Jean_Poutine

So you see, he named a party labelled it in a negative manner and thereby juxpositioned the CPC and gave support to the to them by labelling the Liberals negatively.This was also a lie, stating it was JUST the Liberals when Mulroney had started the cute, remember the helicopters sold to the Dutch, by Mulroney, which we are now buying back. This was mentioned earler in the thread as well. Then after he was done labelling it erroneouly the "dcade of darkness" he conntinued on berating the Liberals. Face it he broke the rules and came out partisian for the CPC, a huge NO NO! Bullshit!Notice the quotes around decade of darkness? The words Liberal government are not in quotes, and are not his words. He did not mention the Liberals once in the speech. He did mention the cuts in the 90s, but he also said that they are rebuilding the military in a scope and scale that perhaps hasn't been seen in decades, and decades would not only include the Chrétien government, but the Mulroney government as well. Now, how about you pull your foot out of your mouth and watch the speech here before commenting on it further.

European countries spend a lot more than $10 billion on defense and they aren't considered big military spenders by US standards, nor are they immune to the sort of economic problems that Canada has faced.If you look at this chart from the CBC, you can see that the Canadian defense budget was 2.1% of GDP or above from 1976 to 1993 when it was cut down to 1.1% of GDP, and it has not gone anywhere near 2% of GDP since. Although, Harper has set a long term goal of restoring the budget to 2% GDP - which is NATO average - and is the only one to do so. Martin's plans for the military wouldn't even restore half of what he cut. Not to mention that tax payers got nothing for the $500 million that was lost when the helicopters that were supposed to replace the Sea Kings were cancelled, and the need to replace the Sea Kings remained. The Stryker was another dumb idea. The Stryker is basically the same as a LAV III. I don't mean to sound like an armchair general, but it just makes sense to have a variety of equipment in inventory so that the commanding officer has options as the situation changes instead of having to wait for the procurement of new equipment, which can take years. With that in mind, why would you replace a tank with a light armored vehicle when you already have good light armored vehicles? I think the fact that the Leopards are being used in Afghanistan proves that point. $12.7 billion over five years is peanuts. The Conservatives are spending $17 billion on new equipment and it still doesn't cover everything that needs to be taken care of. That's what happens when you procrastinate. You're entitled to your opinion - even if it's wrong - but it's not the military that's at fault for not being able to go beyond the current commitment; it's the fault of the government that cut funding and expected them to do more with less.

The difference of opinion is not in whether or not they should be there, but in how they handle the mission. There is a consensus for being there. If other countries don't agree with being there, they wouldn't be there, just as they are not in Iraq. Moreover, France has had seven opportunities to veto resolutions that extend UN authorization of the mission, yet they haven't. No, the justification will remain as long as there is a threat to deal with. What is in question is the publics will to support it, and if the soldiers that are involved want to continue, why is it so hard for civilians to respect that?George Bush did pressure Musharraf, and the US military has used Predators to attack targets in Pakistan. However, why pressure Pakistan to the point of destabilizing it when border security can be stepped up on the Afghan side? It wouldn't surprise me. What surprises me is that people expect that the problems in that country can be fixed quickly. General Andrew Leslie called it a 20 year mission before the vote to extend to 2009. However, I don't think buying tanks means an extension of the mission. All it means is that they want better equipment. Whether they are in Afghanistan for another year or another ten years, having better equipment doesn't hurt, and the Leopard 1 tanks that Canada currently uses are due to be replaced regardless of whether or not Canada is in Afghanistan.

I disagree with this comment. I have this documentary in my personal library. Dostum is a war criminal. Nothing new there. Also the Taliban used such barbaric practices. You keep a collection of documentaries too? I keep a database of all the documentaries, interviews, speeches, etc I have in my collection. That way I can simply type in the subject or persons name and get a list of everything available. I can also pull up a list of sources with a count of how much is available from each source in descending order. I was inspired by Noam Chomsky, but he's old school and does it by paper. Later, I found out that Francis Fukuyama does it too, but by computer. I've seen the video mentioned a long time ago, but I don't have a copy of it. However, I do have the PBS documentary called Return of the Taliban that's been mentioned here - along with a dozen other PBS docs. Also, there's a documentary that CBC calls "On Tour with the Taliban" that's been mentioned on these forums. It originally aired on a show called Dispatches on Channel 4, and there are two parts, but it looks like CBC is only airing one part. The original name of it is Meeting the Taliban, and the other part is called Fighting the Taliban. I have both. In Fighting the Taliban, Sean Langan travels with British forces in Helmand, and what I found surprising about it is that the British vehicles, at least those shown in the documentary, have virtually no protection. They have open tops so there's nothing to protect the gunner from incoming fire. The doc also shows how British forces have to wait for Chinooks because they're in such high demand.

It sounds like we are intending on being in Afghanistan a whole lot longer than 2009 when the first of these tanks might be several months away. First, that's good news for the military. Second, it doesn't necessarily translate into being in Afghanistan longer. The A4 is the most common version, and thus the most affordable, but the Leopard 2 is modular so they can easily upgrade it. For example: If Norway is upgrading A4s to A5s and Germany is upgrading A5s to A6s, it stands to reason that Canada can upgrade A4s to A6s. Further, with the upgrade kit available to bring the A6 up to A6M spec, they could upgrade the A4s right up to the most current version. If they have problems getting A6Ms, they may want to look for some available standard A6s and grab some upgrade kits to bring them up to A6M spec. From what I've read, the A6 already has mine protection and air conditioning. The A6M has improved mine protection, and considering that that's a major threat in Afghanistan, I can understand why they would want the best. As for extending the mission beyond 2009, it's possible, but I think you're reading too far into it. Just because they're interested in better equipment doesn't mean they plan on using it longer. The Canadian forces should have the best equipment possible regardless of whether or not Canada is even in Afghanistan. Having said that, I don't think 2009 should be carved in stone, nor should one have blind support for the mission. I think support for the mission should be contingent on three things: 1) international support and justification 2) ensuring that the forces are well equipped and supplied 3) troop morale Now let's unpack that: While there may be disagreements on how to approach the mission in Afghanistan, there is a solid consensus for the mission. There are 37 nations involved in the military operation with NATO control and UN authorization. Therefore, you have international support. As for justification, it's a response to an attack rather than a preemptive attack, and it helps Afghans in the process. Therefore, you have justification. While Canada didn't exactly go into it well equipped, which is typical if you look at Canadian involvement in conflicts historically, effort has been made to get better equipment, and that, as you point out, is continuing. If the first two conditions are met, it's likely that troop morale will be good, but if not, it's important to look at why there are problems, and address them. From what I've read, troop morale is good. If those conditions continue to be in place beyond 2009, I don't see the reason to pull the plug simply because the calendar flips to 2009. Simply going by a date and ignoring everything else is not a reasoned approach.

With loans, not handouts or tution cuts. I can't see why the loan can't be dealt with privately though. The fact that banks generally look for collateral and credit rating -- the sort of thing students don't have much of -- might be a problem.

I pay taxes... so essientially I'd be paying for my tution, my living expenses and my beer and I'm buying everyone else's beer at the same time? I am not to subsidize other adult's messed up priorities. If you're a student, I doubt you're paying much in taxes.

If that happens, it's much easier to shut down than schools that are on the other side of the border.

From your link: The enemy considers appeasement as a sign of weakness, and it only emboldens them. You need only look at how effective Pakistan has been with deal making in the provinces along the Afghan border to see that. While the British military is among the best in the world and I have a great deal of respect for them, it's the "peace deal" with the Taliban that is in error not the American preparation for spring attacks. By way of comparison, what do you think keeps crime relatively low in Canada? It would be nice to think that it's because there are so many honest citizens, but the reality is that there is a police force ready to enforce laws. People know that there are consequences to breaking laws, and generally speaking, people that are willing to break the law only do so if they think they can get away with it. Likewise, they have to make it clear to anyone wishing to undermine progress in Afghanistan that there will be consequences. To do that with credibility requires force, and if you're not willing to do that, it only gives the people that are creating the problems confidence that they can get away with it. It sounds like the Taliban hired Baghdad Bob. There are no Americans in Baghdad! Again, from your link: So, do you want them to go to fundamentalist schools in Pakistan which you have no control over, or would you rather a moderate alternative that you can keep an eye on?

Give them tanks away? Sell them to the Afgan army yes,(if they could afford them in the first place) but not give. If that was your proposal, it is cheaper to transport the tanks back to Canada. A Leopard 2, which is a $6 million dollar tank, can be had for as little as $350,000 because of Cold War surplus. How much do you think you'd get for a Leopard 1? It cost $1 million to transport each tank to Afghanistan, and it stands to reason that it would cost the same to bring them back. Would you rather spend $1 million to bring back an old tank that is due to be replaced by 2010, or spend $350,000 on a better tank?If the Afghan army is not properly eqipped and trained to do the job themselves, our troops will either have to keep doing the job for them or leave the country without completing the objective. Therefore, while a lot of money is being spent on military operations carried out by NATO forces and on development, money should also be spent on equipping the Afghan army. The US recognized this, and they're spending the bulk of the $10 billion in new funds on this. Canada is spending about $3 billion on military operations in Afghanistan and another $1 billion on development; therefore, the cost of the Leopard 1s is peanuts in comparison and it's a cost effective way to help Afghanistan. By way of comparison, Canada is trying out GPS guided rounds for Howitzers that cost $150,000 each. If a Leopard 2 can be had for $350,000, surely the cost of two GPS rounds would be equal to a Leopard 1, and once they're fired, that's it, but the tanks can help provide security even after Canadian forces are gone.

From what I've read, they have something like 60 or so Leopards left, and when I first heard that they were deploying some to Afghanistan, I thought they should have just sent all of them over. Given that Afghanistan will be the focus of Canadian military operations for the forseeable future, may as well have them there. Down the road, they could give them to the Afghan army, when they're ready, to help equip them, and buy new tanks for the Canadian military. That would also save the cost of bringing the tanks back to Canada.Training more people to use tanks and deploying more of them should translate into the government seeing the value of maintaining the capability, which is good news for the military.

You don't have to wait 3 years for surplus-equipment, and at that price, they could have picked them up at the cost of the upgrades, but the article says that they couldn't identify a need. A few months later, they sent tanks to Afghanistan....I'm aware of the plan to replace the Leopards. They wanted to replace them with Strykers, which are light armoured vehicles. From what I've read, the LAV IIIs that Canada uses as light armoured vehicles have better armour than Strykers. Why replace a tank with a vehicle that has less protection than the light armoured vehicles already in use? That's a forehead slapping moment imo.

The reason they didn't mention it is because they have mentioned it in the past. Even the CBC has reported the Dutch using Apaches. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/19/c...ii-tuesday.html The article I referred to basically argued that Canadian forces were acting too much like the Americans (typical ugly American stereotype) and that Canada should learn from the Dutch. It argued that the Dutch have the better approach because they haven't taken the kind of Casualties that Canadian forces have, and suggested that Dutch efforts to understand Afghans and work on development was the reason as if Canadians haven't done that. If the Apaches were mentioned, it would have destroyed the argument that the author was trying to make. Therefore, I would disagree with you as to the reason why the Apaches were left out. Essentially, the author wanted to put the focus on carrots rather than sticks, but it's good to have both, and the truth is that the Dutch and Canadian forces are using both.

I pointed out here that the Dutch where using the F-16 for their air support but that didn't seem to hold any sway with the people who said the F-18 was not capable and would never go overseas. That reminds me of a critic I saw on CTV commenting about the decision to send tanks. He argued that the Leopards are old, and that sending them is a bad idea because they don't have the armour that modern tanks have. First, it's not like they're going up against an army with cutting edge tanks. Second, a Leopard has better armour than the vehicles that were already in use, but they shouldn't send it because it's not good enough? What kind of logic is that?Speaking of Leopards, I just read an article about how the government is now racing to get air conditioner upgrades for them before the summer hits. They expect that the temperature inside the tanks could reach 65C without air con. That's after they just spent about $200 million on upgrades. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/29/tanks-cooling.html Canada had about 120 Leopards originally, but has about 60 left, and if they replaced them with about 100 new tanks, it would probably cost about $500 million. Abrams go for about $5 million each, and Leopard 2s can be had for much cheaper. So, the cost of all the upgrades would cover about half, or more, of the cost of just replacing them altogether. Even with the upgrades, they're only expected to remain in service until 2010. So, wouldn't it make more sense just to spend $500 million now and give the military new equipment while saving money in the long run? My guess is that newer tanks include air con too.

It's contingency planning.There are also plans to send additional M-777 Howitzers and CP-140s for surveillance. A-10s and Apache attack helicopters would probably be better for the job in Afghanistan, but Canada doesn't have those so.... Even the Dutch -- who the Globe & Mail, and subsequently many readers, praise for having a more peaceful approach -- are using Apache attack helicopters in Afghanistan. The Globe, of course, made no mention of the Dutch using Apaches in that article.

Repeating something that is false does not make it true. The Liberals deployed the troops to Kandahar not the Conservatives. If anything changed, it was when the Liberals made that decision. If you have any understanding of the significance of Kandahar, you wouldn't expect a troop deployment there to be a peace keeping mission, and indeed, the Liberals knew full well in advance that it would mean getting more involved in combat. Having said that, Afghanistan was never a peace keeping mission. According to General James Jones, the NATO commander that was in control, Afghanistan is a "Chapter 7 peace enforcement mission". There is a big difference between peace keeping and peace enforcement. With a peace enforcement mandate, neutrality isn't necessary, you don't have to be welcome by all parties involved in the conflict, and you can get involved in combat beyond basic self-defense. So no, the mandate did not change.

It's the fall of the shah, not his rise to power, that I was referring to. The US saw him as an ally, but western influence was a key part of his downfall. If the same were to happen to Musharraf with nuclear weapons in the mix, problems with the border would seem minor. Therefore, while I do think it's important to pressure Pakistan, it's a balancing act.It would be great if Pakistan would give up nuclear weapons, but that's not going to happen. I think the best way to deal with the Pakistan problem includes three things: 1) Increase security on the Afghan side of the border. Canada and the US get along great, but each country still has its own border security. Therefore, why expect Pakistan to do it all when clearly more can be done on the Afghan side? 2) Use special ops and UAVs to go after problem makers in the Pakistan provinces that the Pakistani government doesn't control. I'm not sure about special ops, but I know that UAVs have already been used in Pakistan. 3) Cracking down on the border will not make problems within Pakistan go away. Therefore, the US should make it clear, and they probably have privately, that if there is another attack and it can be traced back to Pakistan, attention will be focused on Pakistan, and it won't be the kind of attention that Pakistan wants. In other words, make it clear that it's in their own interest to get a handle on the problems in their country as a matter of self-preservation.

It's not Musharraf that should be of concern, but rather the possibility of him becoming another shah of Iran within a country that has nuclear weapons. Also, the US has already used hellfire missiles from Predator UAVs to attack targets in Pakistan.

I saw your previous post about the Canadian Action party, but didn't get around to replying to it. To be frank, to suggest that a comic is going to accurately explain economics is absurd. Further, what the Canadian Action Party isn't telling you is that they are arguing for Keynesian economics. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that they take a shot at Milton Friedman. However, John Keynes' main adversary was Friedrich von Hayek, and no, it's not about "fad economics". It's a battle of ideas that's been around a long time. I'd say that the CAP's argument is very disingenuous. If you really want to learn more about it, I would highly recommend this documentary instead: Commanding Heights It has three parts that are each divided into chapters, and you can watch the whole thing online. In total, it's about 6 hours in length. It's great to want to learn more, and the internet makes it easy to access information, but there's nothing to filter out crap. Therefore, it's important to be aware of bias, and you will not find more bias anywhere else than a political party web site.

Actually, if you re-read what I said, I called it shoddy journalism for leaning on one source. I don't care what the CBC supports; I care about facts. All the data is available on one page at CBC, which I found quickly by simply searching for "Afghanistan" on their site. So, yes, a quick check makes that information available. I already knew about the risk on the roads through other reports, but gave that link because it lists each case in a way that you can verify, yet you ignored that and jumped to a conclusion. The information is there on that page to support what I said. I think it's clear that you're more interested in trying to win an argument than doing your homework. Some people died in traffic accidents, but does that mean that their value is less than half? Of course not. I think I've made it clear in post after post that I respect the military and that I want to see everything done to minimize risk. Calling it all combat will do nothing to lower the risk, but may help to weaken support for the mission, and that's the intent isn't it? Obviously, if you have people shooting at you, there will always be risk. However, would IEDs and suicide attacks on roads be a risk for helicopters? It's better to understand problems and find methods for dealing with them in order to save lives in the future, and THAT is why I separated it the way I did, and I made that clear in that post.

They don't have to leave. They just have to keep it underfunded and undermanned just as they have from the start. The US has far more troops than any other country has in Afghanistan -- 22,000 -- and provides most of the air, logistical and medical support. When other NATO countries were bickering over who would come up with the additional 2500 troops needed, the US sent an additional 5000 troops, yet you center them out for your criticism?

Afghanistan was never a peacekeeping mission, and the US actually sent additional troops recently.

CBC lumps together combat AND attacks/explosions, but also lists reports on each case, and if you take a moment to look at it a little closer, you'll see that what I said is right. I separated combat from mine/IDE/suicide attacks for a good reason: it's possible to avoid mines/IEDs and suicide attacks through the use of something like a Chinook, or at least provide the best armour possible. Combat also implies an exchange of fire - ie that troops are able to fight back. Combat deaths are less than half of the total. So, I stand by what I said.

A lot of Americans, including politicians, believe that they should have stayed in Afghanistan instead of going to Iraq. Here is a map from CNN that shows where American troops are deployed around the world, and how many: http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/maps/wo...orld.index.html That's dated January 9, 2007. According to CNN, there are 22,000 US troops in Afghanistan. Last figure I heard for US troops in Afghanistan, which was from C-SPAN, was 18,000. So, either there is an error somewhere, and CNN's source is DOD so it's not likely that 22,000 is a mistake, or the number of US troops in Afghanistan has actually gone up. The US has nearly ten times as many troops in Afghanistan as Canada and provides air, logistical and medical support. So let's not act like they're abandoning it yet. I ask you, when you have 22,000 troops that are needed in Afghanistan and 100,000 that aren't needed in Europe, where would you get the troops from? Don't get mentally constipated over that now.

I think both of you have made inaccurate comments and replied to both in one post. Did I accuse you of having the same opinion as Catchme, or ignore what Catchme said? Nope. As for what Catchme has said since, I think it's already been covered, but at risk of being redundant: When Canadian forces are attacked from those buildings, the buildings become legitimate targets, and it's not like civilians live in them. Yes, your argument is based on terrain, and I have given links to pictures that clearly SHOW the terrain where the tanks are being used. I don't care if you live in a tank and want to talk about mountains until you're blue in the face. It's a moot point when you can clearly see -- through photos not a mental image -- that it's not an issue where they are operating. Moreover, it's the ROADS not the MOUNTAINS that are the problem. Canada doesn't have any newer versions of Leopards. Why are you not aware of this if you have so much military experience?Canada could have picked up newer versions at a dirt cheap price, but chose not to: $350,000 for a lightly used $6 million dollar tank, and they say no?As for an identified need, they didn't identify a need for Chinooks either when they got rid of them, and now they're wishing they had them. Well, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express, but I did read the Toronto Star: Here's an article about the vehicles in use.I'm also inquisitive enough to use a search engine when I want more information about something. A quick search will show that the top three tanks are considered to be the Leopard 2A6 (which IS the newest version), Challenger 2 and Abrams. The Abrams uses depleted uranium, which I'm not a fan of, and if Canada used a tank that had DU, people like Catchme would probably call it nuclear warfare. Given that Canada already uses Leopard 1s, it stands to reason that moving to the Leopard 2A6 would be a smooth transition, and therefore, a logical choice. The Challenger 2 is a newer tank that seems to be highly rated, and as far as I know, it doesn't use DU. It takes about 5 minutes with a search engine to figure this out. Surprisingly enough, you seem to have trouble debating the issue at hand so you turn to other conflicts, which is like comparing apples to oranges. Actually, it's closer to 2500. The medical facilities I referred to are the same facilities that treat wounded Canadians. It's where the Canadians that were wounded in A-10 friendly fire were treated. Go here: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...61105/20061106/ and click on "Saluting Our Soldiers" on the right hand side. In the video pop up, select: "Canada AM: Maj. James Bradley gives a tour of medical facilities in Kandahar." from the menu. They don't have to treat civilians that the Taliban wound, yet they do, and to say that their efforts make no difference is not only pessimistic, but I would say it's somewhat derogatory. The same can be said about belittling the amount of medical care they provide in an attempt to win an argument. I have no problem with the fact that we differ on that. How about you stick to speaking for yourself?Afghans don't have to think like westerners in order to want a better life than they'd have under the Taliban.