Jean_Poutine

And saying that he'll vote against ANY budget just makes him look like an idiot.

I seem to recall Jack Layton saying that he'll vote against the Conservatives at the first opportunity -- regardless of what is in the budget. The Conservatives have been talking with members of the other parties and people from the private sector, but they also won the election not the other parties. With that mind, I ask you, who is being unreasonable?

I guess the only way we'll now if the the troops will be out of southern Afghanistan is by electing a Liberal government. Like the Liberal government that sent them there?

I think Canadians know this and that is why they want them home as soon as 2009. They want them home because the work is important? Or they want them home because the work is dangerous?Or is it they are afraid of upsetting Osama? Or is it that jdobbin is speaking for people he doesn't know in an attempt to add weight to his opinion.Personally, I hate hearing about soldiers being wounded or killed, but I don't see how people can say they want the troops out of Afghanistan because they support them while ignoring what the troops have to say about it. Here's what a soldier had to say after surviving an attack that killed six other soldiers: Here are some comments from Brig.-Gen. David Fraser and another soldier: I think an honest person would be able to acknowledge the good as well as the bad and take what the soldiers have to say into consideration. I understand people raising concerns about things that are happening, and the loss of life, but I don't understand people that make spewing pessimism a daily routine.

My meaning was: why order tanks for Afghanistan that will not be used in Afghanistan? I have no problem of new equipment but just a year and a half ago, the military was talking about getting out of the tank business.The mission is over in 2009 and these tanks are being bought for that mission even though they won't be there in time. Are you suggesting this is because Canada has no intention of leaving Afghanistan? 1) The mission doesn't end in 2009. Even if Canadian troops leave, and I think it's better to make that decision when the time comes rather than writing it in stone ahead of time, the mission will continue.2) There are 20 Leopard 2 A6M tanks that are being leased which will arrive in the summer. The 100 tanks that Canada is buying should arrive in Canada in the fall. Then, they'll make whatever modifications they have to make for the Canadian forces, and then send them to Afghanistan to replace the leased tanks. They will be used, and regardless, they are replacing 30 year old tanks. Are you planning on driving the same car for 30 years? Canada is one of only two countries still using Leopard 1s. As to whether or not they are useful, they are faster, have air conditioning - unlike the leopard 1s - and obviously provide more protection. The A6M is designed to survive mines and such. The tanks are also being paid for with money that's already within the budget. It won't be an additional cost, and it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

JDobbin has a very good grasp of Afghanistan. Eric Margolis is not silly. I don't know, I kinda get tired of people that just sit around pissing on the efforts of the people serving over there. I mean, I can understand criticizing people that support a war for partisan reasons, and I would absolutely agree that it would be ignorant for people to treat the lives of soldiers like cannon fodder for those partisan reasons, but if the soldiers that are doing the heavy lifting over there are determined to see it through, why is is so friggin hard for someone sitting in a comfortable chair at home in Canada to respect that?As for comparing Canada or NATO to the Soviets, I was watching a Senate Committee the other day, and I thought Romeo Dallaire made an excellent point. He talked about how an entire Soviet Division was defeated on the same ground where a much smaller Canadian force succeeded.

Hmm... http is automatically added even though it's a real media link. Open Real Media player, select file/open, and copy & paste this into it: rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter030107_afghan.rm Alternatively, at http://www.c-span.org/, you can find it under recent programs listed as: Senate Armed Services Cmte. Hearing on the Situation in Afghanistan (3/1/2007), and click on the link there.

First, I see no mention of British troops in that article. Second, you can watch the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing that the article mentions by opening Real Player, selecting file/open, and copying & pasting this into it:rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter030107_afghan.rm Had some problems with linking it in the forums because http gets added to it. It's also listed under Recent Programs at C-SPAN.org as: Senate Armed Services Cmte. Hearing on the Situation in Afghanistan (3/1/2007). In that Senate Hearing, on the subject of shortages, General James Jones said, "I think the more worrisome thing is that nations make the commitment and then put caveats on their forces that make their forces marginally useful." The additional US and British troops don't have caveats. General James Jones points out that they were short 2000-3000 since the NATO plan was put together. When they've been short 2000-3000 from the beginning and the US and UK add roughly 5000, I don't see how they're still short 1000, but it's an improvement over the past situation.

Aside from the increase in US troops, Britain is adding 1400 troops, which will bring their total to about 7700, and it'll mean that the British will have more forces in Afghanistan than Iraq.British troops to be sent to Afghanistan

The US, Britain, Poland and Denmark are sending more troops, but no mention of that. In fact, Britain will have more troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq, but sweep that one under the carpet. Canada will be sending additional equipment and funding for development. It was even reported recently that Pakistan got one of the top Taliban -- not Al Quaeda -- Taliban. What gets posted instead is the usual "doomed to fail" rhetoric, which sounds a little like Chicken Little screaming, "the sky is falling!" For some frank discussion from the US about Afghanistan, I recommend watching the Senate Armed Services Cmte. Hearing on the Situation in Afghanistan. They cover pretty much every problem that's been brought up on these forums.

The Liberals are not the only ones doing the heckling. Listen to Question Period and you will it hear all parties.If you are just upset at Liberals for doing it, I question what this argument is all about. As far as the Senate goes, I favour abolishing it rather than further mucking up the works. Pardon me, the opposition. The Liberals are the main opposition party, but it's not a partisan issue as I've already said I was annoyed when it happened to Jack Layton too.

As I have pointed out, Parliament has always been a forum that has had heckling. The Speaker can rule out of order or expel boisterous members just as he or she can toss out a member (like the prime minister) who uses props. The Senate has been appointed for a long time too, but that doesn't mean that there's not a better way of doing things.The Speaker called for order a couple times and the Liberals just ignored it; therefore, it's pointless unless enforced.

Yeah, regardless of what people think of his politics, Tony is a good speaker, and I enjoy watching him too.

Perhaps, what the Prime Minister was trying to say would be clearer if the Liberals weren't so busy trying to drown it out. Even if you disagree with someone emphatically, it's best to let them speak if for no other reason than to understand their position. Then, if you disagree, you can rebut it more effectively.

What's childish is heckling and shouting when someone is trying to speak. I don't care WHO it is speaking or WHAT they are saying. When it is their turn to speak, I want to hear them NOT hecklers, and then the opposition can have their turn to respond after. I remember when that happened to Jack Layton when he was trying to talk about missile defense, and I found it equally annoying that he had problems speaking. I like a lively debate, but there should be a house rule that hecklers be removed if they don't stop when a call for order is made so that people can speak, and allowed to return when they can abide by that rule or when the person is done speaking.

How was he wrong? It was politicians who were responsible for not doing anything. ExactlyHe wasn't wrong, but according to some, people in the military shouldn't be pointing out where politicians have failed to act on defense issues. Personally, I think their opinions should be welcomed, just as a doctors opinion should be welcomed on the health care system, because they speak from experience.

There's little that the US can do to pressure Iran economically or diplomatically, but if they have evidence of weapons from Iran being used, they should present it at the UN to put pressure on countries that can do something about it economically or diplomatically. If true, it'd be pretty audacious of Iran at a time when Iran should be trying to avoid attracting more attention. The US kicked up the number of troops they have in Afghanistan from about 18,000 to about 26,000 - the largest number of US troops since the operation began. So while some countries might not be doing more, I wouldn't say that there's little change in troop levels. As for Pakistan, the threat there won't go away if Canada pulls out of Afghanistan. The real threat from Pakistan is not simply people crossing the border, but nuclear proliferation. Abdul Qadeer Khan basically created a nuclear black market, yet he's still not in jail, and Pakistan refuses to give the US access to him so that they can get more information on how he was spreading nuclear technology. Moreover, Pakistan's nuclear weapons are only as secure as the man in charge, and the people that tried to assassinate Musharraf had links to Al Quaida, which, as I'm sure most know, has a lot of support in Pakistan. There should be zero tolerance for this, and international pressure to fix it. There's a good documentary on it called Nuclear Jihad.

Good point.

Yeah, the Liberals bought what, about two dozen Nyalas? Given that the vehicle is specifically designed to deal with one of the biggest threats faced in Afghanistan, you'd think it'd be more of a priority. I remember watching Rep. Gene Taylor on the Washington Journal explaining how the US set the goal of having 4000 vehicles with v-shaped hulls like the Nyala in inventory by January 2008 for the Marines. Now, the Canadian military doesn't need equipment in the kind of numbers that the US does, but I'd think that 100-200 Nyalas be more appropriate than a couple dozen. The only reason I can see for such low numbers is for a trial while considering alternatives. A similar vehicle that the Canadian government should consider is the Buffalo. The inside of each tire is solid steel. So, you don't have to worry about changing flat tires. It also has a robotic arm to deal with potential explosive threats. Given that the emphasis is on protection rather than on firepower, even people on the far left should be able to support such a purchase. I also think they should buy enough M777s for the entire Canadian military to bring that capability up to date.

Over the course of about a decade, the federal government accumulated about $70 billion in surplus, and most of it was put towards debt. The Conservatives put the last surplus - $13 billion - towards debt, but you're right in that it's not likely to continue, nor should it. Once the budget is under control, I think it makes more sense to try to grow the economy and shrink the debt as a percentage of GDP than to spend decades paying it off little by little.To spur economic growth, I think they should use targeted tax cuts, and make post secondary education more accessible through increased loans and grants. One simple way for the federal government to free up billions is to revise the equalization program. Quebec has the second largest population; therefore, a large work force. It is also rich in resources and has good infrustructure. It has the second largest city, and cities are economic centers. Quebec doesn't need $5-6 billion from Alberta and Ontario each year just because the provincial government doesn't budget well or runs into difficulties. Both Ontario and Alberta have had difficulties too, but that doesn't make them have not provinces. The equilization program should be used to help less developed areas such as the territories and maritimes.

A commander has a duty to the people he is responsible for, not a particular government. He is subject to the governments orders but his responsibility is to make sure his people are equipped to carry out those orders. If that means going public with its deficiencies then so be it. The people also have a right to be informed about the status of their military from those who really know, not just those who have to win the next election.Are you saying that no one in government employ should ever be allowed to comment on deficiencies in their departments? This reminds me of how General Romeo Dallaire spoke to the media during the Rwanda mission to try to embarrass governments - including the Canadian government - into doing more. It was a smart move, but by the argument that Hillier's critics are making, he shouldn't have done it. By their reasoning, it was wrong for Dallaire to talk to the media about politicians.

Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are completely wrong, and to suggest so only shows that you are indeed partisan. If you consider the military to be a priority, would it not make sense to support the party that's most likely to do something about it?Which is more important to you, the issues or the parties? I think it makes more sense to look at the issues, prioritize them, and then look at which party is most likely to address the important ones.

Here's an interesting report from CTV that relates to this: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

If a modest budget of 2% GDP is maintained for the military, I wouldn't have as much to say about it, but that is not the case, and given the facts, I think the military should be a top priority for the government. My position on that does not translate into support for the Conservative party on every other issue, but naturally I'm more likely to support the party that is most likely to address what I consider to be most important.Another area in which I would like to see change which the Conservatives have pushed for is democratic reform, but that's hard to address with a minority government. A centrist should be able to see pros and cons to each side. Obviously if someone can see no good in the Conservative position on any issue they'd be firmly fixed in the Liberal/left-wing camp. So tell me, if you're such a centrist, what is it that you are able to agree with the Conservatives on?

Catchme, Hillier said word for word: "We have been re-equipping the forces with an energy and a scale and a scope that has not been seen in recent years, perhaps even decades." I've watched the whole thing from beginning to end while you're simply grabbing quotes from a news article. So, don't tell me what he did or didn't say. I've given you a link to where you can watch the speech for yourself, yet you continue to spout on without knowing what you're talking about because you obviously haven't taken the time to watch it. You're like a person critiquing a book by reading someone elses review of the book instead of the book itself. If you want to make an ass out of yourself by talking about something you have not taken the time to check out, by all means do so, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.