[ridenrain]

This was also the only government that discussed and voted on this in parliament.

It is spin because we leave in 2011 and this gives fair warning to NATO and our allies. We need to set the stage instead of just leaving bfore the replacements can take up the slack. The press is stuck plaing "gotcha" jornalism.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

We have a mission.
We made international commitments to undertake that mission that Parliament voted on and agreed to. Taliban Jack wanted to discount those agreements. Our mission expires and we leave.

Would you rather we stay?

That's the difference boots. If you ever tried to see things from another point of view you would come across much more credibly on these things.

Yes, we should stay. Why on earth would we let over 100 troops get killed and then just give up. Should Canada have surrendered to the Nazis after we got our asses kicked at Dieppe? Fuck no, and we shouldn't cave here either. I realize our troops are strained by this heavy commitment, but we should stay, even if its in a diminished capacity.

Credibilty? You want ot talk about crediblity. Harper has ZERO.

I don't say one minute that hey, I want a coalition to unseat the elected government, and then a while later, decry the exact same action when he's the one in the PMO.

I don't promise not to tax income trusts and then go back on it ten months after I get elected.

I don't promise to buy heavy icebreakers and then decide, nope, we'll just buy medium ones.

The list of Harper's backtracking, flip-flopping, and outright lies is brutally long. I freely criticize everyone, and don't favour "my precious Liberals" as some prick said on the last page.

It's funny that because I bash Harper for being just as opportunistic and hypocritical as Chretien was (if not more), that I'm labelled a Liberal. I've voted for both major parties (in the last one I voted for the independent in my riding in protest) and I will continue to choose the best party at the time of election, not be bound by some foolish blind faith that 'insert party here' is infallible and the only choice I can ever vote.

No, the ones who can't see clearly are the blue kool-aid drinkers people in this thread.

[roger-roger]

The military is already stressed to the limit with the current tempo, keeping it going past 2011 is just insane.

[EyeBrock]

bootlegga bootlegga:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

We have a mission.
We made international commitments to undertake that mission that Parliament voted on and agreed to. Taliban Jack wanted to discount those agreements. Our mission expires and we leave.

Would you rather we stay?

That's the difference boots. If you ever tried to see things from another point of view you would come across much more credibly on these things.

Yes, we should stay. Why on earth would we let over 100 troops get killed and then just give up. Should Canada have surrendered to the Nazis after we got our asses kicked at Dieppe? Fuck no, and we shouldn't cave here either. I realize our troops are strained by this heavy commitment, but we should stay, even if its in a diminished capacity.

Credibilty? You want ot talk about crediblity. Harper has ZERO.

I don't say one minute that hey, I want a coalition to unseat the elected government, and then a while later, decry the exact same action when he's the one in the PMO.

I don't promise not to tax income trusts and then go back on it ten months after I get elected.

I don't promise to buy heavy icebreakers and then decide, nope, we'll just buy medium ones.

The list of Harper's backtracking, flip-flopping, and outright lies is brutally long. I freely criticize everyone, and don't favour "my precious Liberals" as some prick said on the last page.

It's funny that because I bash Harper for being just as opportunistic and hypocritical as Chretien was (if not more), that I'm labelled a Liberal. I've voted for both major parties (in the last one I voted for the independent in my riding in protest) and I will continue to choose the best party at the time of election, not be bound by some foolish blind faith that 'insert party here' is infallible and the only choice I can ever vote.

No, the ones who can't see clearly are the blue kool-aid drinkers people in this thread.

That isn't the way you pitched it at all, and I agree, Harper has reneged on several issues, income trusts etc. I lost out on income trusts but I'm also quite realistic enough to see that the government had no choice when Bell was about to go that route purely to avoid paying tax. We have all debated lots of these points on many threads, many times.
My point was the 'told you so' attitude you pitched as a rebuttal when you said:

"For the longest time, he and his supporters have been calling anyone who suggested that we leave Afghanistan traitors, Taliban Jack, you name it, so, yeah, it's a flip flop."

You are well aware of the context Layton and others whined on about this at that particular time. A time when Denis Coderre, Layton and Duceppe were attending pro-Hezbollah rallies.

This whole mission was agreed on by both sides of the house that actually functionally try to run Canada, that is the Liberals and Tories. The Libs got us in, with agreement from the Tories, the Tories extended the mission, with agreement of the Liberals. Comparing this to broken promises enacted by Harper is an unfair comparison and it just looks like you are a pissy partisan looking to expand on your personal hatred for Harper.

Harper is acting on the information passed to him by the CDS and he's just echoing what the front line combat leaders from Canada, the US and the UK are saying out loud.

Put your hatred aside and try and look at the big picture, income trusts and icebreakers aside.

[ridenrain]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

This whole mission was agreed on by both sides of the house that actually functionally try to run Canada, that is the Liberals and Tories. The Libs got us in, with agreement from the Tories, the Tories extended the mission, with agreement of the Liberals.

Not to nit-pick but i've never heard of this part ever hitting parliament. I will agree that the Liberals who got us into Afghanistan did the right thing but I don't ever recall hearing any of the details ever come up for any serious discussion.

[EyeBrock]

Do you mean the House voting on extending the mission?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/ ... dence.html

[ridenrain]

No. I mean the decision to go into Afghanistan in the first place.
As far as I know, that extension discussion is the first and only debate in parliament that we've had on this mission.

[EyeBrock]

There were several 'take note' debates in the House and at committee level. All the Liberal proposals were agreed to by Reform and PC members, then later the CPC. There have been no confidence votes on supporting the mission when the Libs were in power but there was certainly a lot of agreement from the Reform/PC's and then the CPC members.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/libra ... 0724-e.htm

[ridenrain]

I think I stand corrected but it's hard to tell because of the ringing in my ears from all the recent calls for accountability and open debate on this topic.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

That isn't the way you pitched it at all, and I agree, Harper has reneged on several issues, income trusts etc. I lost out on income trusts but I'm also quite realistic enough to see that the government had no choice when Bell was about to go that route purely to avoid paying tax. We have all debated lots of these points on many threads, many times.
My point was the 'told you so' attitude you pitched as a rebuttal when you said:

"For the longest time, he and his supporters have been calling anyone who suggested that we leave Afghanistan traitors, Taliban Jack, you name it, so, yeah, it's a flip flop."

You are well aware of the context Layton and others whined on about this at that particular time. A time when Denis Coderre, Layton and Duceppe were attending pro-Hezbollah rallies.

This whole mission was agreed on by both sides of the house that actually functionally try to run Canada, that is the Liberals and Tories. The Libs got us in, with agreement from the Tories, the Tories extended the mission, with agreement of the Liberals. Comparing this to broken promises enacted by Harper is an unfair comparison and it just looks like you are a pissy partisan looking to expand on your personal hatred for Harper.

Harper is acting on the information passed to him by the CDS and he's just echoing what the front line combat leaders from Canada, the US and the UK are saying out loud.

Put your hatred aside and try and look at the big picture, income trusts and icebreakers aside.

Sure that's the way I pitched it. I implied he flip-flopped, which he did. I only brought a bunch of his other flip-flops after you challenged my position. Either way it doesn't change the fact that Harper is well on his way to being Mr. Dithers part deux.

Sorry, but the current CF leaders Walter Natynczyk and Admiral Mullen seem to think that both Afghanistan has gotten worse and that we have still some capacity to stay there;

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacit ... istan.aspx

No, this was Harper's chance to try and work with Iggy to extend/renew the mission in Afghanistan, which Iggy supported way back when. Instead, he chose the politican's route and decided to cut and run before the job was done (his own words no less). He could have fought the good fight.

I could at least respect the man if he fought what he believed in, but like I've said several times in the past year with all his flip-flopping and political posturing, he's showing he's no better than any of the other career politicians in Ottawa.

[Proculation]

ridenrain ridenrain:

No. I mean the decision to go into Afghanistan in the first place.
As far as I know, that extension discussion is the first and only debate in parliament that we've had on this mission.

You didn't hear about the NPD and Bloc whinings since the beginning ?

[Akhenaten]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sure that's the way I pitched it. I implied he flip-flopped, which he did.

No. He didn't. In order to flip flop you have to say the opposite of what you said before. Harper said that, as paraphrased later, "western forces alone can never beat the Taliban insurgency", and it can't and that has always been the story. In order to have flip-floped he would have had to, in the past, stated that the NATO western military forces alone -- and nothing else,no ANA, no reconstruction, no drug fighting, nothing -- can defeaat the Taliban. He hasn't said this. No one ever has. This is a Liberal party talking point.

Consider that it has been known for 6+ year that NATO will need the help of native Afghan forces (ANA). NATO has been training them since day one because it was known from day one it could not be done with NATO alone. Today the ANA personel numbers almost equal NATO's. We can bring all the otehr examples; reconstruction programs, the new irrigation dam being built that should provide better farming conditions -especially for something besides opium. There's many examples of planning right from the get go of programs NOT directly related to the military.

As to the claims that this is in contrast to Harper dismissing opposition claims in the past as 'defeatist', this is because they claimed the overall mission is unwinnable, which it isn't and claimed to want out. Many voices in the opposition claimed to want to simply quit because they didnt feel there was any progress. They are liars of course because I can guarentee whichever party rules next will extend the mission beyond 2011, but probably work with NATO to pull them out of the Qandahar region and stick them up North where it's less hot, like the Belgian contribution. Why would they do this against the apparent wishes of their constituents? The same reason every other Europeon nation is doing it against the wishes of the majority of their people. They know damn well they need NATO.

From the story:

$1:

Opposition critics are accusing Stephen Harper of an about-face on the Afghan mission, noting that the prime minister who once dismissed them as defeatists now acknowledges western forces alone can never beat the Taliban insurgency.

Of course what Harper actually said was:

$1:

"We're not going to win this war just by staying," Harper said.

Which makes the charges by the opposition seem non-sequitur. The two do not relate.

This is a classic example of one party arguing what they wish the other had said rather than what they actually said.


Cheers.
Akh

[Proculation]

I don't know how it is displayed in ROC's media but here in Quebec we have 'news' starting with "Since Harper said that we can't win this war...". Here's since the comment was made in english, reported in english media, they can 'translate' it how they want.

[djakeydd]

kenmore kenmore:

Funny he never listened to anyone before. now that george dubya is out, harpers singing a new song. we should have been out long ago.. history has proven nothing will ever be accomplished in Afghanistan.. the only thing we have gained is more debt and more dead Canadians! and for what?

Yup, and the experts have been saying since day one that there is no way of taming this insurgency. Bush was a fool going into Iran, Harper was a fool for keeping us in Afghanistan. What a complete and utter waste of lives and resources - absolute lunacy.

[roger-roger]

djakeydd djakeydd:

Yup, and the experts have been saying since day one that there is no way of taming this insurgency. Bush was a fool going into Iran, Harper was a fool for keeping us in Afghanistan. What a complete and utter waste of lives and resources - absolute lunacy.

Iran? I think the heat beams the CIA are using on you DD are effecting your brain.