Will there be a Fall 2007 election?

[Vancouver King]

There will be no election in Fall, 2007, and the reason is simple: Canada's new Afghan exit strategy has nothing to do with defeat of the Taliban or other military considerations, rather, Harper's govt, the military and the press -read CTV - were unable to mould public opinion around acceptance of this nation's role in the Afghanistan war.

Harper's pointed emphasis on no renewal beyond 2009 without opposition blessing signals acceptance by Tories of a harsh reality: No parliamentary majority is possible while the party remains on the wrong side of this issue. Expect results from this new Liberal-like stance to show in 2008.

[WestViking]

You make no sense whatever.

You said the sanction of Parliament is needed for legislation. Senate terms and elections do not have that sanction yet Harper expects based on his whim that he can push it through.

I said that I did not want to see income tax rates changed at the whim pf a PM, without the sanction of Parliament. If you want to discuss the Senate, start a thread.

[WestViking]

There will be no election in Fall, 2007, and the reason is simple: Canada's new Afghan exit strategy has nothing to do with defeat of the Taliban or other military considerations, rather, Harper's govt, the military and the press -read CTV - were unable to mould public opinion around acceptance of this nation's role in the Afghanistan war.

Harper's pointed emphasis on no renewal beyond 2009 without opposition blessing signals acceptance by Tories of a harsh reality: No parliamentary majority is possible while the party remains on the wrong side of this issue. Expect results from this new Liberal-like stance to show in 2008.

LOL! Utter nonsense. The only reason that the Afghanistan mission was not defeated in Parliament when an extension to 2009 came up for a vote was that the Liberals would have been seen to vote against themselves - they made the commitment to send troops in the first place.

Given another two years and the short memory of the public, the Liberals will vote down any motion to keep our word to NATO and Afghanistan. The NDP and BQ are dead set against sending troops to anywhere except some rotten sewer in Africa and then only under UN control. Every UN led military mission has been an absolute disaster, with the most recent debacle in Lebanon, where UN 'peace keepers' clearly sided with Hezbollah terrorists during the fighting there.

Between now and February 2009 you are far more likely to see a private member's bill supported by Jack Layton to pull our military out of Afghanistan immediately than any other move on this file. Leftists and the majority of the media love terrorists and hate every aspect of the military. They claim to want 'world peace', but lack the ethics, morality and principles to fight for peace or anything else that may require some sacrifice.

It is dead wrong for our Parliament to send the military into battle overseas and then spend every week thereafter screaming on the floor of the Commons that our soldiers should not be dying in Afghanistan. What did they expect? That the Taliban would greet our soldiers with arm-loads of roses, turn in their weapons at the base PX and start farming instead of training terrorists and dealing in drugs?

Face facts. At the first opportunity the opposition in Parliament will end our participation in the war on terror. Harper can’t stop them with a minority, but he can make sure the yellow shows up clearly.

[jdobbin]

Face facts. At the first opportunity the opposition in Parliament will end our participation in the war on terror. Harper can’t stop them with a minority, but he can make sure the yellow shows up clearly.

Typical right wing response about low support for the mission being about cowardice. If that's the case, the vast majority of the people are Canada are yellow according to the polls.

[WestViking]

Face facts. At the first opportunity the opposition in Parliament will end our participation in the war on terror. Harper can’t stop them with a minority, but he can make sure the yellow shows up clearly.

Typical right wing response about low support for the mission being about cowardice. If that's the case, the vast majority of the people are Canada are yellow according to the polls.

No, many Canadians are misled and outright lied to by the media and some politicians. Taliban Jack wants to sit and negotiate with terrorist groups. What rational argument will persuade someone who wants to elevate an amoral, hostile, murderous gang of cut-throats with no homeland to nation status that he is dead wrong in doing so? That is rather like a sheep sitting down with a pack of wolves to discuss the dinner menu.

Please educate us and tell us what you do call politicians who refuse to accept the will of Parliament to continue deployment of our military in Afghanistan until February 2009?

[jdobbin]

No, many Canadians are misled and outright lied to by the media and some politicians. Taliban Jack wants to sit and negotiate with terrorist groups. What rational argument will persuade someone who wants to elevate an amoral, hostile, murderous gang of cut-throats with no homeland to nation status that he is dead wrong in doing so? That is rather like a sheep sitting down with a pack of wolves to discuss the dinner menu.

Please educate us and tell us what you do call politicians who refuse to accept the will of Parliament to continue deployment of our military in Afghanistan until February 2009?

Oh yes, it all about being misled. And your terrorism term for Layton is just part of the right wing's tactics on the issue.

Just keep using words like yellow and allusions to cowardice. It has worked so well for your hero Stephen Harper on the issue.

[WestViking]

Oh yes, it all about being misled. And your terrorism term for Layton is just part of the right wing's tactics on the issue.

Just keep using words like yellow and allusions to cowardice. It has worked so well for your hero Stephen Harper on the issue.

Nice try. Now answer the question, please:

Educate us and tell us what you do call politicians who refuse to accept the will of Parliament to continue deployment of our military in Afghanistan until February 2009?

[gc1765]

Educate us and tell us what you do call politicians who refuse to accept the will of Parliament to continue deployment of our military in Afghanistan until February 2009?

Who is refusing to accept the will of parliament?

[WestViking]

Educate us and tell us what you do call politicians who refuse to accept the will of Parliament to continue deployment of our military in Afghanistan until February 2009?

Who is refusing to accept the will of parliament?

Play nice - I asked first.

[jdobbin]

Nice try. Now answer the question, please:

Educate us and tell us what you do call politicians who refuse to accept the will of Parliament to continue deployment of our military in Afghanistan until February 2009?

I don't know. What do you call Harper for refusing to accept the will of the House on Kyoto?

[WestViking]

Nice try. Now answer the question, please:

Educate us and tell us what you do call politicians who refuse to accept the will of Parliament to continue deployment of our military in Afghanistan until February 2009?

I don't know. What do you call Harper for refusing to accept the will of the House on Kyoto?

Quit the bobbing and weaving - answer the question, please.

Then we can deal with Kyoto if you like.

[jdobbin]

Quit the bobbing and weaving - answer the question, please.

Then we can deal with Kyoto if you like.

I'd call the NDP's move to end participation before 2009 a stupid one. While it might appeal to some at home, it doesn't sound like a well thought out exit strategy. Do you think if the will of Parliament says that they should stay till 2009, they should stay? Do you think the will of Parliament should always be obeyed?

[WestViking]

Quit the bobbing and weaving - answer the question, please.

Then we can deal with Kyoto if you like.

I'd call the NDP's move to end participation before 2009 a stupid one. While it might appeal to some at home, it doesn't sound like a well thought out exit strategy. Do you think if the will of Parliament says that they should stay till 2009, they should stay? Do you think the will of Parliament should always be obeyed?

You avoided the question once more.

Layton heads the arguments on Afghanistan but is not alone; he has not introduced a bill to deal with the issue so that Parliament can reconsider its commitment and that is objectionable. The constant carping undermines support for troops we have asked to put their lives on the line. Those who insist on second guessing our commitment in public are somewhere between seditionists and traitors. They are comforting an enemy engaging our military.

We cannot put our military in a war theatre and then speculate openly on the wisdom of our decision, or try to tell them not to engage the enemy but keep a peace that does not exist. If we want to see soldiers slaughtered, insist they ignore Taliban attacks while they build roads and schools. We are doing both, but only because we have fighting men protecting the builders.

No nation engages in a war expecting to lose. We engage the enemy, win a peace, and bring our troops home. An 'exit strategy' is just a euphemism for an admission of defeat and retreat, which used by anti-war types without common sense.

We made a commitment to our NATO allies to stay in Afghanistan until 2009 and ratified that commitment in Parliament. Dion and Layton want us out of Afghanistan but fret over our international reputation. They cannot have it both ways.

The last session of Parliament turned into a fiasco as the opposition was so intent on attacking the government that it failed to notice that many attacks contradicted one another as far as any form of coherent policy is concerned.

Ultimately, the will of Parliament must be followed or our democracy fails.

[Mad_Michael]

... Taliban Jack wants to sit and negotiate with terrorist groups...

You've established your national security discussion credentials right there.

Anyone who takes your posts seriously deserves what they get.

[jdobbin]

You avoided the question once more.

Layton heads the arguments on Afghanistan but is not alone; he has not introduced a bill to deal with the issue so that Parliament can reconsider its commitment and that is objectionable. The constant carping undermines support for troops we have asked to put their lives on the line. Those who insist on second guessing our commitment in public are somewhere between seditionists and traitors. They are comforting an enemy engaging our military.

We cannot put our military in a war theatre and then speculate openly on the wisdom of our decision, or try to tell them not to engage the enemy but keep a peace that does not exist. If we want to see soldiers slaughtered, insist they ignore Taliban attacks while they build roads and schools. We are doing both, but only because we have fighting men protecting the builders.

No nation engages in a war expecting to lose. We engage the enemy, win a peace, and bring our troops home. An 'exit strategy' is just a euphemism for an admission of defeat and retreat, which used by anti-war types without common sense.

We made a commitment to our NATO allies to stay in Afghanistan until 2009 and ratified that commitment in Parliament. Dion and Layton want us out of Afghanistan but fret over our international reputation. They cannot have it both ways.

The last session of Parliament turned into a fiasco as the opposition was so intent on attacking the government that it failed to notice that many attacks contradicted one another as far as any form of coherent policy is concerned.

Ultimately, the will of Parliament must be followed or our democracy fails.

And what question do you think was not answered? Dion has stated the commitment should remain till 2009. Layton says out now. The will of Parliament is being followed.

You really are too much. You can't debate the issue because it undermines the troops?

I just love how you have thrown the words traitors and seditionists out there in typical right wing bullying.

You say that the will of Parliament must be followed but I'm sure you'll make every excuse about why Kyoto should not be followed. It is the will of Parliament. It was voted on my a majority.

I don't think you get that Canadians are deeply skeptical of the policy in Afghanistan. But keep up the bluster and belligerence with inflammatory language like traitor and sedition. In fact, shout loudly. It will earn the Conservatives a time out most certainly.

[jdobbin]

You've established your national security discussion credentials right there.

Anyone who takes your posts seriously deserves what they get.

I think you're right. Any poster who uses the word traitor and sedition about a political discussion should probably be ignored. He just just hurts his Tory party all the more.

[WestViking]

... Taliban Jack wants to sit and negotiate with terrorist groups...

You've established your national security discussion credentials right there.

Anyone who takes your posts seriously deserves what they get.

Really! Yous seem to have a selective memory. Please explain this:

Taliban would laugh at Jack

Layton should visit Afghanistan before he urges talks with murderous fanatics

By Licia Corbella

Calgary Sun

September 3, 2006

I recall the first time I travelled to Rome I was completely blown away by how old it was.

I would point at various buildings while my cousins drove so expertly through the seemingly chaotic but actually well-ordered traffic, and repeatedly asked: "How old is that?"

At first my cousin Bianca would ponder the question for a few seconds. "That is 2,000 years old," or "that is about 1,000 years old" or "that is not so old, maybe 800 years" etc. etc.

Within a day or two her answers would be more brusque: "1,000," "2,000," "500."

I did a similar thing in Afghanistan in December 2003 to the various interpreters who expertly drove me around Kabul in the literally chaotic traffic.

Only, instead of asking them how old is this or that, I would ask "who destroyed that building?" or "who flattened this block?" or "who bombed the palace?" or "who burned the movie theatre?"

At first, like my cousin, the interpreters would turn their head, look at the building and consider their answer. "That was burned by the Taliban," or "that was bombed by the Taliban," or "the Taliban flattened this entire block" etc.

Eventually, one of our interpreters, Patrice, turned to me and essentially said, "the destruction you see everywhere, 99.9% of it was caused by the Taliban.

The war with the Soviet Union actually didn't destroy much of this city, in fact, the Soviets actually built a lot of the buildings" and he would point out the ugly, still-standing tenements that looked like luxury in that destroyed city.

He went on to explain further.

"The only things the Taliban didn't destroy were their own houses, their own businesses and mosques. They destroyed everything, made people destroy any art and photos of their families, all books but the Qur'an and they murdered thousands of people with no trial.

They destroyed this entire country. I hate them. Everyone hates them."

The Taliban -- which literally means "religious scholars" were, and still are, fascistic Islamists who hate all who disagree with them and are intent on killing them.

These are the people NDP Leader Jack Layton wants to sit down with and negotiate a peace settlement with.

"We believe that a comprehensive peace process has to bring all combatants to the table," said Layton on Thursday, when he called for Canadian troops to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan.

"You don't accomplish peace if those who are fighting are not involved in a peace-based discussion that's fundamental," added Layton.

What he refuses to acknowledge is you also don't accomplish peace when one of the groups you are fighting doesn't want peace, they only want to terrorize an entire country and rule that country with a draconian iron fist.

So, I urge Jack, go right ahead.

It's clear he should visit Afghanistan because he clearly has no clue what he's talking about or who he thinks our soldiers are dealing with.

So, go sit down with the Taliban, Jack.

If all they do is laugh at you, you'd be lucky because the likely outcome would either be an axe blade embedded into your skull delivered cowardly from behind (as happened to Canadian Lieut. Trevor Greene, who almost died) or some kind of a slower death, such as burying you up to your neck and stoning you in the soccer stadium (as happened to tens of thousands of innocent Afghans for heinous sins such as hiding photographs of their family, reading a book other than the Qur'an or being accused of adultery) or simply cutting off your head with a dull and rusty knife while screaming "Allah is great!" (as continues to happen today in some Islamist states to presumptuous and well-meaning western infidels who fall into the wrong hands.)

So, actually, I don't recommend trying to sit down with the Taliban.

But I do recommend Layton visit Afghanistan, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper has done and just this past week Gordon O'Connor, Canada's defence minister did.

In Afghanistan, Jack would meet with Afghan people, particularly women, who, as soon as they would find out he was Canadian, would say something I heard dozens of times in my 12 days in that des-troyed -- but rapidly improving country.

"Thank you so much for what your country is doing. Because of Canadian troops, I now have clean wells where I can get water for free, I can once again work to help support my children after my husband was murdered by the Taliban. My girls can once again attend school in buildings built by Canadian troops and supplied with Canadian supplies.

"Thank you for giving us hope again after we lived in hell for so many years." Those are the exact words I heard from Mahfooza, a young widow, who looked much older than her 32 years, who lived in a hillside village just outside of Kabul.

While virtually everyone in Afghanistan suffered terribly under the Taliban it was women and children who suffered most.

Women had to remain covered up when in public completely. The windows of their homes had to be blackened to ensure that no man could gaze upon them when they were inside their homes.

They were not allowed to work and were not allowed to be in the presence of men who were not relatives. That meant they could not ever see a doctor, since females doctors were not allowed to practise.

Toys were banned. Music was banned. Photographs and pictures of any natural object had to be destroyed.

They were prisoners for three years, unable to feel the sun on their skin the whole time which led to severe vitamin deficiencies that caused many of them to lose their hair and teeth.

Many starved. Many others purposefully walked out in front of trucks to be killed.

Jack Layton wants to negotiate with people who think such a society is ideal.

What a buffoon.

[WestViking]

You really are too much. You can't debate the issue because it undermines the troops?

BINGO! You finally get it. You cannot send our military into battle and then tell the enemy you think you have made a mistake, that you never expected anyone to get hurt, let alone killed, and they are far too fierce to be thwarted.

[WestViking]

You say that the will of Parliament must be followed but I'm sure you'll make every excuse about why Kyoto should not be followed. It is the will of Parliament. It was voted on my a majority.

On the contrary. The will of Parliament on Kyoto must be followed.

Bil C-288 is fatally flawed. You can read the text here: Bill C-288

I expect the government will make the required plan and introduce tough enabling legislation when Parliament resumes for a fall session. When the costs and potential job losses are on the table and open to debate, we will see how Parliament responds.

[jdobbin]

BINGO! You finally get it. You cannot send our military into battle and then tell the enemy you think you have made a mistake, that you never expected anyone to get hurt, let alone killed, and they are far too fierce to be thwarted.

What a ridiculous statement. Every NATO country debates the mission in their legislatures.

We keep seeing this argument from the right wing that any discussion of the mission, its objectives, its timetables, on casualties, equipment and anything else is treason and sedition and that people should shut up.

[jdobbin]

On the contrary. The will of Parliament on Kyoto must be followed.

Bil C-288 is fatally flawed. You can read the text here: Bill C-288

I expect the government will make the required plan and introduce tough enabling legislation when Parliament resumes for a fall session. When the costs and potential job losses are on the table and open to debate, we will see how Parliament responds.

I knew we were going to hear a but to this.

You'd like a debate on this issue but not on the mission in Afghanistan.

[Michael Bluth]

What a ridiculous statement. Every NATO country debates the mission in their legislatures.

We keep seeing this argument from the right wing that any discussion of the mission, its objectives, its timetables, on casualties, equipment and anything else is treason and sedition and that people should shut up.

There is a fine line.

You aren't even close to it.

By attacking the Government all the time, on everything they do, including everything they do in Afghanistan you show yourself to be quite hypocritical.

Are you arguing that a rational, and reasonable debate on Afghanistan is possible?

If so, then behave rationally and reasonably. Don't attack everything the Government does, then attack "right wingers" for generalizing when it comes to any discussion about the mission.

You give what you get in life.

---End of thread tangent---

The Conservatives want the Parliament to hit fall of '09 now.

I can't see any circumstance under which the other three opposition parties will agree to an election. Looks like a long, long minority.

[WestViking]

On the contrary. The will of Parliament on Kyoto must be followed.

Bil C-288 is fatally flawed. You can read the text here: Bill C-288

I expect the government will make the required plan and introduce tough enabling legislation when Parliament resumes for a fall session. When the costs and potential job losses are on the table and open to debate, we will see how Parliament responds.

I knew we were going to hear a but to this.

You'd like a debate on this issue but not on the mission in Afghanistan.

You "knew" no such thing. For a debate to take place in Parliament, there has to be a bill or motion put forward.

Opponents of the Afghanistan mission are not debating the issue - they are making public pronouncements outside of Parliament and using question period to promote a viewpoint rather than opening a debate. They will not put forward a bill or motion to open legitimate debate.

Bill C-288 calls for specified government action. When it tables the plans required, the plan has to go to committee for review and then to Parliament for a debate. If the plan requires changes to legislation, the government must prepare an enabling bill which must be debated in the house, unless of course all parties agree to passage without debate, which is highly unlikely.

You are, or should be, well aware of the Parliamentary procedures involved. I do not accept that you do not know better than your comments indicate.

[jdobbin]

You "knew" no such thing. For a debate to take place in Parliament, there has to be a bill or motion put forward.

Opponents of the Afghanistan mission are not debating the issue - they are making public pronouncements outside of Parliament and using question period to promote a viewpoint rather than opening a debate. They will not put forward a bill or motion to open legitimate debate.

Bill C-288 calls for specified government action. When it tables the plans required, the plan has to go to committee for review and then to Parliament for a debate. If the plan requires changes to legislation, the government must prepare an enabling bill which must be debated in the house, unless of course all parties agree to passage without debate, which is highly unlikely.

You are, or should be, well aware of the Parliamentary procedures involved. I do not accept that you do not know better than your comments indicate.

There have been motions. What do you think the Liberal motion to end Canada's participation in 2009 was? Right wingers like you called that treason and sedition. Think those are proper debating words? There have been committee debates on detainees, debates on equipment.

However, according to you any talk on Afghanistan is causing the troops to lose their morale. I think you are totally unrealistic about people remaining quiet until 2009. If Harper doesn't communicate what is happening, debate it, justify it, people will decide for themselves and I don't know he will like the decision they make. It is already being reflected in the polls now.

[WestViking]

However, according to you any talk on Afghanistan is causing the troops to lose their morale. I think you are totally unrealistic about people remaining quiet until 2009. If Harper doesn't communicate what is happening, debate it, justify it, people will decide for themselves and I don't know he will like the decision they make. It is already being reflected in the polls now.

If you wish to counter my arguments, fair enough, but do not try to tell me what I said or what I meant. My comments in the thread above do not need your interpretation.

I object to the considerable political rhetoric on the Afghan mission made by MPs made outside of the House of Commons. Commons debate on issues is vital to a democracy, even when the process is abused for partisan purposes.

Public debate on the Afghan mission is heavily covered by TV newscasts of the ceremony when a dead soldier's body leaves Afghanistan, again when the body arrives home, and once more when the body is buried. There is rarely anything on successful fire-fights when our military wins battles, or on the construction and completion of hospitals, roads, schools and wells amongst other reconstruction going on.

We hear about 'roadside bomb' killing people; apparently the terrorists who planted the bombs are blameless. We hear about civilians killed in combat with terrorists with the implication that allied forces are at fault. There is no mention of terrorists using occupied dwellings to mount attacks, or of Afghan civilians murdered by terrorists as reprisals for cooperating with allied forces or for not supporting the terrorists.