Jean_Poutine

It will be interesting to see how Harper deals with this issue. He is intelligent enough to know it is a bogus issue and that the only real solution would lower federal taxes and raise provincial taxes, however, he has set expectations in Quebec that it would be a cash transfer of some sort. Unfortunately, any significant additional cash transfer to Quebec would leave Ontario and Alberta howling. Quebec already gets almost half of the money, about $5-6 billion, from the equalization program. Now, consider that it has the second largest population, second largest city, second largest concentration of corporate headquarters and Quebec is rich in resources. I would not call that a have not province, nor would I call Ontario a have not province if it fell into some economic difficulty. In my opinion, have not provinces are provinces that don't have as much resources and/or population and/or are less developed. So how about we give Quebec the $3.9 billion for the so-called "imbalance," and scrap the equalization payment?

You can thank the Liberals for the shortage. They may have talked about adding 5000, but they cut about 22,000 in 1993. That doesn't exactly balance out does it? The military is in the process of training recruits for the additional 13,000 regular forces and 10,000 reserves that the Conservatives talked about, and despite Afghanistan, recruitment is up.

It seems like you want to believe that, but according to CBC, you're wrong. It has fluctuated from month to month. Support was actually up in November. Haven't you been reading the news? The Brits are launching an operation against the Taliban to help clear the way for development, and Canadians are involved. I'm sure assessing the situation is an ongoing process. That said, compare the amount of time in Afghanistan with the amount of time spent in Bosnia.

So you found the truth in 25 minutes of a film you won't even give us the link to?Afghanistan is not Iraq. If you want to discuss the differences, I'm more than happy to do so. The money goes to agencies such as CIDA. While people accuse Harper of focusing only on military operations, he's allocated more to development than the Liberals. Further, as you can see, not only was the military mission extended to 2009, but the PRT was too. Afghanistan - CIDA-funded projects

So, if the mission goes bad, blame the deployment to Kandahar on the Conservatives even though it was the Liberals that did it. If it goes well, take credit for what they've since been ambivalent about.

First, two of those four countries you mention make up the bulk of the forces in Afghanistan. It's funny how you leave that out. Second, I take issue with your accusation that Harper is pretending to support the forces. This government has shown more support for the forces than Canada has seen in a long time. He has:http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/11/harper-speech.html http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/21/harper-un.html It may help if he'd do it more often. However, I think reasonable people would seek to understand something before forming an opinion on it, and there is plenty of information available. All the major Canadian newspapers and networks have sections dedicated to Afghanistan: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/canada.html http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/news/SEAfghanistan.html http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...61105/20061106/ http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...60417?hub=WFive http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...d=1140433364397 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/afghanistan http://www.canada.com/topics/news/features...stan/index.html There's also lots of information and pictures available on the defence web site: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/home_e.asp http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/commo...mera/find_e.asp (just do a search on Afghanistan or Kandahar for the latest.) And Canadian army forums here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php

It's easy to cherry pick numbers and say the majority is for this or that, but let's look at it closer.First off, the BQ are self-serving rather than in the service of Canada, and that's worth keeping in mind. The province they represent is at odds with the rest of Canada: I ask you, do you think the interests/views of one province should dominate the rest of the country? That can easily be applied to other issues too.The NDP advocate peacekeeping and strengthening the UN. Peacekeeping doesn't work when there is no peace to keep, and strengthening the UN is contingent on the will of other member states. As for the Liberals, I think it's pretty clear that they'll do whatever is politically expedient. This CBC article talks about a drop in support, but if you look at the graph included, it also shows that support has gone up in June and November. In other words, it's fluctuation rather than a steady decline. More numbers from this CBC poll: Just 5% got it right. More on this later.More: This is from November, and it shows the majority approve.More: So, 53% say that it's a UN approved NATO mission, but only 5% say that's the reason why we're there? I'd say they're confused.More: So, the majority are proud and approve of the mission, yet don't think it'll be successful and want forces out before 2009? Approving of something that you don't think will be successful is somewhat contradictory. Again, I'd say they're confused.More: So 58% think there's good reason to stay, but 59% don't think we should stay. Again, I'd say they're confused.More: The majority do not think that these are good reasons to leave, and combined with the examples above, I'd argue that there's more confusion than clear opposition. The mission in Afghanistan is supported by the UN and under NATO control. While countries like France the US didn't see eye to eye on Iraq, they're working together in Afghanistan. You'll be hard pressed to find more multilateral support for a mission. Canadian troops want to be there, and Canadians should be proud of the work that they are doing. As one Canadian soldier put it, you will never reach 100% consensus. Priority number one for them, however, is not to worry about that, but to achieve their objective as safely as possible. I was reading a Globe & Mail article about Afghanistan, and a woman commented on it saying that she felt that the Liberals sent Canadians there as peacekeepers and the Conservatives turned it into a combat mission. However, the Liberals couldn't have seriously expected to do peacekeeping in the most dangerous part of the country where there is no peace to keep, and it was the Liberals that sent them there. There seems to be a disconnect for some people with regards to the fact that it was the Liberals that got Canadians more involved in combat. There also seems to be a disconnect for some people with regards to the fact that it's a NATO mission now rather than a US lead coalition. In fact, Canada was in charge until recently, and the Dutch are now in control.

I'm aware of all that, but you're comparing apples to oranges. Iraq is not the same as Afghanistan. We can go into several pages of discussion about the differences if you'd like, but for now, I'll leave it at that to keep it short.Also, the policy of regime change in Iraq started with George H.W. Bush and continued through Bill Clinton's presidency to George W. Bush. The only thing that changed was the method for achieving it. The "neo-cons" that surrounded Bush were involved in politics long before him, and advocated regime change long before he was in office. Many of the Democrats supported the Iraq war - including Hillary Clinton. So, you can focus on one man to embody all that is wrong if you like, and many people do, but it's more complicated than that. And both Jean Chrétien and John Manley expressed desire to see a swift American victory even though the goal was regime change and it didn't have UN support. We can go back and forth on this, but the important thing is that be it a Liberal or Conservative government, Canada isn't involved in the Iraq. Harper has shown an ability to take in information, evaluate it, and change his position if need be. On the other hand, Ignatieff was either too stubborn or too arrogant to do that, and it's dogged him as a result. In your opinion, and I disagree. The Liberals knew full well what to expect in Afghanistan. The Americans warned them about the challenges they'd face in Kandahar when they made the decision to deploy troops there. However, when you commit to a course of action, you don't leave people to wonder whether or not you're going to go back on your word from one day to the next. I believe that Canada should participate fully and with clarity when involved in a mission with allies. That's just being a good ally. Some say that Canada is too involved in combat and not involved enough in reconstruction, but the truth is that Canada is involved in everything. Canada is offering assistance to the Afghan government, training Afghan troops and police, involved in both reconstrution and security, and Afghanistan is the number one recipient of Canadian aid. Canadian medics also treat wounded Afghans. I'd say that's pretty comprehensive. In addition, extending the mission to 2009 brings clarity to the duration of it. In 2009, the Canadian government can review it and decide what to do next. So, what is to debate? That, like Mr. Dion says, we should concentrate on reconstruction? That's setting caveats on what we will do while involved in the mission and makes us no better than the countries we criticize. Rather than follow a bad example, it's better to set a good example. More later.... There's a lot to unpack.

I suspect that that was delivered as a joke. It was probably taking what is true in some cases, and using it as a little self deprecating humor. We should work with the Americans where it makes sense. They are our neighbors, close ally, and by far our largest trading partner. For millions of people on each side of the border, the relationship between the two countries is literally that of family or friends. So, I can understand why many want to work with Americans. That doesn't mean we should go along with everything, but some Canadians also need to get over their insecurity when it comes to the US. Here, I think one must be aware of partisan politics. For example, when the Liberals were in power, they used surplus to pay down debt, and the opposition pressured them to do other things with it. Now that the Conservatives are in power, they're using it to pay down debt, and the Liberals are pressuring them to do other things with it. The opposition party will almost always challenge the position of the party in power even if they'd do the same thing. It's the nature of the beast.However, you'll notice that he talks about inability to contribute. Canada was already in Afghanistan, and it's no secret that military options were limited thanks to cuts in the budget. Therefore, I'd argue that it was more about pressuring the party in power. Context is important. If I recall correctly, the first surplus was in 1996. The cuts he refers to in that quote were to eliminate the deficit. However, the government has since had a decade of surplus, and only years later were the Liberals willing to restore less than half of what they cut.

I'd rather vote for Paul Martin than Stephan Dion. So, it'll be the Conservatives for me.

Abolishing the Senate is a bad idea. There are people in the Senate that have no political experience, but have more experience in other areas than politicians. For example, Romeo Dallaire is a Liberal Senator that doesn't have experience as a politician, but when it comes to subjects like human rights, what he has to say would dwarf that of career politicians. Ask yourself why someone would want to get rid of that and only have the voices of politicians. To have someone like Dallaire there is money well spent IMO. I'd like to see Lewis MacKenzie in the Senate as a Conservative Senator. He has a great deal of experience that would be valuable. He knows a lot about the kind of conflicts that we're likely to face and the challenges with regards to multilateralism. This would be especially handy to have when rebuilding the military.

The Liberals were in power for nearly 13 years, and during that time, emissions went up not down. On the other hand, the Conservatives have been in power less than a year. Therefore, it's a bit premature to compare records on the environment.

It isn't just simply maintaining and supporting the Martin government's decision. It is the extension which Harper owns now. And if there is pessimism, it is Harper's job to address it. I think the vote was a good move and a strategic one. The Liberals sent Canadian forces into Afghanistan and into Kandahar. They are, however, divided on it, and people shouldn't be left to wonder how long Canada will be there. The vote brings clarity to it, and puts the Liberals that voted for it on the record in support of it. That helps bring an end to instability caused by political division. Canada will probably be in Afghanistan beyond 2009, but this gives clarity for the time being.

I wonder if Harper has yet figured out that speaking out to Canadians on Afghanistan might give him as much credibility as Bush has with the American people about Iraq. The more Harper says about Afghanistan, the more that opposition parties are likely to bring up corruption in the Karzai government, members of the government involved in drug smuggling, mullahs and Islamic courts who sentenced an Afghan man to death for converting to Christianity, Canadian forces dying for an Islamic theocracy, etc. Between Harper's militarism and declining, Bush-like credibility, and the strident and shrill attacks of Layton and Duceppe, Dion will look like the moderate, centrist that he is. Drawing comparisons between Harper and Bush, or Afghanistan and Iraq is a mistake. It's simplistic, and it certainly lends itself well to partisan bickering like the "cut and run" vs. "stay the course" debate in the US, but reality isn't so simple.

The information is scarce because it's bad and Harper would rather keep quiet than spin it and risk losing credibility as a result. The war is unwinnable and our allies are leaving us out there with our asses hanging in the breeze. We are simply the dumb ones who get to pay for it because Mr. Harper made the mistake to make Afghanistan a pet project of his and he will look bad if he changes his mind on it. That's it - we are paying billions and losing lives for optics. It's not Harper's pet project. It was Paul Martin that sent troops to Kandahar where they've been more involved in direct combat. The Conservatives have simply given them the equipment that they need to deal with the threats they face there. For example, they had problems penetrating Taliban positions with the 25mm gun on LAV IIIs, and they have to deal with attacks on convoys. So, they sent in tanks, and spent $200 million on it, which includes upgrades that are specifically for the mission. If you read reports about the tanks, you'll see that the troops are very happy to have the extra support, and that's what counts.Canada is not involved in combat at the expense of everything else as is often implied by critics. Canada is also training Afghan troops, helping the government, and involved in reconstruction and aid. Afghanistan is the number one recipient of Canadian aid. In addition, most of the people that are treated at the Canadian medical facilities there are Afghan soldiers and civilians. However, they do have the ability to kick butt if butt needs to be kicked. As for allies, understand that it's to be expected that Germany will be reluctant to get involved in fighting given the past. I'm sure German forces would like to help out, and Dallaire has called todays German forces exemplary, but it's political, and that's somewhat understandable given the past. They also have a significant number of forces involved in other missions such as Kosovo while Afghanistan is Canada's main mission. As for France, were you expecting them to lead the way? Again, I'm sure they have soldiers that are willing to help out, but the French government is another story. There are, however, allies backing up Canadian forces. The British, Americans, Dutch and Australians, to name some, are helping. In fact, Canada just handed over control to the Dutch. The problem with governments setting conditions on how their forces are used in a coaliton has always been around. It's the weakness of multilateralism. It's not because other countries have something against Canada, nor an indication that the mission in Afghanistan is unwinnable. It's just another obstacle to overcome. What certainly makes a situation unwinnable is pessimism. Canadians are proud of the nations past accomplishments, which did not come from sitting around saying that the situation is hopeless.

Most of the killing in Rwanda was done with machetes. Dallaire said he could have done the job with a few thousand soldiers, and I don't doubt it. If you put a few thousand well armed soldiers in there with a robust mandate, I'm sure people using machetes would have second thoughts pretty quickly. As they say, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Basically, the amount of force that Canada has in Afghanistan now could have prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths in Rwanda. According to Samantha Power, the killing happened at a faster rate than the holocaust, but Dallaire told the UN about the threat before it unfolded. Kofi Annan also asked over 80 countries to contribute forces. So, there's no way they can say that they were caught off guard. The mission in Rwanda failed because the UN didn't have the political will of member states, and that's the achilles' heel of multilateralism. Similar problems are popping up with the NATO mission in Afghanistan. It's critical to overcome it if multilateralism is to work. I think what clouds the Canadian prespective is what Lewis MacKenzie calls "the peace-keeping myth." Canadians have to get passed this idea that Canada is a nation of peace-keepers. Peace-keeping was created as a solution Suez Canal crisis, and it works when nations involved in a conflict want a peaceful solution. Politicians like selling it to the public because it's cheap, relatively low risk, and the idea of bringing a peaceful solution to a conflict is popular with the public. However, it's since been applied to situations where it's not appropriate, and failed miserably. If you look at the missions since the fall of the Soviet Union, for example, they are mainly internal conflicts within nations. The governments are incapable or unwilling to stop the violence, and so there is no peace to keep. Peace-keeping is one tool in the box, but not a tool for all jobs. Paul Martin recognized this in what he called "responsibility to protect". He argued that where governments fail to protect their people, others should step in. It's one thing to acknowledge it, however, and another to do something about it. You're still faced with the same problem of finding political will within multilateralism, but also the will to step into sovereign countries and do so against their will potentially. Also, as we all know, the higher the risk, the harder it is to sell to constituents. However, take Darfur for example. Approximately 400,000 have died while the government of Sudan stalled. So, would Canadians support sending troops into the area, welcome or not, and use force if necessary to save hundreds of thousands of lives, or would they prefer to sit back and watch? If put that way, I'm sure there would be more support for the use of force. In addition to acknowledging the problems and finding the poltical will to do what is necessary to deal with them, you also need the ability to respond, and that means properly funding the military. I've heard that even members of the NDP want something done about Darfur, but we're already commited to Afghanistan. Why be in a situation where we have to choose one? During the Cold War, we had 10,000 troops in Germany under NATO. Why can't we deploy half that, and either be involved in two missions simultaneously, with approximately 2500 troops in each, or about 5000 in one? Why should we struggle with troop rotation when deploying 2500 troops to one mission? The answer is that Canadians have been conditioned to believe that they are a nation of peace-keepers, and peace-keeping is cheap; therefore, the government can reduce military spending, which reduces capability. In 1993, the government cut the defence budget to 1.1% GDP, and reduced the number of people in the armed forces by about 22,000 to help eliminate the deficit. However, we've since had more than $70 billion in federal surplus, and only now are we starting to invest in the armed forces again. The Conservatives are commited to replacing old equipment, bringing troop strength back up to pre-93 levels, and as a long-term goal, bringing the defence budget back up to NATO average (2-3% GDP) where it was from 1976-1993. On this, I support them 100%. In contrast, the Liberals, under Paul Martin, promised to add 8,000 people to the armed forces, but that isn't even half of what they cut in the 90s. Going around talking about the responsibility to protect without properly funding the military is empty rhetoric.

There are the obvious reasons such as America being a close ally and a member of NATO, but the question I'd put to you is: why the opposition to working with them? Do you feel the same way about the British? Do you think that Canada is not as willing to work with the Brits as the Americans? History obviously shows that we are.

And there's the truth. It's about Quebec more than Canada. From what I've read, it's more or less evenly divided in Ontario and Alberta, but there's over 70% opposition in Quebec. With 2000 soldiers expected to leave Quebec to head over to Afghanistan next summer, it should come as no surprise that Duceppe will use this to his advantage. If, however, the Canadian government starts playing politics with the mission, it's no better than the governments of the NATO countries that are not offering the support that NATO needs. Do you want to follow their example, or do you want to set an example?I also wonder how informed these people are. The recent poll that showed a boost for the Liberals with Dion, for example, had this question: "How closely have you been following the Liberal leadership convention?" 66% of the people in the poll answered "not closely". Nice to know they're making informed decisions. Are they against the Afghanistan war because they're informed and disagree, or just because of a knee-jerk reaction to helping Americans while Bush is President? Do they pay attention to the details, or just the body count? Did they simply read the headline Canada didn't get as much support from NATO as they hoped, or did they pay attention? I, for one, watched the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. In one presentation, it was, quite accuratately in my opinion, pointed out that NATO bet the alliance on Afghanistan. If you want NATO to be a credible option for dealing with conflicts, you should do what you can to ensure it succeeds rather than joining the reticent. If NATO is not to be a credible option, and the UN certainly isn't a credible option for dealing with conflicts, then what? What multilateral option do you have? So, should Canada sit on the fence and criticize the Americans, or invest in multilateralism? If Canada were to pull troops away from combat as Dion and the Bloc would like and instead focus only on development, NATO would be short even more troops that it needs to do the job, and it would only undermine the mission further. You cannot have development without security, and you cannot have security if nobody is willing to provide it. I'm proud of the work the Canadian armed forces are doing and of the fact that Canada is stepping up to the challenge even if others are not willing to. In that sense, the approach to the mission in Afghanistan follows Canadian military history. It's not the poorly informed knee-jerk opposition to anything initiated by Bush that I would listen to, but rather what the Canadian armed forces say themselves: General says Canadians ill-informed over Afghan debate, defends mission

I'm not so sure they'll need to resort to Liberal tactics. I can honestly say that I'm a centrist. I voted for Harper in one of the two elections that he ran in. If the Liberals would move more to the center instead of the left -- specially on matters of defence -- I would consider voting for them, but Dion just pushes me to vote for the Conservatives again. If they team up with the Bloc to try to bring down the Conservatives over Afghanistan, for example, I guarantee you I will vote Conservative. In this regard, Ignatieff would have been the better choice, but he dug himself into a hole by stubbornly sticking to his position on the Iraq war. I also like the fact that both Harper and Ignatieff are outsiders. I'm sick of the usual suspects in Ottawa. Dion worked with Chretien who worked with Trudeau, etc.... It's all the same small circle of people in the Ottawa/Quebec area, yet we have a huge country and our choices in leadership should reflect that.

That's because Dion is a shift to the left, but Paul Martin tried to get votes from the NDP too.