://www.westcoaster.ca/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=5029
  34. tom g from upper ottawa canada, Canada writes: R Lamont above starts out well saying: 'Canadians need to insist that our troops come home now. No more Canadian lives or treasure should be spent propping up a drug lord like Karzai.' The post then descends into simple racism, hatred and bigotry of a sort that comes close to violating Canadian law. There are many reasons to bring home the troops and stop the hemorrhaging of wealth into out leader's glorious mission. The mission buys us no credit and no grace as a people. R. Lamont's comments do us no credit either. The G&M too shares in the disgrace by maintaining a comments section that allows such posts and many other posts that are simply talking-point lies to stand, while countless posts that are entirely consistent with the stated rules simply disappear. The G&M's reason that they employ no editors is not an adequate or acceptable reason.
  35. Wayne Crockett from Toronto, Canada writes: It is fitting that someone calling himself Beansy Boy would be blowing off hot air.
    For better or worse the buildup of land and air forces in southern Afghanistan is going to result in a much more intensive campaign. I expect the apparent success of the Sri Lanken government this week will encourage belief in a military solution. And the Afghan peasants whose homes are blown to atoms along with their families will be grateful it came from a smart bomb rather than and IED.
    No I am not naive and I have zero sympathy for religious zealots but lets not fool ourselves that blowing stuff up is the answer to political backwardness and religious bigotry.
  36. David Bakody from Dartmouth, Canada writes: Some time ago Peter MacKay let it slip here in NS 2015! .... Hello? follow the money ladies and gentlemen ..... stimulus money for non tendered CON friendly contracts ..... BUSH 44 is alive and well in Ottawa.
  37. Stude Ham from Canada writes:
    WE KNEW IT!

    THE CCRAP 'NO PLANS' ACTUALLY MEANT THEY WOULD STAY MIRED IN THE NARCO-SWAMPS OF THAT HELL HOLE WAY BEYOND THE SO-CALLED 2011 DEADLINE.

    HOW THE HARPER CCRAPpers DECEIVE SO TRANSPARENTLY!

    CANADA - GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW!

    DUMP HARPER!

  38. chicken grambo from Canada writes: Canadian born liberal-conservative Muslim from Ottawa, Canada writes: John Brown,

    The Canadian Forces may be well trained but Israel can easily take this country over. Canadian Forces one of the best trained in the world? Isn't that bit of an overstretch? Our inferiority complex of other countries makes us say some wild statements sometimes haha ;)
    ...............................................................................................................

    Whoever posted this owes me a keyboard...I just spit coffee all over mine when I laughed out load at the thought of Isreal Taking over Canada......Isreal can't handle a handful of rock throwing teenagers that have been plaguing them for decades!!!! HA HA
  39. chicken grambo from Canada writes: Beansy Boy from United States writes: 'Canada has the best trained troops on earth'.

    No you don't. Your military budget as compared to Canadian GDP is the same as Paraguay ratio to it's GDP. You're buying thousands of military trucks right now from the US because you can't build them yourself. Your military leaders have already said the Canadian military will need a year off to rest after you retreat from Afghanistan. The US is adding ten times as many troops as the entire Canadian contingent. I seriously doubt if a nation with an international reputation for being cry babies, keeping your head low and blaming others for your problems would have the best trained troops in the world.

    Good enough to beat up your a$$ every time you've ventured north.
    Your white house is white because it was quickly painted after Canadians set it on fire. Don't screw with a country as large as Canada with something Americans don't have...friends!!!
  40. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: McKay's statement that we have nothing to do with air strikes is as usual also nonsense. The chief air officer at ISAF HQ is a CF general who has been lobbying for CF-18s to be deployed. The CF combat elements in theatre all contain forward air controllers and the means to call air strikes.
  41. chicken grambo from Canada writes: Yes. I personally don't see why we would want to spend our lives kicking out the Talibn just so the other warloard/mullah/a$$holes can take over. One is a s bad as the other...let the Taliban have this toiletbowl of a country.
  42. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Tee Kay from Vancouver, Canada writes: R. Carriere,
    'Stephen Harper has told Fox News in the U.S. that most Canadians outside Quebec support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, despite our government's decision not to take part in the war.

    In an interview with the American TV network, Harper said he endorsed the war and said he was speaking 'for the silent majority' of Canadians. Only in Quebec, with its 'pacifist tradition,' are most people opposed to the war, Harper said.'

    Quoting is fun!
    ------------
    Sure is, as long as it is the truth as was Ignatieff's musings which were almost exactly the same!

    And if people believe Chretien kept us out of the IRAQ war, that is one of the biggest lies ever! We actually had a few boots on the ground, advisors there, support ships in the gulf...

    US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci said it best when he admitted that '… ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel... will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly... than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.'

    Our lazy media won't follow up!

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8110
    .
  43. chicken grambo from Canada writes: Mackay says that we will stop hold land and concentrate on human aid. What the hell are we holding land for? This is not WWII it is an ongoing terrorist action.They don't want any land...they want you blown up! DUH!
    How to defeat a band of gypsies who fight and run and have no homeland to take....give them one.
    SWAT valley (aptly named) is where it is going to happen people.
    The US and Pakistan agreed to open this mountainous 'roach motel' so the Taliban will move in and.....whoooompo.... dust to dust ...don't forget to flush.... It is going to be wonderful!!!!
  44. tom g from upper ottawa valley, Canada writes: R. Lamont above writes:

    They are Moslem's it is their culture to sell 8 year old females into marriage to 50 year old men. It is Moslem Culture to create murder and mayhem 24/7 around the world. We need to focus on stopping all Moslem Immigration into Canada and all Moslem Refugee claims into Canada. These people are part of a cult. End all immmigration of Moslem's, they are a Murder Cult. They make Charlie Manson look passive.

    It, however, is racism, or the religious equivalent, to write:

    'These people are part of a cult. End all immmigration of Moslem's, they are a Murder Cult.' Who exactly are these people?

    R. Lamont needs to find a life that doesn't use others as contrived objects of hatred to define his/her own life, and also to avoid speaking for 95% of the population.
  45. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th, 2008 AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country And On Top Of That I Believe It May Finally Be Time For Harper To Go (And I Don't Mean To The Loo), Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Tee Kay from Vancouver, Canada writes: R. Carriere,
    'Stephen Harper has told Fox News in the U.S. that most Canadians outside Quebec support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, despite our government's decision not to take part in the war.

    In an interview with the American TV network, Harper said he endorsed the war and said he was speaking 'for the silent majority' of Canadians. Only in Quebec, with its 'pacifist tradition,' are most people opposed to the war, Harper said.'

    Quoting is fun!
    ------------
    Sure is, as long as it is the truth as was Ignatieff's musings which were almost exactly the same!

    And if people believe Chretien kept us out of the IRAQ war, that is one of the biggest lies ever! We actually had a few boots on the ground, advisors there, support ships in the gulf...

    US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci said it best when he admitted that '… ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel... will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly... than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.'

    Our lazy media won't follow up!

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8110

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

    R Carriere....on Chretien 'keeping' Canada 'out' of Iraq

    http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/militaryafghanistan/insidethemission.html

    Just press play!
  46. janfromthe bruce from Canada writes: Get out of Afghanistan now. Neither the liberals who got Canada got us into this mess and than supported the extension to 2011 (along with the wishy washy stuff) so that McKay today can say oh, we are changing our mission to one of helping the folks.
    We don't need troops to do that but NGOs.

    Only the NDP is unequivocal on get out now.

    If there is an election, Iggy the liberal would be in there supporting his beloved 'empire.'

    Time to get out of NATO
  47. Rusty Waters from Canada writes: Expensive beds. Then all the government has to do is fleece the taxpayers who are basically very docile. It time for Canadians to stand up and say no to this government giving the hard earned money of Canadians to dying auto companies and to fight stupid wars. Where is the opposition? Where is Jack and Iggy? Do they have any guts?
  48. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    I would like one Liberal Party partisan to explain to me how the CPC can extend a mission by itself.

    Does the CPC have enough votes to pass a motion in the HOC to extend the mission? NO!

    I am completely AGAINST this occupation but it wouldn't be possible without the backing of the Liberal Party of Canada in bed with the Conservatives.

    Hate Harper all you wish, and if you do and don't want to be perceived as completely hypocritical, Liberal leader Ignatieff deserves your equal scorn.
    .
  49. N Dawg from Canada writes: Beansy Boy from United States writes: 'Canada has the best trained troops on earth'.

    No you don't. Your military budget as compared to Canadian GDP is the same as Paraguay ratio to it's GDP. You're buying thousands of military trucks right now from the US because you can't build them yourself. Your military leaders have already said the Canadian military will need a year off to rest after you retreat from Afghanistan. The US is adding ten times as many troops as the entire Canadian contingent. I seriously doubt if a nation with an international reputation for being cry babies, keeping your head low and blaming others for your problems would have the best trained troops in the world.
    **

    1. Canadian troops do much of their training with US soldiers in Texas.
    2. We can build military vehicles here but because of NAFTA and the time it takes to retool, we don't.
    3. The US has 10 times as many troops because you have 10 times the population. Also include the fact that Canada was not attacked on 9/11. Had Canada been attacked, you would have seen a sharp increase in the size of the military and its budget.
    4. Military might alone will not win this war or any other war. 40 per cent of Afghanis are unemployed; 28 per cent are illiterate. Opps, I guess no one told you about that...
  50. gerhard beck from Canada writes: What did anyone expect from the CRAP set of liars?
  51. SL S from Canada writes: Wow you posters sure are a little thick this morning.
  52. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: $1250 a bed ? .I could fill that contract from a Sears catalogue and retire rich . So what are they sleeping on now ?

    As for policy , Harper makes it up as he goes along, breaks his word as easily as he breaks wind .

    It is hard to figure out when to leave , since we have no good reason for being there in the first place , and no objective.

    If Canada is shifting to aid , we don't need the army there at all.
  53. john chuckman from Canada writes: It all sounds like continuing the role of US water boy to me.
  54. Wafflehut Guy from Charlotte, United States writes:
    'War is a racket' - Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, 1933

    Osama may be gone, but there are profits to be made.
  55. forty sum from Canada writes: If the natives and the Tamils can hold Canada hostage by destroying property and blocking highways, there should be no problem with the rest of us doing that to get our point across. Electing the conservative scum to office has not done anything for us, other then to give the politicians a fat pension.
  56. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th, 2008 AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country And On Top Of That I Believe It May Finally Be Time For Harper To Go (And I Don't Mean To The Loo), Canad
    ---------
    Morning J: TKS for the links. Unbelievable weather. Couldn't see 30 yards out into the ocean yesterday! Less fog today....

    Jason: seems as though our political landscape is in shambles. The main Parties have weak and strange leadership with all the warts and pimples we have all read about. Harper spends money on ads not needed and the Quebec French press is reporting a Liberal response attack ad campaign in the next few weeks. Lovely!

    No vision anywhere as to how we will evolve with a new economy that is surely to emerge post recession whenever that will be.

    As for Jack Layton, he professes to some good positions, but his 'always' tiring anti business pro union stands make him a tough choice. I would be concerned with him holding the purse strings. Oh well...
  57. ALASTAIR JAMES BERRY from NANAIMO, Canada writes: WHY on earth do we think NATO can IMPOSE WESTERN 'CULTURE' on the Afghans by the use of force?

    The Afghans have managed to stay independent through the two recent World Wars and the Cold War.

    Seven years after ousting the TALEBAN from their country, and installing an elected government in Kabul, which were the ORIGINAL AIMS of the bombardment and invasion of the country the aims, of NATO, have changed and become more WOOLY (girls in school, replacing poppy cultivation with pomegranates and so on) AND THE LOCALS FED UP BY OCCUPATION TROOPS RACING AROUND IN ARMOURED VEHICLES,(and bombing weddings and funerals) HAVE ENCOURAGED THE TALEBAN TO RETURN!!!!!

    It should be obvious, by now, to even the meanest intelligence that the TRIBAL and MAINLY MUSLIM Afghans prefer the Taleban to the INFIDEL (and to MUSLIM EYES) decadent foreign troops who are occupying their country! (The very idea of females in uniform is anathema to them, yet WE DO NOT REALIZE IT!)

    NATO(Canada included) should exit the country now..........THE SITUATION WILL ONLY GET WORSE!!
  58. Richard Sharp from Gatineau, Canada writes: It's true about our role in Iraq. Like iot or not, we have been there and continue to provide support.

    http://www.policyalternatives.ca/monitorissues/2008/09/monitorissue1992/?pa=DDC3F905
  59. Anthony B from Maritimes, Canada writes: 'We can't come to Afghanistan and help them develop their democracy and not respect our own.'

    Since an overwhelming majority of Canadians do not support our involvement in Afghanistan, how can Harper, MacKay, Ignatieff and all the other perfidious politicians in Ottawa allege they are bowing to the 'will of the people?'

    It has long been clear there is little support for this war, and 'changing our role' will not alter that. Why is MacKay even musing about an extension to the mission? 'Respect for democracy?' MacKay, you are either a liar or an idiot.
  60. 4Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: And who are we buying beds for? The increased US forces? The wounded Afghan civilians? Who?
  61. N Dawg from Canada writes: 4Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: And who are we buying beds for? The increased US forces? The wounded Afghan civilians? Who?

    *****

    Exactly. And $5 million? They didn't go for low bid that's for sure.
  62. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Rusty Waters from Canada writes: Expensive beds. Then all the government has to do is fleece the taxpayers who are basically very docile
    -----------
    I saw that also: $5,000,000 for 400 'beds.' A few more details would have been apprpriate such as does this include further construction......that comes to $ 12,500/bed. I hope transportation is included....along with a side table, lamp, a few sheets and pillows...
    .
  63. Auroran Bear from Montreal, Canada writes: The beds are so expensive because they shield you from Pakistan's nuclear missiles.

    http://tinyurl.com/qees7f
  64. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Anthony B from Maritimes,writes:
    Since an overwhelming majority of Canadians do not support our involvement in Afghanistan, how can Harper, MacKay, Ignatieff and all the other perfidious politicians in Ottawa allege they are bowing to the 'will of the people?
    -----

    Exactly!

    Mar. 7, 2009 – Canadian adults remain concerned about the mission in Afghanistan, with very few respondents advocating for an extension of Canada’s military commitment and almost half calling for a withdrawal of troops BEFORE the scheduled 2011 deadline, a new Toronto Star-Angus Reid poll has found.

    48 per cent of respondents want the bulk of the troops currently deployed in Afghanistan to be withdrawn BEFORE 2011, 35 per cent would continue under the scheduled plan that calls for the end of the mission in 2011, and only seven per cent believe Canadian soldiers should remain in Afghanistan after 2011.

    https://www.angusreidforum.com/MediaServer/3/documents/2009-03-07-AfghanARF.pdf
    .
  65. John Brown from Maritimes, Canada writes: Canadian born liberal-conservative Muslim from Ottawa, Canada writes: John Brown, The Canadian Forces may be well trained but Israel can easily take this country over. Canadian Forces one of the best trained in the world? Isn't that bit of an overstretch? Our inferiority complex of other countries makes us say some wild statements sometimes haha ;) You are absolutely correct in that Israel could easily take over many countries. However on the Canadian Forces you are completely ignorant obviously of the many accomplishments of our Canadian Military throughout history. Our military are very well trained given the limited equipment they have to work with. Given we are small by comparison to many other military's of the world as well as under-equipped it goes without saying we could be overtaken at some point in a sustained war but I can guarantee it would not be an easy task for the agressors. Beansy Boy from United States writes: 'Canada has the best trained troops on earth'. No you don't. Your military budget as compared to Canadian GDP is the same as Paraguay ratio to it's GDP. You're buying thousands of military trucks right now from the US because you can't build them yourself. Your military leaders have already said the Canadian military will need a year off to rest after you retreat from Afghanistan. The US is adding ten times as many troops as the entire Canadian contingent. I seriously doubt if a nation with an international reputation for being cry babies, keeping your head low and blaming others for your problems would have the best trained troops in the world. As for you Beansy Boy; Canada does not build any military equipment really since the AVRO Arrow threw the fear of a higher power into the US in the 50's. You are probably to young to remember that fiasco and the Beaumark missle startegy of the US whereby they blackmailed the Canadian government to quit production of the state of the art fighter. Our government is afraid of yours.
  66. Alice Wonderland from Canada writes:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/01/iraq-britain-inquiry

    when we do leave afghan, we will be having the sam type of inquiry is no having. After they left Iraq.

    'It's hardly surprising that those responsible for the human and social catastrophe unleashed by the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by Britain (re- Afghanistan by Canada)'
  67. R B from Kingston, Jamaica writes: I agree with the above poster. '' We are not human cannon fodder to keep our government looking good to foreigners' This poster is a veteran. I support our troops...to the original departure date and not a minute more. I suspected this announcement might be forthcoming.
  68. Alice Wonderland from Canada writes:
    The Forces said Canada can't do two things at once, regarding afghanistan and the 2010 olympics. and need 12 months of rest before another mission,

    which one are they withdrawing from then?
  69. pants 7 from Japan writes: I'm surprised so many people want Canada to come home.
    Canada needs to make it clear to the Obama administration, give us a little respect or we leave next week. Get rid of that witch trying too lock down the border or we leave next week. If Canada goes the rest of NATO would probably go as well. NATO has no business being in Afghanistan anyway, it is a heck of a long was from the Atlantic.

    However, I feel no rush for Canada to leave and I generally support the operation.
  70. Serving Soldier Trenton from Canada writes:
    If we have to kill children, when they get in the way, that is the cost of war.
    Whoever the enemy is that day, we will destroy. Man, woman, child, rah rah rah, shoot em' in da head.
  71. W Hamilton from Canada writes: Bring the troops back immediately. Defend the north pole instead. Peter MacKay should be fired. Peter Mackay can go to Afghanistan as he wish.
  72. Billy Bee from Canada writes: More CPC lies...
  73. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th, 2008 AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country And On Top Of That I Believe It May Finally Be Time For Harper To Go (And I Don't Mean To The Loo), Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    'the Quebec French press is reporting a Liberal response attack ad campaign in the next few weeks. Lovely!'

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

    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......'X' hundred comments centered around 'B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-ut the Cons did it to!'

    :-)
  74. Afghan Sniper from Canada writes:
    From 1,000 metres, all I know is that they are not white.
    Point an' shoot, let G-d sort them out.
  75. Toronto Beltway from Canada writes:
    I do not support the murder of people, man, woman or child. Mainly white people, murdering brown people is so old school.
  76. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th, 2008 AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country And On Top Of That I Believe It May Finally Be Time For Harper To Go (And I Don't Mean To The Loo), Canada writes: Billy Bee from Canada writes:

    More CPC lies...

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

    'PLANS FOR CANADA'S AFGHAN BASE STRETCH TO 2015'

    http://thefilter.ca/articles/canada/plans-for-canadas-afghan-base-stretch-to-2015/

    'I don't want to say we won't have a single troop there, because obviously we would aid in some technical capacities,' he (Harper)said. '

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/10/harper-afghanistan.html

    Try again.....
  77. W Hamilton from Canada writes: MacKay should be charged for our soldier's death in Afghanistan.
  78. Alberta Dan from Canada writes:
    Just wait until Canada wipes out another school full of children, THEN there will be some more public outrage.

    THIS will happen, the forces train their soldiers to accept civilian losses as part of the invasion.
  79. Neo Cynic from Bahamas writes: LOL! De mockery of democracy: 'We can't come to Afghanistan and help them develop their democracy and not respect our own...' The 'democratically elected' government of Afghanistan has asked us to stop killing their children. Our Pentagon's reply? GFY.
  80. W Hamilton from Canada writes: T T from Canada writes: You lot do realize that this is an aid committment, not necessarily a military one like we have now, right?

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Once troops is in Afghanistan, the military mission shifted from aid to combat.
  81. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th, 2008 AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country And On Top Of That I Believe It May Finally Be Time For Harper To Go (And I Don't Mean To The Loo), Canada writes: Alberta Dan from Canada writes:

    Just wait until Canada wipes out another school full of children, THEN there will be some more public outrage.

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

    Please Ms. Fonda...provide the links to where Canada has wiped out 'another' school full of children...actually show the links to the stories where Canada has wiped out one to begin with.
  82. Neo Cynic from Bahamas writes:

    Jason Roy from Central Nova:

    Canada=ISAF=NATO=USAF= air strike atrocities.

    Therefore, Canada=air strike atrocities

    Tres simple, mon ami.
  83. Michael S from Canada writes: 2011 better not come and go with our soldiers still in place!! We don't belong there now; we never have. I want our soldiers home.
  84. Ben Franklin from Ottawa, Canada writes: Michael S from Canada writes: 2011 better not come and go with our soldiers still in place!! We don't belong there now; we never have. I want our soldiers home.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This will be an election issue.
    Unfortunately, Harpo and Iggy pretty much agree on doing what Washington wants, so if you strongly disagree vote NDP.
  85. FedUp InToronto from Canada writes: ..........Time to get out. We did our bit in the religious war. It is stipud to go there for any reason, it would be wise to get out. .......

    Yup, time to cut and run. We did our bit.

    I have no doubt the 'religious war' has barely begun. These Taliban need to be wiped out once and for all. You can't win a war by saying we're leaving in 2011.
  86. George Nikitin from Hamilton, Canada writes: We are being led into an abyss by the worst kind of people.
  87. Anti Fascist from Canada writes: Peter Mckay needs to be replaced asap. What a shameless lying lickspittle.
  88. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th, 2008 AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country And On Top Of That I Believe It May Finally Be Time For Harper To Go (And I Don't Mean To The Loo), Canada writes: Neo Cynic from Bahamas writes:

    Jason Roy from Central Nova:

    Canada=ISAF=NATO=USAF= air strike atrocities.

    Therefore, Canada=air strike atrocities

    Tres simple, mon ami.

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

    Ahhhh...

    ...guilt by association along with generalisations and assumptions pulled from one's @$$...

    ...surefire proof indeed!
  89. Richard Turner from Out West, Canada writes: Ok let's look at this issue. Who sent us to Afghanistan in 2002? Who then increased he size of the contingent and sent us back? Who moved us into combat in Kandahar? Who recommended staying until 2011? And lastly who recently siad that it would be bad to leave in 2011?
    Yes, you guessed it the Liberal Party of Canada. Sorry to burst the anti-Con rant fest going on.
  90. Napoleon 45 from Edmonton, Canada writes: However, Ignatieff said Canada should continue to help Afghanistan after 2011

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090423/IggyUS090423/20090423

    Well look at this, I guess Count Iggy intsnds to stay and no one seems to care.
  91. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: The original statement was with regards to combat soldiers being out of Afghanistan in 2011- there has never really been a commitment to having all CF out of Afghanistan. If the CF troops remain in a more 'peacekeeping' type role, more Canadians will most likely support it.

    BTW our troops have won a US Presidential Unit Citation and at least 30 individuals were awarded a US Bronze Star in Afghanistan. Our military may be small but more than one senior US officer has commented on their first rate training. One of the best and most modern training bases is actually in Wainright(sp?), Alberta. The only question I have is with regard to the purpose of the additional 400 beds - perhaps that will be clarified later.

    The work the CF has done with the PRT in Kandahar has been limited by the Taliban - but it is more effective overall than many UN NGOs and aid organizations in part because of the focus on consultation with the Afghans. They have had years of experience in rebuilding.
  92. San Tomas from Canada writes: Just think what all those wasted billions of dollars on the hell hole (Afghanistan) could have done for the health and education of the Canadian people.
    You wipe out the Taliban and there will be many more insurgent groups waiting to take over. This will go on and on like the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. And our politicians just keep pouring money into a worthless cause. What twits.
  93. Ted Arnold from Canada writes:
    END THE OCCUPATION!
    ALL FOREIGN TROOPS OUT NOW!
  94. Napoleon 45 from Edmonton, Canada writes: Ted Arnold from Canada writes:
    END THE OCCUPATION!
    ALL FOREIGN TROOPS OUT NOW!

    What occupation? We there under UN Resolution 1386 (2001)
    Adopted by the Security Council at its 4443rd meeting, on
    20 December 2001

    Stop the lies about occupation NOW!
  95. Ted Arnold from Canada writes:
    END THE OCCUPATION!
    ALL FOREIGN TROOPS OUT NOW!
  96. marlene stobbart from High River, Canada writes: Canada's military was stripped of its morale back in the 60's and, to this day, we don't honor them. Nor,do Canadians know much about the history of our military - who have served so admirably. Originally our soldiers were sent to Kanadar for reconstruction purposes only; until former Prime Minister Martin signed a deal with former President Bush in March, 2005 at Waco, Texas. Thereby, our military received equipment, sorely needed, and our soldiers were sent to fight in South Afghanistan - not the original purpose of why they were shipped over.
    What is required is to redefine what is expected of our military, and how allied agencies should contribute to the fight. More then that is to question the reasons of why we are there. Is it to develop governance, deliver aid, reconstruction, etc.?
    If so - that's not the purvue of the military! As for governance - already it's been shown the Afghanistan gov't keeps to their old ways with the Sharia law and when we finally do leave - they will resort back to their 2,000 year old customs. Insurgency is on both sides and our young men and women, who have admirably served their country, should be returned home by 2011. Any extension, I believe, is at the bequest of the US President who continues the warfare by sending additional troops into Afghanistan Canada military is greatly admired thoughout the world and was well earned.
  97. Jah Nee Kah Sun from Canada writes: John Brown from Maritimes, Canada writes: As for you Beansy Boy; Canada does not build any military equipment really since the AVRO Arrow threw the fear of a higher power into the US in the 50's.

    Canadian made armaments...C7 and C8 automatic assault rifles for Canadian and other NATO forces...Optical sights for automatic rifles and other weapons...A wide calibre range of ammunition, including small arms ammunition...Armour worn by American troops and used on vehicles and airplanes...Armoured vehicles used in Iraq...Canadian companies sell over 7 billion dollars per year in armaments and Canada is the sixth largest exporter of weapons in the world.
  98. Napoleon 45 from Edmonton, Canada writes: until former Prime Minister Martin signed a deal with former President Bush in March, 2005 at Waco, Texas. Thereby, our military received equipment, sorely needed, and our soldiers were sent to fight in South Afghanistan

    Care to quantify that falacious statement?
  99. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Canada can't leave Afghanistan without getting a serious spanking from the US. We just have to decide whether leaving is worth it.

    The 2011 date, (or 2015), assumes everything will remain unchanged. If al Qaeda decided that they want us to stay in Afghanistan all they'd have to do is attack the Vancouver Olympics and we would double our military commitment..... And if the americans want us to stay in Afghanistan, and found out an attack on the Olympics was imminent, all they'd have to do is... keep quiet.

    al Qaeda needs the war to continue indefinitely. The US needs the war to continue indefinitely. Canada should walk away and leave them to it.
  100. Napoleon 45 from Edmonton, Canada writes: all they'd have to do is attack the Vancouver Olympics and we would double our military commitment

    Care to explain where we would find those soldiers? We don't have enough now, without doubling our commitment.
  101. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Napoleon 45, 'Care to explain where we would find those soldiers? We don't have enough now, without doubling our commitment.'

    There would be volunteers lined up around the block. It would be a national emergency and the public would demand we react strongly. Even the NDP would go along with hitting back and nobody would point out that we'd be hitting the wrong enemy, or that we'd be giving our real enemy what they want.
  102. Napoleon 45 from Edmonton, Canada writes: Udom Thongpai from Victoria, you really don't understand this situation at all. Who would train them? Where would they be trained? Where would their equipment come from? The pantry is well and truly empty. No matter what you wish to believe.
  103. Comments closed, censored, hidden, deleted, disappeared from Peso-onie land, Canada writes: 'Afghan mission may extend past 2011'.... --- Anybody ever doubted that? Needed to wait for the Globe to figure that one out? --- Unless we, the sovereign, the ultimate source of power and of legitimacy, take to the streets and insist for as long as it takes for the troops to be supported all the way home, and with all their stuff, there will be no end to that adventure.
  104. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Napoleon 45, 'Who would train them? Where would they be trained? Where would their equipment come from? The pantry is well and truly empty. No matter what you wish to believe.'

    Big difference between managing a half hearted war of choice and a real war. In six months we'd have double the number of soldiers in Afghanistan with more on the way.... In the second world war we went from zero to sixty in nothing flat.

    As for the equipment, the US would be delighted to loan or sell us whatever we need... The California National Guard has more and better equipment than the Canadian military.
  105. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: Sorry, very sorry, but quite a while ago I wrote that Canada would be stuck in Afghanistan for perhaps the next 20 years...

    The usual shills wasted no time with their ad hominem attacks against me...

    Now, what I would like to hear from our PM Harper, is exactly what the ''new mission'' will be. The last time, we had our PM telling us on CBC that ''we're sending little girls to school'' and ''we're bringing democracy to Afghanistan''...

    - =
  106. Randy Hyland from Winnipeg, Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    I would like one Liberal Party partisan to explain to me how the CPC can extend a mission by itself.

    Does the CPC have enough votes to pass a motion in the HOC to extend the mission? NO!

    I am completely AGAINST this occupation but it wouldn't be possible without the backing of the Liberal Party of Canada in bed with the Conservatives.

    Hate Harper all you wish, and if you do and don't want to be perceived as completely hypocritical, Liberal leader Ignatieff deserves your equal scorn.
    .
    ----------------------------------

    Rob I agree with your post and Ignatieff said I think just a couple of weeks ago that Canada couldn't just totally withdraw. However he did make it straight that the combat part would be over 2011, We may stay longer in Afghanistan after the 2011 date but only as observers , training, rebuilding. No combat at all unless for self defense. Why can't McKay and the Harper Government come right out and say the same. I have no problem with that at all and wish the Harper Government would just come out and make that sort of commitment truthfully.

    Sorry I can't provide links on the Iggy statement but I am sure I seen a media clip where he said something along that line.
  107. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Speaking of pipelines.... in June Turkey will sign a deal for the Nabucco pipeline, which will bypass Russia and bring 30 billion square meters of natural gas annually to Europe. This will protect EU countries against shortages and sudden price hikes by the Russians. Nabucco would never have got off the drawing board without the strong US presence in the region and their hard work in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.

    'Nabucco project faces critical threshold in June', Today's Zaman, http://tinyurl.com/re6zhm

    'Nabucco starts to shape up', Asia Times, http://tinyurl.com/pe4dc4

    So let the EU fight in Afghanistan. Their economic survival is at stake... Canadians need a clearer explanation of what's at stake for us... sovereignty in the Arctic?
  108. Napoleon 45 from Edmonton, Canada writes: No combat at all unless for self defense.

    Then that is combat. Why can't Canadians wrap their heads around the fact that their soldiers can and do kill people on thier behalf. Just to make sure you all understand, more soldiers have died on UN missions than have died in Afghanistan, the Libs just hid the facts better.
  109. Randy Hyland from Winnipeg, Canada writes: ason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th, 2008 AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country And On Top Of That I Believe It May Finally Be Time For Harper To Go (And I Don't Mean To The Loo), Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    'the Quebec French press is reporting a Liberal response attack ad campaign in the next few weeks. Lovely!'

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

    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......'X' hundred comments centered around 'B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-ut the Cons did it to!'

    :-)

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

    Getting a little ahead of yourself there Jason? You don't think that he and the LIberal party are entitled to respond to outright childish slandering?

    Iggy did say during an interview that they would 'RESPOND' to the Conservative ads. He also pointed out that he would not respond with personal attacks but with the Conservative Record over the past 3 years. I will wait and see if this is so and if Iggy will indeed show some class and stay away from the personal insults.

    I am neither Liberal , Conservativ, or NDP. I voted in 2006 for Harper because I got suckered into his promises of cleaning up Govt. and all I have seen from him is broken Promises..Accountability is a foreign word to Harper and the sleaze just continues with the Conservative party. When I see comments from very respected posters like R. Carriere & LB Murray showing a great disgusted by this so called 'Conservative' Govt. I just shake my head
  110. Abu Akkrab from Canada writes: There are some sick people out there; claiming, by their user names, to be Canadian soldiers. It is clear from their posts that they haven't the slightest clue of how Canadian soldiers are trained or fight. The joys of blogging, I guess.
  111. Sassy Lassie from Canada writes: . Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    sherry smith from Canada writes: Can they just disregard the end date of 2011 without consulting the Canadian people? I will be very angry if this happens without discussion of this change of direction.
    ----------------------
    We would both be angry, but that is NOT the way it works.

    A brand new motion would need to be presented in the HOC with an exact wording of what the extension was all about and it would need a majority to pass.

    As has been the history mentioned above, the BQ and NDP have consistently voted against any extension.

    On this one, the Liberals truly held/hold the balance of power and The Liberals have backed the CPC on 2 extensions with Ignatieff being solidly in the corner of the CPC philosophy.

    Those are the facts whether one likes them or not! The Liberal Party had an opportunity to end this craziness if it would have voted with the BQ/NDP in 2008 yet decided to back Harper.......AGAIN!
    .
    End quote:------------------------------

    Nice to see someone write the truth instead of propaganda and partisan claptrap.
  112. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: Bottom line is this:

    So far, only two (2) political parties have been against sending troops to fight a US war in Afghanistan.

    The Bloc and the NDP.

    - = 13
  113. Randy Hyland from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Sassy Lassie from Canada writes:
    quote:------------------------------

    Nice to see someone write the truth instead of propaganda and partisan claptrap.

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

    Sassy that made me laugh..;~)

    You have been spewing Parisan claptrap on these posts over the past couple of weeks like a crazed swarm of bees. Thanks for the Laugh..
  114. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: Randy Hyland from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Sassy Lassie from Canada writes:
    quote:------------------------------

    Nice to see someone write the truth instead of propaganda and partisan claptrap.

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

    Sassy that made me laugh..;~)

    You have been spewing Parisan claptrap on these posts over the past couple of weeks like a crazed swarm of bees. Thanks for the Laugh..
    __________________________________________

    Exactly. Thanks for the laugh, Sassy Lassie. We've seen plenty of your highly Partisan comments on the National Post...the G and M....

    LOL - - 013
  115. Scott Gartner from Canada writes: This article is pretty misleading in alot of ways. First while Canada may hold close to 3000 bed spaces in KAF there are certainly not that many troops in there, the BG is pushed out to the outlying area almost as soon as arriving, that would effectively chop that number by close to 1000 right off the hop then theres other units that forward deploy as well......anyhow....guess Colin was hurting for a story.

    WRT the airstrikes I'm not sure where Mackay is getting his information but as mentioned Canada still rolls with JTACs as FT Ward mentioned. It should be noted though that Canada works under ISAF ROE, most of these airstrikes that have gone real bad have fallen under OEF ROE, 2 seperate things altogether. So while some of the less informed come on here and run their mouths like they actually know what CAS is (and if your looking that acronym up, you don't) Mackay is actually correct in the sense stating that Canada goes through great pains to minimize/negate civilian casualties using airpower.
  116. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: Sassy Lassie..... (message continued)....

    Thanks for the laugh, Sassy Lassie. Tillian is right... We've seen plenty of your Partisan comments on the Globe and Mail, not to mention the National Post...

    Bottom line is still: The Bloc and the NDP are the only parties who never changed their tune regarding Afghanistan.

    - = 013
  117. Napoleon 45 from Edmonton, Canada writes: The Bloc and the NDP are the only parties who never changed their tune regarding Afghanistan.

    One is a party designed to destroy the country and the other has never met an islamo-fascist they didn't like.
  118. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: Catherine: Which members of the CF in Afghanistan aren't 'combat troops'. Perhaps you could explain why if we pulled out all of our 'combat' troops what reason would there be for these other 'non-combat' folks to stay. They'd have no one to support and since they wouldn't be 'combat troops' how could they leave the base to work with Afghans?

    Of course if the CF continues pulling back from dangerous districts at the rate it is all of the troops will be safe in KAF well before 2011 in any event.
  119. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: Before any of the
    C.R.A.P. partisans start calling me a libbie leftie whatever....
    Let me remind you that I am an old time Conservative, dating back to Bob Stanfield, Mulroney and others. I even voted for Harper in 2006, to my great chagrin when I found out that said PM Harper is more Reform-Alliance than most...

    The CPC is not conservative at all, never was, never shall be. Question is: Who, where, what, when ..... When shall we see the former true blue Tory Conservative raise from the ashes.... This party will definitely need a new name. Perhaps TORY party of Canada....

    That's all for now.
    Back later.

    - = -1313
  120. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Three of the worst incidents resulting in civilian casualties were the work of the Marines Corps' Special Operations Command, or MarSOC. These guys are a special ops team that operate outside the normal chain of command and ROE. They were created 3 years ago by Donald Rumsfeld and are viewed with hostility by others in the special forces community.

    It was they who called the airstrike in Farah that killed 147 civilians miles from the battle and hours after it was over. They also called the airstrike that killed over 90 in Azizabad. They were the ones in 2007 who , following a suicide bomb attack, raced down the highway firing at all cars and civilians in their path, killing 19.

    They aren't Canadians, but we're on the same team.

    'Rumsfeld's renegade unit blamed for Afghan deaths', The Independent, http://tinyurl.com/qwl9ow
  121. Napoleon 45 from Edmonton, Canada writes: The Independent is a pseudo-marxist paper that champions causes such as islamo-fascism and the destruction of millions in Israel. If this is a source, you really need to get out of the latte socialist crowd more often.
  122. Abu Akkrab from Canada writes: Udom: Politically you mat be correct with the team analogy, but our armed forces are not even in the same league.
  123. Satellite Steve from St Agatha, Canada writes: Jim Brown If your religious freedom was at stake and you had the guts to stand up for your beliefs against foreign mercenary forces, would you consider yourself a 'zealot'? I seriously doubt it. And lets not forget that these forces, being conditioned that bonus dollars are a far better way to get ahead than respect for the rights of others, will bring this ungodly attitude home with them, where the clueless give them a hero's welcome. At least those with the decency to return in body bags will not further degrade the image Canada so richly deserves to the free world.
  124. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes:

    However much I may abhor the war in Afghanistan, even I have to concede that the issue has united Canadians in an unprecedented way.

    'Almost 90 per cent of Canadians want their troops out of Afghanistan by the scheduled end date in 2011 or before, despite new American commitments to the conflict, a new poll suggests.'

    Globe and Mail, May 7, 2009

    theglobeandmail.com%20was%20once%20called%20the%20Paris%20of%20the%20East.%20Today,%20it%27s%20a%20melting%20post%20of%20Western%20style%20and%20Eastern%20tradition.
  125. Napoleon 45 from Edmonton, Canada writes: At least those with the decency to return in body bags

    I doubt a person like you would have the parts to say that in public. Its great being a tough lefty on the internet!
  126. Abu Akkrab from Canada writes: Richard,

    Then why did that 90% not vote Block or NDP when they had the chance?
  127. Abu Akkrab from Canada writes: ..and don't twist things Richard:
    'A plurality in all regions said Canada should stick to its 2011 commitment, with the exception of Quebec, where 51 per cent of respondents said Canada should withdraw early.'
  128. marlene stobbart from High River, Canada writes: Napolean45 March 23/05 Canada, US & Mexico signed the Security and Prosperity PArtnership of North America/Martin/Bush/Fox at the trilateral summit in Waco Texas Same date as Martin agreed to send our troops into South Afghanistan and, in return, obtained the necessary military equipment from the US. Canada's military equipment is almost obsolete since the Liberals decided in the late 60's to downsize the military, combine the forces; and effectively destroyed morale.
    Previous to March, 2005 Canadian troops previously were deployed to Afghanistan under NATO as peacekeepers. Unlike Harper, who asked before the fact - Martin didn't! Hopefully, PM Harper will bring the troops home by 2011. Should Ignatieff come to office, being good friends with the Obama administration, Ignatieff would elect to retain, as required, our military in Afghanistan. Obama's military recently sent many more thousands to Afghanistan. It should be noted this country has been invaded by everyone since time began but - never conquered. It would be rather nice if all politicians studies both Honors History and Humanities but, unfortunately most have not - particularly the former US administration. Final comment - peace will never be on earth as collectively everyone is engaged in fighting; one way or the other.
  129. Randy Hyland from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Napoleon 45 from Edmonton, Canada writes: At least those with the decency to return in body bags

    I doubt a person like you would have the parts to say that in public. Its great being a tough lefty on the internet!
    --------------------------

    Come on People let's not turn this into a partisan sleaze post again. Comments like the one above are way out of line no matte if you lean Left-right-- or down. Think before you hit the enter key will y'all please.
  130. Abu Akkrab from Canada writes: Richard,

    This one from Harris-Decima is probably a better poll with 55% who do not support the mission. In 2011, it will be interesting to see if the lack of support is due to casualties, monetary cost, or the role of the troops (combat vs nation building). I suspect that it will be all about the casualties and monetary cost - we have become a selfish nation(s).

    http://www.harrisdecima.com/en/downloads/pdf/news_releases/040909E.pdf
  131. Robin Adams from Ottawa, Canada writes: Abu Akkrab, you directed your comment towards Richard Roskell but I'll attempt to answer your question. Why with so many opposed did people not vote for the bloc or NDP? Several reasons.

    Firstly, usually, people don't vote on a single issue unless its particularly compelling. It is one issue but certainly not the only issue.

    Parties, usually, stand for more than one issue. Typically they cover a full range of social, economic, military and foreign policy issues. I'm not sure even the staunchest party supporters completely agree with most of these however they will support the party they feel most comfortable with. While the NDP and Bloc are against the war they are also for other things... specifically socialism and separatism. People who may be against the war might choose to vote elsewhere because they consider it the lesser evil of supporting socialist or separatist parties.

    Lastly, the system is corrupt. Its partly democratic but not fully democratic. The system by which members get elected (FPTP) grotesquely exagerates representation in parliament for the largest parties. Its the reason why articles like this one get pepole worked up... they come to realize how little say they actually have in their society.
  132. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th, 2008 AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country And On Top Of That I Believe It May Finally Be Time For Harper To Go (And I Don't Mean To The Loo), Canada writes: Randy Hyland from Winnipeg, Canada writes:

    R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Rob I agree with your post and Ignatieff said I think just a couple of weeks ago that Canada couldn't just totally withdraw. However he did make it straight that the combat part would be over 2011, We may stay longer in Afghanistan after the 2011 date but only as observers , training, rebuilding. No combat at all unless for self defense. Why can't McKay and the Harper Government come right out and say the same. I have no problem with that at all and wish the Harper Government would just come out and make that sort of commitment truthfully.

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

    FROM 2006:

    Ignatieff says Canada belongs in Afghanistan

    http://tinyurl.com/ah7wxw

    PRESENT DAY :

    'Once our military mission ends in 2011, we will continue to support the Afghan people,' he said. 'With humanitarian aide, we will build schools, dig wells and teach human rights.'

    theglobeandmail.com

    As for the Harper government just coming out and making the committment truthfully it's already been done...ONCE AGAIN, Harper stated Canada's CURRENT mission (combat) would end in 2011:

    '...it is not a realistic goal to eradicate the insurgency in Afghanistan by 2011. But he (Harper) said Canada would continue development assistance for Afghanistan & a small number of troops would likely stay behind to offer technical support to coalition countries that remain...'

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-09-10-canada-afghanistan_N.htm

    ...as for staying beyond 2011 in other roles...it's neither a secret nor a sudden relevation:

    'PLANS FOR CANADA'S AFGHAN BASE STRETCH TO 2015'

    http://thefilter.ca/articles/canada/plans-for-canadas-afghan-base-stretch-to-2015/
  133. Abu Akkrab from Canada writes: Robin,

    Exactly, single issue polls do not put the question in the context of everything else that is going on in the world. It is easy to take an ideological or ill-educated stand when you have no responsibility for the outcome.
  134. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Napolean45 wrote, 'The Independent is a pseudo-marxist paper that champions causes such as islamo-fascism and the destruction of millions in Israel. If this is a source, you really need to get out of the latte socialist crowd more often.'

    The article I referred to was from May 16th, the main article in the Independent that day was, 'Leading article: Afghanistan is a worthwhile mission', The Independent, http://tinyurl.com/ogfjbj
  135. Napoleon 45 from Edmonton, Canada writes: Previous to March, 2005 Canadian troops previously were deployed to Afghanistan under NATO as peacekeepers.

    Then why did we announce in 2005 that we were going to Kandahar? Also must have got it all wrong, with the CF going to fight the Taliban in 2002.
  136. Napoleon 45 from Edmonton, Canada writes: Peacekeeping is dead.

    Look Canada, it was all a myth. It was soldiering on the cheap. A platform for us to moralize while doing precious little ourselves. Soldiers dont join to be peacekeepers, they join to be warriors. If this reality hurts, the next time something goes wrong and the UN comes begging, send social workers and let the soldiers do thier job.
  137. Randy Hyland from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th, 2008 AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country And On Top Of That I Believe It May Finally Be Time For Harper To Go (And I Don't Mean To The Loo), Canada writes: Randy Hyland from Winnipeg, Canada writes:

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

    PRESENT DAY :

    'Once our military mission ends in 2011, we will continue to support the Afghan people,' he said. 'With humanitarian aide, we will build schools, dig wells and teach human rights.'

    theglobeandmail.com

    As for the Harper government just coming out and making the committment truthfully it's already been done...ONCE AGAIN, Harper stated Canada's CURRENT mission (combat) would end in 2011:

    '...it is not a realistic goal to eradicate the insurgency in Afghanistan by 2011. But he (Harper) said Canada would continue development assistance for Afghanistan & a small number of troops would likely stay behind to offer technical support to coalition countries that remain...'

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-09-10-canada-afghanistan_N.htm

    ...as for staying beyond 2011 in other roles...it's neither a secret nor a sudden relevation:

    'PLANS FOR CANADA'S AFGHAN BASE STRETCH TO 2015'

    http://thefilter.ca/articles/canada/plans-for-canadas-afghan-base-stretch-to-2015/

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

    Jason Thank you for the links however I don't want to see or put a lot of stock in links that point to Statements made by either leader or party from 2 or 3 years ago.

    I knew the link from Iggy's latest statement were made recently but you are linking to Harper Statements made befrore the last Election

    http://tinyurl.com/PM-PROMISES

    This one from a story in 2007

    http://tinyurl.com/Afghan-Base
  138. Abu Akkrab from Canada writes: On a side note. Humanitarian activity can also has negative effects on culture if they are not well considered. For example the 'quick win' humanitarian activity of digging village wells is effecting the aquifer in Afghanistan and may be contributing to the long term drought (see below).

    Canada must consider its foreign engagements carefully, and fully understand the consequences of her actions. Launching or recovering troops on public opinion polls and news reports may not be good governance.

    --------------------------------------
    'The nature and magnitude of these impacts to the principal aquifer systems in the country have not been defined or quantified in detail. However, anecdotal evidence of waterlevel impacts from the increasing use of deep drilled wells, particularly in the eastern
    Helmand basin and Kabul River basin has been provided in several reports and studies over the past several years. Impacts to shallow sources of groundwater supply including hand dug wells and karezes has been attributed to the increased development of the groundwater resources in these basins as well as to the 5 year drought.' - http://www.vuawater.com/vuasite/AfghanistanGWStudy.pdf
  139. Robin Adams from Ottawa, Canada writes: Abu Akkrab from Canada writes: Robin, Exactly, single issue polls do not put the question in the context of everything else that is going on in the world. It is easy to take an ideological or ill-educated stand when you have no responsibility for the outcome. Your statement above is an opinion on the usefulness or utility of polling on a single issue. vs. The question you posed Richard and that I attempted to answer for you was 'why with so many people against the war did they not vote for the Bloc or NDP?' I suggest to you that those are two different questions entirely. Lets re-frame your statement above as another question... Are polls on single issues useful? I'd argue yes. Knowing that the public's mood can be radioactive on certain topics is very useful for politicians to know. They then avoid discussing them like the plague... Also, those polls are sliced demographically and geographically... more useful stuff for pols to know. Its why all parties spend millions of dollars each year on their private polling companies to constantly find out for them what people's moods are on particular issues. Basically, the pollsters are taking over something the pols should know themselves... but I digress. Polls in and of themselves do not tell you which way people vote but they are very useful for letting you know what is important to them. Since State Legitimacy in a Democracy resides with the Citizen, its a good thing to know.
  140. Abu Akkrab from Canada writes: Robin, agreed. It was a bit of an ambush.

    The point, along with that of my last posting is that 'governance by polls' is a dangerous road and that a true understanding of Canadians concerns can only be achieved through educating the electorate and through discussion and debate in public fora that allows the true interest and long term effects on Canada to be determined. We appear to have lost the ability to be patient as a society. Knee-jerk decisions based on the news of the day seems to be what Canadians (at least those in the media) are demanding of their government. In many cases, that is what they are getting.
  141. Abu Akkrab from Canada writes: Good point L.B. The "Globe Insider" comments system was much better.
  142. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th, 2008 AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country And On Top Of That I Believe It May Finally Be Time For Harper To Go (And I Don't Mean To The Loo), Canada writes: Randy Hyland from Winnipeg, Canada writes:

    Jason Thank you for the links however I don't want to see or put a lot of stock in links that point to Statements made by either leader or party from 2 or 3 years ago.

    I knew the link from Iggy's latest statement were made recently but you are linking to Harper Statements made befrore the last Election

    http://tinyurl.com/PM-PROMISES

    This one from a story in 2007

    http://tinyurl.com/Afghan-Base

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

    I do agree with you Randy on not putting stock in statements made 2-3 years ago...

    ...however you did ask for the government's 'clarification' (Iggy's favourite term it seems as we get used to his 'clarifications') and until we have another one, that's all there is to go on.

    As for your link:

    http://tinyurl.com/Afghan-Base

    That is the same article I provided the following link for:

    'PLANS FOR CANADA'S AFGHAN BASE STRETCH TO 2015'

    http://thefilter.ca/articles/canada/plans-for-canadas-afghan-base-stretch-to-2015/

    As I said, staying beyond 2011 in a diplomatic/aid/contruction role is neither a well kept secret nor a sudden relevation.

    In the meantime I'm still waiting for the two Jane Fonda wannabes above to provide us to links that will show where Canada has 'wiped out another school full of children', or even one to begin with...especially since direct civilian casulties as a result of CF accident have been limited to a handful of - albeit unfortunate - streetlevel shootings.
  143. N Dawg from Canada writes: The Globe needs to fully moderate these boards.
  144. comrade canuck from Canada writes: Alberta Dan from Canada... AKA ... Afgahn Veteran from Canada.... Alice Wonderland from Canada.... Dancing Mitilda from Canada.... Serving Soldier Petawawa from Canada.... Neo Cynic from Bahamas.... Light Sword from Canada writes: Blah Blah

    This is awesome. The paid Taliban propogandists aren't even pretending to hide their multiple postings. It reeks of fear. Of course, with the Pakistani govn't beating them down in the Swat valley, and American marines pouring into A'stan, the Talib's are desperate for something to turn the tide.

    Quickly! Give us another Vietnam reference. And throw in some useless comparison to the war in Iraq... Hold on. Maybe that's not such a great idea.
  145. Abu Akkrab from Canada writes: Randy: Gen Leslie, the Chief of the Land Staff, has reported to Parliament the Army is beyond day to day repair and requires a regeneration period in Canada. This was known on the way in to Kandahar and was to be accomplished in 2009 (the original commitment). I would hazard a guess that, if we had the military capacity, both the liberals and the conservatives would be in it for the long haul with our allies (not just the US). The more logical and politically sensible approach would be continue the current slow transition from combat to development as the Afghans are ready to take on bigger roles, rather than a single "shift" on a specific date.
  146. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: In the meantime, I am eagerly waiting for our PM Harper to come on our CBC-CTV-Global television and tell us exactly what the ''new mission'' in Afghanistan might be...

    Last time our PM Harper said anything about the mission, we got this:
    ''We're sending little girls to school'' and ''We're bringing democracy to Afghanistan''.

    In the meantime, I am eagerly waiting for our Leader of the Opposition to come on our CBC-CTV-Global television and tell us exactly what the ''new mission'' in Afghanistan might be...

    Please spare me the 3-year-old quotes. Let's hear what they have to say HERE AND NOW, today, May 18th 2009. Thank you.

    - = 131313
  147. Abu Akkrab from Canada writes: LB and Randy: Not sure how I answered your posts before you posted them:) Anyway, time to enjoy the rest of the day, later.
  148. Abu Akkrab from Canada writes: comrade canuck: I am thinking that those are even too amateurish for Taliban propagandists. I am guessing a teenage anti-christian bigot.
  149. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Randy Hyland from Winnipeg, Canada writes:
    ...Ignatieff said I think just a couple of weeks ago that Canada couldn't just totally withdraw. However he did make it straight that the combat part would be over 2011, We may stay longer in Afghanistan after the 2011 date but only as observers , training, rebuilding....
    ----
    Afternoon Randy: For some reason I thought the combat finish date was Feb. 2011, but it is actually Dec. 2011--which means we still have 31 months to go!

    Perhaps it was VERY irresponsible for McKay to proclaim anything this far in advance with the new American "surge" that will complicate matters further....you know, the old "Collateral Damage" thingy!

    As for the Canadian public:

    March 2009-poll:

    48 per cent of respondents want the bulk of the troops currently deployed in Afghanistan to be withdrawn BEFORE 2011, 35 per cent would continue under the scheduled plan that calls for the end of the mission in 2011, and only seven per cent believe Canadian soldiers should remain in Afghanistan after 2011.

    Any thoughts? On this...I am with...(errr)...Jack Layton!

    https://www.angusreidforum.com/MediaServer/3/documents/2009-03-07-AfghanARF.pdf
    .
  150. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: P.S.
    With all the ''fake soldiers'', the everchanging monikers, it is high time for the Globe and Mail to go back to ''Globe Insider'' logos, with PAID SUBSCRIPTIONS to the Globe and Mail, easily verified identities thanks to the ubiquitous credit cards.

    All these FAKE soldiers, fake Taliban, fake US citizens, fake monikers are absolutely useless and causing utmost confusion among the people who don't dare ask questions and think for themselves.
    The only monikers I remember from 3 years ago are diane marie, Carriere, Murray, Catherine Wilkie and a couple of others... The rest keep changing like chameleons...

    - = 13131313
  151. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th, 2008 AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country And On Top Of That I Believe It May Finally Be Time For Harper To Go (And I Don't Mean To The Loo), Canada writes: Randy Hyland from Winnipeg, Canada writes:

    Jason & LB Murray, Perhaps this is the article I was thinking of on Iggy's statements on Afghanistan

    My link as noted above Randy, is straight from the Grope & Flail:

    "Mr. Ignatieff also clarified his position on the role Canada should play in Afghanistan beyond 2011, the date Parliament has set as the end of Canada's military role.

    "Once our military mission ends in 2011, we will continue to support the Afghan people," he said. "With humanitarian aide, we will build schools, dig wells and teach human rights." "

    There's that term again, by the way - "clarified"!

    :-)

    theglobeandmail.com
  152. Randy Hyland from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Jason & LB Murray, Perhaps this is the article I was thinking of on Iggy's statements on Afghanistan

    'I said to Mr. Petraeus, 'Were we in government you could count on us as strong partners', but I made it very clear, that we will not continue the combat mission in Kandahar after 2011,' Ignatieff said.

    However, Ignatieff said Canada should continue to help Afghanistan after 2011, but in humanitarian or political terms.

    http://tinyurl.com/aghaganastan-mission
  153. Douglas Hicton from Trahna, Canada writes: How many Canadians were killed in Afghanistan (including from friendly fire) in the four years of the engagement under Chretien and Martin (Feb 2002 - Feb 2006), and how many have been killed in the roughly three years since under Harper?

    Just throwin' that out there...
  154. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: I doubt if the Taliban would know or care about the Globe comments. If they did, their efforts here would be amateurish and wasted.

    Real propaganda aims to change the way the public feels about an issue, and doing this takes highly paid professionals and costs billions. PR firms who have made a mark are... Hill and Knowlton, whose Kuwait branch has been credited with the fake Iraqi soldiers tearing babies out of incubators story, which got the US public behind the first Gulf war. The Rendon Group, which was reportedly behind the fake toppling of the Saddam statue in the second Iraq war.

    There are lots of groups working to influence us about the wars. One is Joint Hometown News, http://tinyurl.com/ckbtvr, who expect this year to produce 5,400 press releases, 3,000 television releases and 1,600 radio interviews, which are offered to newsmedia. They claim to have 14,000 media subscribers who use their stories.... I recall one story by Blatchford that I strongly suspected of coming through these guys.

    Abu Akkrab wrote, "a true understanding of Canadians concerns can only be achieved through educating the electorate and through discussion and debate in public fora that allows the true interest and long term effects on Canada to be determined."... I agree 200%
  155. N Dawg from Canada writes: No NATO country can stay in Afghanistan forever without committing political suicide. At some point the ANA and ANP are going to have to look after themselves.
  156. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to Ivan Wilson from Canada writes: Liar, liar, pants on f@cking fire!

    ====================================

    Wow! An intellectual Grade 2 response.
    Who'da thunk it???? lol
  157. Napoleon 45 from Edmonton, Canada writes: how many have been killed in the roughly three years since under Harper?

    Wow Lib math. Here's one you can never answer, how many wouldn't of died had they been better equipped rather than starved for equipment under the Fibs?
  158. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: In the meantime, I am eagerly waiting for our PM Harper to come on our CBC-CTV-Global television and tell us exactly what the ''new mission'' in Afghanistan might be...

    ====================================

    CBC-CTV-Global television???

    Canadian broadcasters on a G&M forum???
    I guess that is why CTV is getting rid of stations for a duck buck apiece.
    Not a good time to be a Canadian broadcaster it seems. lol
  159. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to Napoleon 45 from Edmonton, Canada writes: how many have been killed in the roughly three years since under Harper?

    Wow Lib math. Here's one you can never answer, how many wouldn't of died had they been better equipped rather than starved for equipment under the Fibs?

    ==============================

    You can't argue those one year time-outs due to poor logistical supplies.
    Will the Fibs learn that war is won with proper supplies and equipment?

    My guess is no.
    Fibs are too hardwired for soft tasks.
  160. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Douglas Hicton from Trahna, writes: How many Canadians were killed in Afghanistan in the four years of the engagement under Chretien and Martin (Feb 2002 - Feb 2006), and how many have been killed in the roughly three years since under Harper?

    Just throwin' that out there...
    -------
    I don't usually respond like this, but this post deserves a little wrath.

    You are just "throwing that out there?" What cheap foolish uninformed partisan bullshit playing on the lives of fallen soldiers and complete disrespect for the families.

    Want to play that game? Who changed the mission? Perhaps you forget the LIBERAL Bill Graham "body bag" tour....

    "On May 16, 2005, LIBERAL Defence Minister Bill Graham was breaking news to a parliamentary committee that Canadian troops were about to be deployed on one of their most dangerous missions since the Korean War.

    Graham didn't use those terms.... but some critics would later allege that in expanding Canada's role in the war-torn nation, the government altered radically the country's commitment to Afghanistan.

    The shift transformed a NATO-endorsed peace stabilization operation into a combat mission..."
    .
  161. Ben Franklin from Ottawa, Canada writes: Douglas Hicton from Trahna, Canada writes: How many Canadians were killed in Afghanistan (including from friendly fire) in the four years of the engagement under Chretien and Martin (Feb 2002 - Feb 2006), and how many have been killed in the roughly three years since under Harper?

    Just throwin' that out there...
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Are you saying that Harper is a better shot?
    Or what?
  162. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Only about 1,000 of the CF in Afghanistan are 'combat troops' who work to remove Taliban from the area - the remainder are support personnel and those working with the PRT - including about 100 that serve as a protection force for PRT activities. The resurgence of the Taliban has at times made it necessary to pull the protection unit with the consequence that the PRT is confined to base. The Taliban also often attacks project and civilian workers. As a result of these factors, some projects may be running behind schedule and require more time to complete. With the anticipated increase in conflict this summer, projects in the outlying areas will probably not progress very quickly either.

    2011 - allows two years to get the situation under control and have more ANA and ANP trained to take on more of the security of Afghanistan. However, there may continue to be a need for CF in order to ensure progress on PRT projects that may have been delayed due to the current situation.
  163. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Randy Hyland from Winnipeg, Canada writes:
    ...Ignatieff said I think just a couple of weeks ago that Canada couldn't just totally withdraw. However he did make it straight that the combat part would be over 2011, We may stay longer in Afghanistan after the 2011 date but only as observers , training, rebuilding....
    ----
    Afternoon Randy: For some reason I thought the combat finish date was Feb. 2011, but it is actually Dec. 2011--which means we still have 31 months to go!

    Perhaps it was VERY irresponsible for McKay to proclaim anything this far in advance with the new American "surge" that will complicate matters further....you know, the old "Collateral Damage" thingy!

    As for the Canadian public:

    March 2009-poll:

    48 per cent of respondents want the bulk of the troops currently deployed in Afghanistan to be withdrawn BEFORE 2011, 35 per cent would continue under the scheduled plan that calls for the end of the mission in 2011, and only seven per cent believe Canadian soldiers should remain in Afghanistan after 2011.

    Any thoughts? On this...I am with...(errr)...Jack Layton!

    https://www.angusreidforum.com/MediaServer/3/documents/2009-03-07-AfghanARF.pdf
  164. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada

    CBC-CTV-Global television???

    Canadian broadcasters on a G&M forum???
    _________________________________________
    Steve, don't you dare misquote me. I never said I wanted CBC-CTV-Global on a GM forum. I want to see your Stephen Harper, live, on TV, answering questions and telling us the TRUTH.

    - = Thank you .
  165. Douglas Hicton from Trahna, Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada quotes:

    "On May 16, 2005, LIBERAL Defence Minister Bill Graham was breaking news to a parliamentary committee that Canadian troops were about to be deployed on one of their most dangerous missions since the Korean War."

    ***

    All right, then. How many Canadians lost their lives in Afghanistan between May 17, 2005 and February 6, 2006? How many between February 6 and May 17, 2006?

    I maintain that we had no business going there to meddle in the first place, which certainly puts me at odds with both the Conservatives AND the Liberals. The whole misadventure has been a colossal waste of time, money, resources, effort, and lives.
  166. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: Catherine: So your position is that the battle group are the only CF combat troops in Afghanistan? Not JTF-2, not CSOR, not the OMLT guys going out on patrol, not the helicopter crews, and not the rifle company in the PRT.

    Perhaps McKay could be asked to restate the government's position on the withdrawal by specific unit. I think a truthful answer would surprise a lot of Canadians who thought Canada was pulling out. It appears we'll continue to pour money into the bottomless hole until the US President (probably Obama's replacement) says it's ok to leave.

    I think a lot of people will also be surprised to learn that the February 2011 has slide all the way to December and you can be sure that will be spun into "stopped operations in preparation for re-deployment". Three more years at least...$ 10 billion and more.
  167. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada

    CBC-CTV-Global television???

    Canadian broadcasters on a G&M forum???
    _________________________________________
    Steve, don't you dare misquote me. I never said I wanted CBC-CTV-Global on a GM forum. I want to see your Stephen Harper, live, on TV, answering questions and telling us the TRUTH.

    - = Thank you .

    ==========================

    The truth??? Canuck troofers???

    It is my prerogative to translate posts and give rebuttals.
  168. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th, 2008 AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country And On Top Of That I Believe It May Finally Be Time For Harper To Go (And I Don't Mean To The Loo), Canada writes: Douglas Hicton from Trahna, Canada writes:

    How many Canadians were killed in Afghanistan (including from friendly fire) in the four years of the engagement under Chretien and Martin (Feb 2002 - Feb 2006), and how many have been killed in the roughly three years since under Harper?

    Just throwin' that out there...

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

    Casulties from 02/06 until 02/07 HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO "WITH HARPER"...or Martin, or anybody.

    The deployment to Kandahar took place in 2005, with then MOD Bill Graham embarking on his "bodybag" tour telling us that this was now a COMBAT deployment and casulties WERE TO BE EXPECTED, not could be expected.

    The Kandahr deployment was scheduled to last until 02/07...Harper won the elction in 01/06 and starting in the spring of 2006 CF began to suffer losses as they took the fight to the Taliban, exactly as Bill Graham had warned...and since CF take their marching orders from NATO/ISAF/ their officers and NOT THE PMO...these casulties would have occured regardless who was PM.

    As for casulties after 02/07...assuming the LPC was still in power and pushed through an extension with CF deployed in Kandahar - same scenario - but that's neither here nor there.
  169. Napoleon 45 from Edmonton, Canada writes: To all the whiners who could never pass basic training<

    Look Canada, peacekeeping is a myth. It was soldiering on the cheap. A platform for us to moralize while doing precious little ourselves. Soldiers dont join to be peacekeepers, they join to be warriors. If this reality hurts, the next time something goes wrong and the UN comes begging, send social workers and let the soldiers do thier job.
  170. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Douglas Hicton from Trahna, writes: R. Carriere
    I maintain that we had no business going there to meddle in the first place, which certainly puts me at odds with both the Conservatives AND the Liberals. The whole misadventure has been a colossal waste of time, money, resources, effort, and lives
    -----
    Douglas- I am also at odds with the Conservatives AND the Liberals on this key issue---and it commenced in 2004.

    Our original 2001-02 mission was noble-Find Bin Laden, bring him to justice, and destroy the training camps!

    With the advent of the Iraq war in 2003, other forces were at play that clearly indicated deception.

    Instead of the US deploying 150,000 troops ( and 100,000 Private Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq....!!) into Afghanistan to get the job done, they invaded Iraq and left Afghanistan with a skeleton force-and left Canadian forces vulnerable and not ready or equipped for the task at hand (IEDs)

    Fast forward almost 8 years, and Canada has been sucked into a quagmire....AN OCCUPATION!

    The ConLiberal Party of Canada with its Conservative and Liberal factions exchanging power once in a while, have deceived Canadians on this issue!
    .
  171. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to Napoleon 45 from Edmonton, Canada writes: To all the whiners who could never pass basic training<

    Look Canada, peacekeeping is a myth. It was soldiering on the cheap.

    ======================================

    Not to mention putting trained soldiers in an ideologue position of "peacekeeping" for the sole purpose of soothing the nerves of elitists opposed to the term "soldiers" to begin with.

    Peacekeepers active combat = WTF???
  172. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: Steve the war....... writes :Steve, don't you dare misquote me. I never said I wanted CBC-CTV-Global on a GM forum. I want to see your Stephen Harper, live, on TV, answering questions and telling us the TRUTH.

    - = Thank you .

    ==========================

    The truth??? Canuck troofers???

    It is my prerogative to translate posts and give rebuttals.
    Posted 18/05/09 at 4:26 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
    ____________________ Your prerogative to translate ??? WTF?? My comment was posted in plain English. Not your prerogative to misquote people. Misquoting people is LOWER THAN LOW...Shows your lack of ethics and character. Now we know what kind of evil person you are. Yuck. Go back to your Reform asylum.

    -=Good evening.
  173. Douglas Hicton from Trahna, Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Douglas Hicton from Trahna, writes: R. Carriere
    I maintain that we had no business going there to meddle in the first place, which certainly puts me at odds with both the Conservatives AND the Liberals. The whole misadventure has been a colossal waste of time, money, resources, effort, and lives
    -----
    Douglas- I am also at odds with the Conservatives AND the Liberals on this key issue---and it commenced in 2004.

    Our original 2001-02 mission was noble-Find Bin Laden, bring him to justice, and destroy the training camps!

    With the advent of the Iraq war in 2003, other forces were at play that clearly indicated deception.

    Instead of the US deploying 150,000 troops ( and 100,000 Private Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq....!!) into Afghanistan to get the job done, they invaded Iraq and left Afghanistan with a skeleton force-and left Canadian forces vulnerable and not ready or equipped for the task at hand (IEDs)

    Fast forward almost 8 years, and Canada has been sucked into a quagmire....AN OCCUPATION!

    The ConLiberal Party of Canada with its Conservative and Liberal factions exchanging power once in a while, have deceived Canadians on this issue!

    ***

    Well, I'm certainly glad you're a little less wrathful in this reply.
  174. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: Steve the war....... writes :Steve, don't you dare misquote me. I never said I wanted CBC-CTV-Global on a GM forum. I want to see your Stephen Harper, live, on TV, answering questions and telling us the TRUTH.

    - = Thank you .

    ==========================

    The truth??? Canuck troofers???

    It is my prerogative to translate posts and give rebuttals.
    Posted 18/05/09 at 4:26 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
    ___________________ Your prerogative to translate ??? WTF?? My comment was posted in plain English. Not your prerogative to misquote people. Misquoting people is LOWER THAN LOW..

    ============================

    Misquoting people is an art form used in politics for lord knows how long. Lower than low is registering election voters via bribes of money and cigarettes
    cough_ ACORN.
    How about registering dead voters?
    Now that is a new high in low.

    Buck up sunshine the sun will come out tomorrow.
  175. Just Visiting from Canada writes: I am gratified to ponder that, by 2011, Peter MacKay will be influencing Canada's foreign policy from his vantage point as an Opposition critic.
  176. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada :

    Bonne fete de Dollard! Now, now L.B.-keep an eye on that blood pressure! Irrelevance is no reason to become elevated...

    Perhaps it is time for some Innsbruck Sachertorte, or LinzerTorte, or Kaiserschmarrn with the lattes or caps. desired.

    Tell "you know who" of the plot.....Hotel Europa Tyrol or the Penz would be marvelous. I'll pass on the Tafelspitz and Knodel ...but my arm can be twisted.

    Always enjoyed looking down on the clouds-Kitzbuhel perhaps? :-)
    .
  177. DAVID DIVER from Comox, Canada writes: Any one seen the video "Muslim Demographics"? You should and then consider whether staying in Afghanistan to 2011 or for forever means anything. Every young man we lose in the war will lower the natural birth rate even more. Our birth rate is 1.6 per couple. A rate of 1.9 has never been reversed - if the rate falls to 1.3 it is impossible to correct and without immigration we will be up sh-t creek. Immigration favors the growth of muslim populations. UK went from 82,000 to 2.5 million in just 35 years. Germany has stated its birth rate will fail and Germany will be a muslim state by 2050. 50% of births in the Netherlands are muslim. Colonel Moammar Gadhifi has stated publicly that "We don't need terrorists, suicide bombers, guns, swords to conquer Europe. The increase in muslim populations will do it for us." He has a point - the 52 million today will be 100 million in 25 years time, according to Germany. Let's ask ourselves why is our birthrate failing? And what can we do about it ? Ban condoms? Free issues of viagra, extenze and intenze ? De-educate our women and keep them pregnant and bare footed? Banish sheep from the land? Destroy all television sets, ban the flying of kites, eliminate music (too much energy expended in dancing when the other ----ing should take the stand ), large bonuses for services rendered? But seriously what is practical - I see two possibilities: (1) Cloning -I kid you not. (2) intermarriage between Christians and Muslims. Some of you will favour an anti - muslim annihilator -but that can work two ways so forget it. Like it or not , the future colour of the human race will be brown so perhaps all that we are doing now is fruitless -although one can argue if we get the muslim women to be like ours, we won't have to worry...
  178. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Douglas Hicton from Trahna, Canada:

    Your first post came across as to blame one faction of the ConLiberal Party over another on this most vital issue. They are BOTH wrong!

    If my post was harsh, it was intended to attack the message, not the messenger. If perceived otherwise, then an apology is due from me. OK?

    This Bush/Obama occupation and quagmire is so similar and familiar to the Kennedy/Johnson / Nixon quagmire in Vietnam. The comparisons leave no doubt that people do NOT learn from history.

    Vietnam? The US fought a "people" and left as losers 14 years after first advisors arrived, then troops, then more troops and numerous escalations under Sec. of War Robert McNamara to the tune of 500,000--only to leave with nothing, and having incurred 58,000 dead and over 100,000 maimed!

    An Army can defeat an opposing Army--but an army CANNOT defeat a determined PEOPLE! The Taliban and the Pashtuns are NOT Al Qaeda and ARE a determined people

    We have now been there almost 8 years with talks about 6-10 more.

    History repeating? Absolutely!
    .
  179. Scott Gartner from Canada writes: FT

    LOL, it looks like 2 times in a row today I'm going to agree with you. I do find it a bit amusing that when the MND is talking about pulling the BG out in 2011 that they are now leaning toward the OMLT and POMLT both staying. The truth of the matter is in theatre right now the OMLT is doing probably twice as much fighting as the BG is, thats not some BS, thats a fact. Its called putting the Afghan face on all the missions and although its not wrong they(ANA,ANP) and their mentors and enablers (Cdns) are doing the most of the dirty work. For the record though, I do agree with keeping the OMLT/POMLT there past 2011.

    R Carriere-Even though I think you and I have different views on the missions I do quite enjoy reading your posts.
  180. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: R. Carriere writes :

    ...Perhaps it is time for some Innsbruck Sachertorte, or LinzerTorte, or Kaiserschmarrn with the lattes or caps. desired.
    ________________________________

    Evening, R. Carriere. After a weekend of freezing cold rain in my neck of the woods, I think I'll pass on Innsbruck and perhaps book a flight to Firenze and the blue skies of Italia!! and some soothing Italian sounds all around...

    Right now, I don't feel like speaking or hearing those guttural germanic phrases... Soft italian sounds so much better....

    Cheers!
  181. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: DAVID DIVER wrote, "Like it or not , the future colour of the human race will be brown so perhaps all that we are doing now is fruitless ".... Hadn't realized that "we" were whites. Did you know that Afghans are Aryans? The term comes from Avesta and Sanskrit and means noble.

    Have to admit, I myself have been trying to breed out of control since I was about 13.... not as successfully as I would have wished.... I blame unpatriotic women.
  182. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: So sorry, Globe and Mail, but the last time the conversations turned nasty, I enjoyed a diversion of discussing fine wine and cheese with a couple of ''pure laines''! LOL

    This time, I'm enjoying discussing Innsbruck, Austria and Firenze, Italy with a fine Maritimer; chocolaty ''Sacher torte'' or fine Italian wine and music in Firenze (Florence)....

    This puts an end to a very acerbic-divisive conversation regarding the US war in Afghanistan.

    Good night all!

    -=
  183. Allan Simonson from Canada writes: Can one of you blowhards get me a link where the CPC stated we would pull out of Afghanistan? Last time I checked, they specifically said they would end combat operations by 2011. Not that we would pull out. Good ole mop and pail, gets you idiots all riled up over nothing.
  184. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: Allan Simonson: They didn't say they would pull out. They said they would end the combat mission and the question is what does that mean and have they been intentionally vague so they can keep units in combat and maintain that the combat mission is actually the battle group and not the other parts fighting the insurgents.

    I have no problem fighting the Taliban if it's done effectively and some effort is made to keep costs under control. So far NATO and the CF have done neither. I have serious problems with the inability of the government to tell the truth without spin and obfuscation. This lack of transparency is particularly dangerous when the government is run by such a collection of incompetents as ours is.

    For the record I think the battle group, PRT and a good chunk of the support and HQ people should leave asap and the SOF and OMLT be reinforced and more money funneled to NGOs for development work and to Afghan security forces. We would save billions while putting more resources into the parts of the mission where the return on the buck will be greatest.
  185. EX Forces Ampuroid from Canada writes: Scott Gartner from Canada writes:....Its called putting the Afghan face on all the missions and although its not wrong they(ANA,ANP) and their mentors and enablers (Cdns) are doing the most of the dirty work. For the record though, I do agree with keeping the OMLT/POMLT there past 2011.

    I seen this coming a mile away with the Political speak around the mission. Even though I agree with leaving the componants there, I am pensive over the fact it is likely the Americans will be providing the security instead of our own.
  186. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: F.T. Ward from Canada - the PRT is a critical part of the mission. Unlike many of the NGOs the money goes where it is intended and a lot of time and effort goes into consultation with the Afghans. The book title Fixing Failed States provides a lot of detail on how the NGOs, UN aid groups etc. use up a huge portion of the aid donated on their own organizations and how they fail to work with the people and often undermine the government - they breed dependency rather than independence. The book also commends the Canadian military for their ability to think outside the box and facilitate partnerships. 'Kandahar Tour' also provides considerable detail on how the CF work with the Afghans. What is seldom mentioned is the individual initiative taken by many of our troops to raise funds through family and friends at home to support projects they adopt and which are taken over by each new deployment. It would be a real shame to see that come to an end.
  187. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: BTW Canadian casualties in Afghanistan to date 117. Canadian casualties on UN missions 186 and those casualties have continued since we became involved in Afghanistan - the most recent in 2007. As always was the case, there is little attention paid to those who die on UN missions. No highway of heroes homecoming for them. This only reinforces the myths that surround UN 'peacekeeping' missions.
  188. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: Another basket case in the making --like its eastern neighbour?

    For a change, why no let them decide for themselves?

    Just get out out of this quagmire.
  189. Comments closed, censored, hidden, deleted, disappeared from Peso-onie land, Canada writes: "During visit to Kandahar, MacKay says there are several roles Canada could play in future, including delivering aid". --- How about mail boy?
  190. Nick B. from Canada writes: Marlene Stobbart offers this gem of revisionist history:

    "Originally our soldiers were sent to Kanadar for reconstruction purposes only; until former Prime Minister Martin signed a deal with former President Bush in March, 2005 at Waco, Texas. Thereby, our military received equipment, sorely needed, and our soldiers were sent to fight in South Afghanistan - not the original purpose of why they were shipped over."

    Completely, utterly, demonstrably false. Canadian soldiers were initially deployed to Kandahar Airfield as combat troops hunting Al Qaeda and Taliban forces as purely combat troops. Then they were deployed to Kabul when training the ANA and supporting the nascent Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was a priority. Finally, in 2005, while Martin was PM, they moved back to Kandahar province to take the lead on the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team and a key role in routing the remaining Taliban forces in that restive province. PEACEKEEPING (which is nonsense) was never part of the equation.
  191. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: In other news, Ahmad Wali Karzai, brother of Hamid Karzai and reputed major drug lord, has survived an assassination attempt in Nangarhar province on Monday. His car was part of a convoy that included government Members of Parliament, but the assailants only fired at his car.

    Also on Monday in Jalalabad, a group of Afghan government soldiers opened fire in a crowded market, killing three shopkeepers. An angry crowd of hundreds gathered, shouting "Death to the Afghan Army".
  192. Earl Street from Petawawa, Canada writes: Like or not, it is now out there that Cdn soldiers will be in Afghanistan beyond 2011. Not like it should have been a surprise for anyone.

    For those who used today's statements to point to one party or another, just remember that both the current and former governing/ official opposition parties supported the Afghan adventures since 2002.
  193. Will Farnaby from writes: Dear Comrade Harpoleon: many of the animals of Canuck Farm - even some of your fellow pigs - have doubts about your fitness to lead anything but yourself in a mad dash to the toilet.

    --------------------------------------
    Tee Kay from Vancouver, Canada writes: R. Carriere,

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/104946403339720?sname=&no_ads=

    'Stephen Harper has told Fox News in the U.S. that most Canadians outside Quebec support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, despite our government's decision not to take part in the war.

    In an interview with the American TV network, Harper said he endorsed the war and said he was speaking 'for the silent majority' of Canadians. Only in Quebec, with its 'pacifist tradition,' are most people opposed to the war, Harper said.'
  194. Will Farnaby from writes: Beansy Boy from United States writes: [blah, blah, USA ! USA ! blah, blah]

    Well, Beansy, unless and until the US starts dropping atomic bombs, the (insanely) vast war machine of The Self-Proclaimed Greatest Nation In The Universe seems to get its bottom kicked by every opponent... except Grenada. You sure showed them who's boss.

    Maybe that's why you'd better stick to your tried-and-true practice of utilizing blood-soaked right wing dictators as your proxies. But, alas, there seems to be something of a dearth of these splendid chaps at the moment.

    And by the way, it might be good idea to clean up the astounding mess your own country's in, before bashing a nation that has always, by and large, maintained its common sense, civility and civilization.
  195. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes:

    "Ottawa mulls role in Afghanistan past 2011"

    If Canadians have any say in it, we'll be coaching the Kandahar hockey team and nothing more.
  196. Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: Real easy - just have Canadians vote on the issue.
    This of course is exactly why the pigs in power cannot allow Canadians to vote on the issue.
    Democracy is a farce.

    This much is guaranteed - we will be murdering dirt farmers in the Stan until the United States tells us we can go home.
    Period.
  197. Earl Street from Petawawa, Canada writes: Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes:

    "Ottawa mulls role in Afghanistan past 2011"

    If Canadians have any say in it, we'll be coaching the Kandahar hockey team and nothing more.
    ===============

    Canadians did have a say, and we are fighting until 2011, and doing other things way beyond. Or do you believe that our elected officials are not Canadian?
  198. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: Catherine: Let's compare the costs of a NGO versus a PRT helping with development. First all the NGO staff are in country. There is no replacement contingent training in Canada. There is no replaced contingent on leave in Canada. There are no medical pensions, long leave periods or decompression periods.

    The NGO will travel around in SUVs, pickups and Toyotas. The PRT will use armoured vehicles and won't leave the camp without an escort of at least 12 troops who do nothing but provide security. NGO staff don't fire missiles or mortars to keep current.

    NGOs will have a ratio of international to local staff in admin and program positions of at least 20 to 1. The PRT will have an RSM, an adjutant, padre, mail clerks and a host of other military support/ admin personnel that are unknown to a NGO. NGOs eat local food and don't have it trucked in from Denmark. NGOs don't have the Stanley Cup and Don Cherry flown in annually. NGOs don't shoot at civilians for driving too close to their convoy.

    The truth is the PRT is by far the least cost effective way of delivering development assistance once all the costs are factored in. The actual CF program staff cost at least five times as much as NGO internationals and the security costs go off the scale and most operations there may be only a few international staff in country and more and more projects are run by Afghans.

    Th PRTs mix security and development making it more dangerous for NGOs, particularly locals, as they get accused of being spies for the government.

    So the PRT may have painted a school or dug a well but the real cost was millions for work that should have cost a few thousand. PRTs are a waste of money. They were initially designed to be as security forces (the name was designed to make it more palatable for Europeans) as the government pushed out into the provinces but now as other security forces are in place should be closed down.
  199. Silver Standard (We need Tariffs and an end to Globalism) from Canada writes: We need to get out of there now, Harper AND OBama said we are not going to win. We are wasting money and lives.
  200. Silver Standard (We need Tariffs and an end to Globalism) from Canada writes: I knew this wouldhappen btw, I said this when they first gave the 2011 deadline. PEople are such suckers, OUR GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK FOR US!
  201. Silver Standard (We need Tariffs and an end to Globalism) from Canada writes: Oh and for anyone here who thinks the Liberals would be doing anything different right now need to stop smoking the crack. You can't vote for the Globalist parties of the Liberals and Cons then expect a real difference. We need to find other people to vote for, if you do not like the greens or NDP then start another party or vote what you call Fringe which is stupid to call them btw..its a democracy.
  202. Silver Standard (We need Tariffs and an end to Globalism) from Canada writes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAxyRQbltjA

    HEre is a nice little video to wake up to this morn, people should watch this every day.
  203. Politicians are Fascist Pigs from Canada writes: Fascist pig Mackay etal;

    Like the Canadian people have ever "spoken" about the Canadian commitment to the corporations war.

    FU Peter, lying liar.

    "Hair in the Fridge" Harper meant 3011.
  204. Politicians are Fascist Pigs from Canada writes: Re Silver Surfer Standard;

    Too true about the liberals; this is as much "their" war as it is the neocons. Is there really any difference?

    All parties should burn in hell for this.
  205. Earl Street from Petawawa, Canada writes: F.T. Ward from Canada writes: Catherine: Let's compare the costs of a NGO versus a PRT helping with development. First all the NGO staff are in country. There is no replacement contingent training in Canada. There is no replaced contingent on leave in Canada. There are no medical pensions, long leave periods or decompression periods.

    The NGO will travel around in SUVs, pickups and Toyotas. The PRT will use armoured vehicles and won't leave the camp without an escort of at least 12 troops who do nothing but provide security. NGO staff don't fire missiles or mortars to keep current.
    =======================
    FT Ward,
    Thats all fine and good. Compare PRTs to NGOs. But when the members of NGOs are not in the country because they are too afraid for their lives to work, or dead...

    then who goes in to provide aid and development money? Sort of like comparing apples and oranges....they are both fruit after all.

    Also, what of the NGOs (such as International Red Cross to name one) who live in guarded compounds and who drive around in armoured SUVs and are escorted by western mercenaries who are paid a great deal more than soldiers?
  206. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Earl Street, Sounds like a pretty accurate appraisal of the current situation with NGOs. It wasn't always this way. The WHO was able to do polio vaccinations during the Taliban regime and has done so since the invasion in Taliban held areas. Most NGOs are gone, but a number of them have said they left because the coalition has very publicly and loudly claimed credit for their efforts and said they work with our soldiers. Medecins Sans Frontiers said this was why they were pulling out... MacKay just did this again himself as reported in this story, saying, "we're going to build the schools, provide the immunization programs, and work with organizations to get microfinance credit available."

    Identifying the work of NGOs with coalition efforts has made targets of NGO workers and led to the deaths of a number of them. Politicians of NATO countries have calculated that the benefit derived from falsely taking credit for the work of NGOs outweighs the increased risk it causes NGO workers on the ground.... Lives for credit, it's that simple.
  207. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: Earl: The Red Cross and WHO aren't NGOs, they're international organizations organized on the basis of a treaty. NGOs follow humanitarian rules that preclude armed security.

    There are development corporations that contract with governments for projects. They aren't NGOs and their contracts usually include very large security budgets and higher pay for program staff. LNC Lavalin is an example, which is why the Dalla Dam project is so expensive. Most of the type of work contracted for is being done in other areas of the country by NGOs for a fraction of the cost. NGO international staff normally make less than governmental employees with the same responsibilities. French NGOs go as far as to have unpaid volunteers (often doctors and nurses) in country.

    The eastern region of Afghanistan currently has the highest number of insurgent incidents in the country. There are scores of international NGOs and at least 100 Afghan NGOs working in the region. There are over 6,000 NGO employees in the region. They have to be cautious but they can deliver development at a fraction the cost of a PRT.

    It's NATO being involved in development as part of it's COIN strategy that put's NGOs at risk. The Taliban normally welcome agricultural and medical NGOs. It's when programs area associated with the government and NATO that problems start.
  208. Robert Sim from Toronto, Canada writes: At $12,500 per bed that's a steal.
  209. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: F.T. Ward - there is clearly much you do not know about UN and other aid organizations and NGOs. Aside from the huge amount of aid they tend to use up on maintaining their organizations - they often actually undermine the government - they are not into nation building and are more likely to foster dependency. Too often they do not consult with the local people/government but just do things their way. They are just as prone to corruption as anyone else. Remember the food for oil program? That is the tip of the iceberg. Many have contractors that they buy from that often means the cost of materials is 10-20 times the cost if bought in the region. They often subcontract to the same companies repeatedly even though they know there are problems. They often use expensive 'outside' consultants, contractors and technical experts and do not help develop the human skills capacity within the countries where they operate. Private security contractors are also often part of the problem.
  210. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: A couple of additional points -Most of the pay and benefits of PRT staff does not come out of donated aid money. The military pay and benefits come from defence, the foreign affairs staff are covered by Foreign Affairs, etc. Security provided for projects is covered by defence. The Canadian PRT focuses on purchasing locally, on long term sustainable projects (like the Dam) and using local workers. This helps stimulate the economy and economic links to other countries in the region and promotes employment. In other words, aid donated to help Afghans goes to helping Afghans and to the rebuilding of their economy.

    DAVID DIVER - although you are not the first one to raise the issue of demographics, the fact is that many Muslims who come here do not continue to reproduce at a high rate because it is not required for survival as it is in many of their home countries where many children do not survive to adulthood.
  211. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: Catherine: You're confusing international organizations such as the UN, development corporations that are contracted by governments and NGOs. The waste you cite is the work of government employees and contractors not NGOs. If your position is that the UN is a waste of time I agree.

    Your notion that NGOs just show up and force programs on locals is delusional although it does describe some PRT work. The NGOs don't have armed security. They depend solely on the good will of locals for their protection. The Dalla Dam is being done by a development corporation. It's security is done by a PSC.

    I don't see what it matters as to where the money comes from to pay for PRTs. Is your argument is that the millions it takes to deliver a PRT program doesn't count because it's from a different budget ? If you're aim is to help Afghans I can't believe you'd be happy that it costs the PRT 10-20 times as much as a NGO to organize the digging of the same well.

    The PRT's time has come and gone. It is a very expensive organization that get's in the way of and endangers NGOs and usurps the role of the provincials governments.
  212. Robin Adams from Ottawa, Canada writes: Robert Sim from Toronto, Canada writes: At $12,500 per bed that's a steal.

    Hell ya!!

    The cost per toilet seat is twice as much!!! It even makes the imported Italian marble look cheap...
  213. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: F.T. Ward - it does matter where the donor money is spent - if it is spent on things that could be bought cheaper in the region/country, it is money being wasted. "The aid system as currently configured tends to undermine rather than support state(government) institutions." Fixing Failed States. "Like UN agencies, very few NGOs issue transparent accounts to the public in the countries of either their headquarters or their beneficiaries." They waste donor $ and are not accountable for how they spend it. Check out Kofi Annan's report to the UN on the failure to deal with mismanagement and corruption and the weakness of management and oversight practices and the Volcker Committee report.

    BTW many international NGOs, including MSF and the IRC have learned that to the Taliban they are not safe by virtue of being "neutral". They are attacked, their workers threatened and killed - they will not work with security and cannot work without it so most just leave.
  214. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Catherine wrote, "BTW many international NGOs, including MSF and the IRC have learned that to the Taliban they are not safe by virtue of being "neutral". They are attacked, their workers threatened and killed - they will not work with security and cannot work without it so most just leave."

    Secretary-General Marine Buissonniere of MSF, (Doctors without Borders) said, "We feel that the U.S.-backed coalition has contributed to the blurring of identities..... "The coalition has constantly sought to use humanitarian assistance and corrupt humanitarian assistance to be a support for its military and political ambitions."

    Buissonniere accused U.S.-led forces of confusing Afghans by linking aid supplies to cooperation in identifying insurgents....The U.S. military has admitted it distributed leaflets telling Afghans they had to provide information on militants if they wanted aid shipments to continue.

    Marie-Madeleine Leplomb of MSF said the coalition's use of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) was contributing to the danger facing aid workers.

    MSF won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999 and works in 80 countries.

    "Afghanistan: Doctors Without Borders Pulls Out Of War-Torn Country ", Radio Free Europe, http://tinyurl.com/q437ck
  215. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Further info - "Between 2002 and 2004 the Afghan government and citizens continuously and publicly requested disclosure of the management of funds provided to UN agencies and the outcomes they had achieved. The UN agencies refused to comply with the request." The source again is Fixing Failed States which provides specific examples of the wastage of donor aid in Afghanistan. Nobody, including the UN knows how a lot of the $ were spent or how much any given project cost. This is not a new problem - it also occurred in 'peacekeeping' operations. Regardless of the reality, UN agencies insist that funds should be routed through them asserting that the local governments are unable to manage funds. lol!!!
  216. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to jamie yavis from Canada writes: You gotta be kidding! Two more years of Canadians being killed for some wishy washy political nonsense!

    Ill trained, ill equiped, and lots of ill bush-like rhetoric coming from generals and our boy wonder defense minister.

    Hopefully the Conservative will be gone soon and this madness can stop.

    ================================

    Suck it up and be a man!

    Anti-war lunacy still fills the air with the usual defeatist attitudes.
  217. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: Catherine: IRC is not an NGO. The UN is not a NGO. Your complaints seem to be with international organizations and not NGOs. The NGO Department of the Office of the Economy in Afghanistan registers NGOs who must provide detailed records of where the donations went. NGOs do not use armed security. NGOs do not have people making hundreds of thousands per year. You're confusing NGOs with government employees and government contractors.

    Of all the various governmental and international outfits charged with development the most expensive and least cost effective is probably the Canadian PRT in Kandahar due to it's size (3-4 times larger than US PRTs), the expense of the CF (50% higher than the US per capita) and equipment (AFVs).

    So once again if you care about Afghans you should want the PRTs closed and the savings put into NGOs and/or Afghan government agencies.
  218. DAVID DIVER from Comox, Canada writes: Catherine acknowledges the demographic situation (I think...) but says "DAVID DIVER - many Muslims who come here do not continue to reproduce at a high rate because it is not required for survival as it is in many of their home countries where many children do not survive to adulthood. " ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is the reproduction rate of Muslims in Canada? Bet you it is above the dismal 1.6 average figure. According to the video, France's reproduction rate is overall 1.8 yet the Muslims' rate in the same country is 8.1 so your contention doesn't apply to all developed countries. I think religion has a good deal to do with these differences. But assuming we continue to allow immigration to follow the existing pattern the muslim numbers would have to be increased considerably - can you really see that happening? I can't. Since there's nothing that will entice the average modern woman to have three or more children nowadays, it would appear, 'Houston, we have a problem'. On the other hand, there is a strong possibility that 1000 years from now the human race will be extinct or semi-robotic with artificial means to carry the day, ensuring our species will survive in some form. If you are - and I know you are - religious, you might have some other idea of how the future will evolve but then your guess is no better than mine...
  219. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Catherine's source,"Fixing Failed States" is a book written by Ashraf Ghani and Clare Lockhart, produced by the "Institute for State Effectiveness".

    From what I have been able to find out, this "Institute" looks very much like a front for a PR firm working to get the public behind western policies.
  220. DAVID DIVER from Comox, Canada writes: Udom -my apologies about the 'we' remark -I was of course talking in generalities and settled on the majority,but even that may be wrong...

    As for Catherine and her 'Fixing Failed States' book, I came to that conclusion some time ago. Books often as not are biased sources and sometimes have hidden agendas - all one can do is read as much variety as possible and form one's own opinion. A book or source that has a broad perspective of an issue is rare indeed - mostly it's a question of whether it's 'left' or 'right' in political parlance - the readers usually follow the same bias. One thing is clear, contemporary 'official records' are always suspect and need the test of time to prove or disprove. I am exremely wary of Government and military pronouncements due to high propaganda content.
  221. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: Catherine: My error. I thought you meant the Red Cross. IRC is an NGO. ICRC (the Red Cross) isn't.
  222. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Udom Thongpai - like some other posters you check out who wrote a book and dismiss the content without even reading it. Have a problem with investing time and energy in reading something that takes more than a few minutes on line? Many informational books are written with some degree of bias - including the ones used in educational institutions. The idea is to read and use one's ability for critical thinking to sort out the content. Even in books that I disagree with in many ways, I have often learned some new information. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is unproductive as is dismissing a book out of hand because of personal bias against the writer or publisher. That suggests a mind closed to new information. Even when I don't like what I read, it doesn't change the reality of the information provided. Never having operated from an anti US bias, I have been very disturbed by some of the things I have been learning about the US in Afghanistan through reading various books.
  223. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Catherine, I have a problem with professional propaganda. Maybe you're happy to have highly paid PR firms tell you what to think... not me.

    The book you are referring to was produced by the "Institute for State Effectiveness", co-founded by Clare Lockhart, and apparently the other founder is Ashraf Ghani. Clare is listed as CEO, but it looks like there are no other members, no Board of Directors, no employees, nobody else but these two. Clare did some work for the Overseas Development Institute, which has some credibility and highly respected members. How she ended up in her own little Institute with two members is a puzzle. She worked as a consultant in Afghanistan and then complains that others have made money out of the conflict.

    Ashraf Ghani was finance minister in Afghanistan for a while, and worked for the World Bank, and apparently George Bush considered him as a possible replacement for Paul Wolfowitz as that Bank's president. One source has him listed as a member of Afghanistan's "Afghan Mellat" party, which is described as being a Pashtun nationalist party with fascist leanings.... (their founder apparently admired Nazi policies).

    Both are now working the lecture circuit pumping their book, and it's possible their hollow "Institute" was created to serve this purpose. They claim association with the "Center for American Progress", another "think tank" with links to the US Democratic Party with funding by George Soros.

    In any event, most "think tanks" and "Institutes" we hear about in the news are the creations of, and fronts for, PR companies. Personally, I don't want to hear word one from professional propagandists.
  224. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Following are a couple of ads placed by NGOs:

    The Academy for Educational Development (AED) has a position for a Senior Operations Manager / Security Coordinator in Afghanistan. - 2008

    International Medical Corps is actively recruiting for a Security Coordinator to support its activities in Afghanistan- 2009

    Clearly they are using security companies/experts to some degree.

    As it happens, the US is one of the largest users of private security firms to help deal with the fact that they are highly over extended. Now they are talking about using private security for Forward Operating bases etc. rather than troops. Not a good sign to my way of thinking. The same way of operating created a lot of problems in Iraq.
  225. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: Catherine: Both those ads are for in-house security staff and not for PSCs. In the first case the security role isn't even a full time job. Call up IMC and ask what their security adviser position pays. I bet you'll be shocked by how little it is. I've seen similar positions with other NGOs pay $2500 per month and require the employee to pay his own way home on leave and accommodation and food in country.

    Having a security manager/ adviser /coordinator in Afghanistan doesn't mean you have armed security anymore than it would in Canada.
  226. DAVID DIVER from Comox, Canada writes: Catherine admits "Never having operated from an anti US bias, I have been very disturbed by some of the things I have been learning about the US in Afghanistan through reading various books." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And very quiet you have been about your new understanding of the US misdoings in Afghanistan. You, having read a variety of books and bringing no bias to the table, must surely have known the nature of the beast as it operated in Iraq and, by logical extension, that there would be no reason it to change modus operandi in Afghanistan where Canadian troops were fighting. Yet you have constantly blamed the non-willing coalition members of NATO for not 'stepping up to the plate'. Can you blame them? They are extremely wary of the Americans and are reluctant to be tied at the hip to a bunch of gun-slinging soldiers raised on Wyatt Earp and Jesse James with the Army Chaplains looking on approvingly. You are a woman, a confirmed churchgoer and educated yet you turn a blind eye to what has been going on. Why is that? Your consistent and insistent belief that the Afghanistan mission is worthy flies in the face of reality and leads many of us to suspect that your ties to the Canadian military are more than the normal support a Canadian might give to his/her country's forces.
  227. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: DAVID DIVER - more than once I have posted about US actions that I believe had a negative impact on Afghanistan. Their continued use of local militias and warlords did a lot to undermine the government when they should have been helping to disarm them and establish the Afghan army for one example. However, I do not believe that lets everyone else off the hook.

    If other NATO countries had been willing to have their troops deploy to the south along with the British, Dutch and Canadians and participate in dealing with the Taliban, the situation would not have deteriorated as far as it has today.

    In addition, some NATO countries did not fulfill their commitments prior to the move of troops to the south. Germany did not do much in terms of training the Afghan police as they had promised and Italy did not do much in developing a the justice system as they had promised. These are key elements in establishing the rule of law in a country.
  228. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: DAVID DIVER - I don't think immigration is so much the issue as refugees in terms of numbers coming into the country. Immigrants come with skills and are choosing to come here to live and participate in society. Refugees are coming here to escape the situation in their home countries. Many are women and children who lack literacy and skills suitable for employment and are not 'choosing' to come here on the same basis as immigrants. While some really want to stay here, others want to be able to return to their home countries.

    That having been said, I believe there is a need to change some aspects of how we deal with citizenship and passports. If people want to become citizens I believe there should be more specific expectations in terms of them living here and having some loyalty to Canada. What I really don't like is those who choose to bring their battles here and disrupting our communities with their conflicts.
  229. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Udom Thongpai - your personal bias on what constitutes 'propaganda' says more about you than the books you opt to discount on that basis without even checking to see what the writers have to say. Of course, it is much easier to stick to what we already know than to have to shift our beliefs/attitudes on the basis of new information.

    BTW Many books could be classified to some degree as 'propaganda' which is defined as " intended to spread ideas or information that will persuade or convince people". Many media articles and on line items are exactly that.
  230. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Catherine, You don't get it, do you? You don't do your homework looking into the authors and then blame everyone else when they turn out to be suspect.

    You haven't got a clue how pervasive the PR industry is or how they work, and that makes you the perfect target for them. Most of us approach sources asking.... Who are these people? What are their backgrounds? How far can I trust them?

    Your approach is.... "Tell me a story".

    You like books, try "The father of spin : Edward L. Bernays & the birth of public relations". It's likely in your public library. Propaganda is far more sophisticated than you imagine.
  231. DAVID DIVER from Comox, Canada writes: Catherine, your comment re :
    'If other NATO countries had been willing to have their troops deploy to the south along with the British, Dutch and Canadians and participate in dealing with the Taliban, the situation would not have deteriorated as far as it has today.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
    More to the point to say 'IF the US had provided evidence that bin Laden had masterminded 9/11 when the Taleban government demanded it before handing him over:

    IF the US had really concentrated on capturing bin Laden instead of warring with the country;

    IF the US had not earned a bad reputation in how it fights its wars, and

    IF the Bush had not committed the US to a course in world affairs that was clearly odious to Europe,

    the situation would not have deteriorated as far as it has today"

    Perhaps it is not within you to dicuss the very large problem of so many developed nations failing to sustain a natural birthrate that will ensure survival of their culture. To refer to the refugee situation as upsetting the potential of immigration doesn't answer the dilemma.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top