Muddy Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 I mean really folks,this takes a lot og gall. Him and the man the Star calls the Deputy Prime Minister Michael Ignacia just this past week have been calling for Canadian troops out of combat roles. So who does he think should be the ones to attack Pakistan? Is Dion really a Hawk ? Has he been listening to George Bush? Or worse has George Bush been listening to him? Strange goings on! Quote
August1991 Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) Mr. Dion hinted NATO could take action in Pakistan, which has a porous border with Afghanistan, if the Pakistani government doesn't move to track terrorists."We are going to have to discuss that very actively if they (the Pakistanis) are not able to deal with it on their own. We could consider that option with the NATO forces in order to help Pakistan help us pacify Afghanistan," said Mr. Dion in Quebec City, commenting after his two-day trip to Afghanistan last weekend. "As long as we don't solve the problem in Pakistan, I don't see how we can solve it in Afghanistan." The Liberal leader explained that Afghan officials told him they know where the extremist strongholds are in Pakistan. But he said the Afghans don't take action. "One day, we are going to have to act because our soldiers are cleaning out some areas, but in fact very often they are only clean in principle. The insurgents go take refuge in Pakistan and they are going to come back (to Afghanistan) at the earliest opportunity. This could last very long if we don't tackle the problems that often originate from Pakistan," Mr. Dion said. National Post 16 January"We think that the military forces of Canada have a role to play after February 2009," Dion insisted in an interview with reporters at Kandahar Airfield."Even though it’s not combat, it will be for security. The difference is that you don’t proactively be in a situation to engage the enemy, you are there to help civilians to do their job to improve the development of the country of Afghanistan. You are there to train the police, train the military." Halifax Chronicle Herald 14 JanuarySo, if I understand properly, Dion wants to give orders to the troops of other countries. As a member of NATO, I guess if he were PM he'd have that right. And the members of NATO would have the right to ignore him too. "Do as I say and not as I do." Edited January 17, 2008 by August1991 Quote
Army Guy Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 Sometimes you just have to shake your head, This is the leader of the oppostion party, maybe our next PM...The liberals planned this trip to make an impression on the avg voter, But one has to ask themselfs don't you think that as part of the planning process you would atleast familiarize yourself with the subject matter....So that you could atleast make viable suggestions or comments... So if we don't have enough troops in Afgan to effectively control the whole country....(everyone even the cleaners know this fact) How could NATO possiable take on a mission that the entire Pakistan army could not handle....Add that to the fact that there is not a whole lot of NATO hands up to put more troops into Afgan's southern districts...do you think we would get any to volunteer for pakistan... Then add to that the statement " That we are pulling out of southern Afgan in 2009" out of the combat role....I'm sure as most readers here have already come to the conclusion ,that any pakistan mission would not involve us...Then why suggest it ? Again no viable plan, just the illusion "of hey it was my idea, i done my part you guys do it"... It strike me as cowardly, to suggest it then divorce yourself from it by saying Canada will not be doing any combat roles... Sounds like a typical liberal idea....The expansion of the afgan mission, but the refusal to take anything part in it. We just want to sit on the side lines and bitch about how it is being handled... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Keepitsimple Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 I can't see any other other explanation other than Dion has proven once again that he is just a naive little academic. As Army said, all you can do is shake your head. Quote Back to Basics
Ted R Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 I can't see any other other explanation other than Dion has proven once again that he is just a naive little academic. As Army said, all you can do is shake your head. :lo l: It is easy to understand Mr Dion's confusion, his traveling companion is no Einstein either. I don't mean Ignatiff I'm talking of Codere. The three of them don't make a pair. How these foreign governments must cringe at the thought of help from a trio like that. I amazes me how these dudes think they can negotiate with the likes of the Taliban. Of course the terrorists may laugh themselves into submission. Might be worth sacrificing those guys just to enlighten the rest of the "lefties"on the realities of life in the trenches. Quote
jdobbin Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) So, if I understand properly, Dion wants to give orders to the troops of other countries. As a member of NATO, I guess if he were PM he'd have that right. And the members of NATO would have the right to ignore him too. The U.S. has already indicated that they are thinking along the same lines about the Taliban in Pakistan and that they will push to intervene when it comes to chasing insurgents escaping across the border. Nice spin though that Canada is thinking of fighting a war in Pakistan. Edited January 17, 2008 by jdobbin Quote
jdobbin Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 Sounds like a typical liberal idea....The expansion of the afgan mission, but the refusal to take anything part in it.We just want to sit on the side lines and bitch about how it is being handled... It seems the Tory response is to extend the mission even though our ally says we do a poor job of it and that we don't get any assurance of being rotated to any other deployment other than the one we are in. How many years after 2012 do the Tories think we will be fighting in Afghanistan? And how many years do they think the threat will likely be from insurgents taking sanctuary across the border? Quote
Keepitsimple Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 It seems the Tory response is to extend the mission even though our ally says we do a poor job of it and that we don't get any assurance of being rotated to any other deployment other than the one we are in.How many years after 2012 do the Tories think we will be fighting in Afghanistan? And how many years do they think the threat will likely be from insurgents taking sanctuary across the border? Then I take it that you are in agreement with Dion - that Nato should seriously think of going into Pakistan. If that's the case, do you think Canada should be part of this combat force? Quote Back to Basics
weaponeer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 Then I take it that you are in agreement with Dion - that Nato should seriously think of going into Pakistan. If that's the case, do you think Canada should be part of this combat force? Canada is part of NATO. If NATO elects to go in, than we have to be there, to contribute. It would not be a desicion made lightly by NATO. As a military officer I can give my personel opinion, but many would not like it. Quote
jdobbin Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 Then I take it that you are in agreement with Dion - that Nato should seriously think of going into Pakistan. If that's the case, do you think Canada should be part of this combat force? I've said repeatedly in these forums that Pakistan is a threat but that chief U.S. ally has not put enough pressure on Pakistan to stop a mini-Taliban state from developing. Elements of the Pakistan government, specifically its Intelligence service, seem to be assisting the Taliban in fighting in Afghanistan. I think NATO has to be able to pursue insurgents into Pakistan if Pakistan won't don't it. And yes, if Canada is part of combat forces till 2009, they would be part of it. It seems that the right wing has no interest in dealing with the issue of the sanctuary on the other side of the border. Quote
margrace Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 Then I take it that you are in agreement with Dion - that Nato should seriously think of going into Pakistan. If that's the case, do you think Canada should be part of this combat force? It seems to me that it was all right for the US to use Nato to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, but it we can twist it to think that Dion thinks it might be a good idea for Packistan then that is not okay? Quote
jdobbin Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) Canada is part of NATO. If NATO elects to go in, than we have to be there, to contribute. It would not be a desicion made lightly by NATO. As a military officer I can give my personel opinion, but many would not like it. I think you are correct that a decision would not be taken lightly. Pakistan is a tinderbox right now with another bomb going off this morning. Canada cannot remain in Afghanistan without eventually doing something about the mini-Taliban state in Pakistan. It remains a short and long term problem for Afghan and Pakistan security. Seven Canadian soldiers were injured today in IED attacks. A lot of the people building or providing those weapons come from Pakistan. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories Seven Canadian soldiers suffered minor injuries in two incidents Wednesday, both involving suspected Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).The incidents mark the latest in a string of IED attacks against Canadian soldiers. Edited January 17, 2008 by jdobbin Quote
Topaz Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 I've said repeatedly in these forums that Pakistan is a threat but that chief U.S. ally has not put enough pressure on Pakistan to stop a mini-Taliban state from developing. Elements of the Pakistan government, specifically its Intelligence service, seem to be assisting the Taliban in fighting in Afghanistan.I think NATO has to be able to pursue insurgents into Pakistan if Pakistan won't don't it. And yes, if Canada is part of combat forces till 2009, they would be part of it. It seems that the right wing has no interest in dealing with the issue of the sanctuary on the other side of the border. I agree and that's one of the mistakes that the US made in Iraq, they didn't secure the borders were the freedom fighters were coming across. I wonder what the reaction would have been if McKay had said it? Quote
weaponeer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) What people have to understand here, is the Taliban. Who & what are they?? They were created by the Pakistani Intel Service, the ISI. They were created to bring stability to Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out and left the place a disaster. remember, after the Russinas pulled out an civil war broke out between all the factions that fought the Soviets. Pakistan did not want this going on on their border. Pakistan's main enemy is India on their east, they wanted a stable border on their west. The talibs are a proxy army of Pakistan much like Hezbulah is a proxy army Iran. There is no accident that they have sanctuary in the tribal regions of Pakistan.. Pakistan is a nuclear power, they have the worlds fourth largest army, they could aggressivly clear the place out if they really wanted to. Yes, they have fought the talibs in the tribal regions, perhaps they have lost control of parts of their proxy army, perhaps they sacrifice a talib unit or two for the media, this I do not know. The porblems in Afghanistan can be fixed with aggressive actions. NATO needs to hit the talibs and hit them hard, very hard. That means going into Pakistan and clearing them out whether Pakistan likes it or not. I have believed all along Pakistan was the problem, milking this to get $$ out of the west. I have done two tours over there, and my opinion is that it is not worth the life of even 1 Canadian, American or NATO soldier. If we are serious about the talibs, then our only mission should be combat!! Find them and aggressivly kill them wherever they are. Reconstruction is NOT a military function, we are warriors. Use the warriors to clear the talibs & AQ, make the place safe for the UN, NGO's & Afghan gov't to come in and fix things. If we are serious about Afghanistan, we need to go in to Pakistan and hit them hard where they live. If we do not, it means we are not serious, and we should get out. Edited January 17, 2008 by weaponeer Quote
M.Dancer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 If we are serious about Afghanistan, we need to go in to Pakistan and hit them hard where they live. If we do not, it means we are not serious, and we should get out. Hard to argue against that mainly because the logic is sound. At the same time it's a non starter withouty the full support of Pakistan. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
weaponeer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 Hard to argue against that mainly because the logic is sound. At the same time it's a non starter withouty the full support of Pakistan. I think that perhaps the USA's patience is running out. If Musharff is weakened, perhaps they may go in, at the very least covert with Spec Ops guiding in airstrikes. My point is that if you go to war, you go to win. If you believe that something is so important that you are willing to spend the lives of your troops then you have to win. Anything else is nonsense!! Quote
capricorn Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 The U.S. has already indicated that they are thinking along the same lines about the Taliban in Pakistan and that they will push to intervene when it comes to chasing insurgents escaping across the border. It's interesting that when the Conservatives "are thinking along the same lines" as the US, they are called lapdogs/poodles of the American administration. Yet, when the Liberals think like the US, a Liberal supporter will use this fact to support Liberal thinking. It begs the question, is Dion's call for taking the fight to Pakistan his original thought, or did he borrow it from US politicians? Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Army Guy Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 It seems the Tory response is to extend the mission even though our ally says we do a poor job of it and that we don't get any assurance of being rotated to any other deployment other than the one we are in.Actually the mission was extended , well before the alleged comments were made....according the man whom made the comments this week, he has said his words were taken out of context. "(Mr. Gates) called me just moments ago and said, 'look everything I said to you yesterday about respect and admiration and appreciation for what Canadian Forces are doing in Afghanistan is true'," Mr. MacKay told reporters."He expressed regret and embarrassment about those comments being in any way reflected towards our troops." Mr. MacKay said he accepted Mr. Gates' explanation that he was quoted "out of context." Comment As for any insurances, none were given, nor were none planned for, the Liberals have said we thought it was short term....they thought....but did not have it spelled out.... This is a combat mission , you stay until it is either it's down graded, or completed....Anything else is not living up to our NATO agreements.... As for kicking down pakistans door and cleaning out the Taliban taking refuge there ....thats a job for Pakistan ....not NATO, and it's not going to happen.... There are more than one way to skin a cat....Boasting NATO troop strength in the area and effectivily closing the porous border regions is the key....Can't do that without more troops....We must have a semi- secure Afgan before we decide to invade or expand our combat operations area...Not to mention the troops to do it with.... Or else all we will be doing is chasing them from one country to another.... Boast our troop strength ...cut Pakistan cash flow, until they agree to take action....make it a combined effort Pakistan troops and equipment on thier side of the border, and NATO on the AFGAN's side, and squeeze until we have taliban shit sandwichs. evryone go's home happy and thier pride intact....and Afgan gets a new lease on life... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
jdobbin Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 It's interesting that when the Conservatives "are thinking along the same lines" as the US, they are called lapdogs/poodles of the American administration. Yet, when the Liberals think like the US, a Liberal supporter will use this fact to support Liberal thinking. It begs the question, is Dion's call for taking the fight to Pakistan his original thought, or did he borrow it from US politicians? Where has anyone in the Official Opposition said that dealing with the issue of Pakistan something that the government follows U.S. policy on? It seems to me that both the Liberals and Conservatives have argued the same thing in regards to the problem of Pakistan and Hillier has been explicit about it being a problem. What I don't understand is McKay's stance when he himself has put it to Rice that the U.S. has to pressure Pakistan to do something so that NATO can deal with the problem. Dion's announcement wasn't an accusation against the government. It supported ideas the government has been proposing the last few years. Why is McKay just taking a partisan swipe? Quote
Keepitsimple Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 I've said repeatedly in these forums that Pakistan is a threat but that chief U.S. ally has not put enough pressure on Pakistan to stop a mini-Taliban state from developing. Elements of the Pakistan government, specifically its Intelligence service, seem to be assisting the Taliban in fighting in Afghanistan.I think NATO has to be able to pursue insurgents into Pakistan if Pakistan won't don't it. And yes, if Canada is part of combat forces till 2009, they would be part of it. It seems that the right wing has no interest in dealing with the issue of the sanctuary on the other side of the border. So you would encourage NATO to go into Pakistan. And for example, if they manged to actually get approval for a mission in say, August - you would be OK with Canada going into combat as part of NATO but you would withdraw all combat forces 6 months later, in February, 2009. Is that right? And let me get this other point straight - the war-mongering right wing of Bush and Harper don't want to go into Pakistan....but Dion and the Left wingnuts want to take a sovereign Pakistan by storm? Quote Back to Basics
jdobbin Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) Actually the mission was extended , well before the alleged comments were made....according the man whom made the comments this week, he has said his words were taken out of context. I was referring to the Conservative policy of extending the mission to 2012. As for any insurances, none were given, nor were none planned for, the Liberals have said we thought it was short term....they thought....but did not have it spelled out.... This is a combat mission , you stay until it is either it's down graded, or completed....Anything else is not living up to our NATO agreements....As for kicking down pakistans door and cleaning out the Taliban taking refuge there ....thats a job for Pakistan ....not NATO, and it's not going to happen.... There are more than one way to skin a cat....Boasting NATO troop strength in the area and effectivily closing the porous border regions is the key....Can't do that without more troops....We must have a semi- secure Afgan before we decide to invade or expand our combat operations area...Not to mention the troops to do it with.... Or else all we will be doing is chasing them from one country to another.... Boast our troop strength ...cut Pakistan cash flow, until they agree to take action....make it a combined effort Pakistan troops and equipment on thier side of the border, and NATO on the AFGAN's side, and squeeze until we have taliban shit sandwichs. evryone go's home happy and thier pride intact....and Afgan gets a new lease on life... Where did the Liberals say it was short term? What are you citing here? As for our NATO obligations, they are not open ended. Even the Tory one has a deadline although they want to extend it to 2012. Pakistan is not doing the job of closing the border. Our NATO allies have been very reluctant to deliver more troops. We are hearing about deployments now but we have been begging for our allies to step for a very long time. And even if we secure the border and eventually get Afghan forces strong enough to take care of their own country, the issue of Pakistan will not go away. The Taliban on the other side will be a long term threat. Edited January 17, 2008 by jdobbin Quote
jdobbin Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) So you would encourage NATO to go into Pakistan. And for example, if they manged to actually get approval for a mission in say, August - you would be OK with Canada going into combat as part of NATO but you would withdraw all combat forces 6 months later, in February, 2009. Is that right? And let me get this other point straight - the war-mongering right wing of Bush and Harper don't want to go into Pakistan....but Dion and the Left wingnuts want to take a sovereign Pakistan by storm? You keep getting it all wrong. NATO is not going to war with Pakistan. For some time people in NATO and in the U.S. have been advocating the pursuit of insurgents across the border rather than stopping and letting them regroup and come back. They want Pakistan's authority to act where they won't or can't. Edited January 17, 2008 by jdobbin Quote
weaponeer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 You keep getting it all wrong. NATO is not going to war with Pakistan. For some time people in NATO and in the U.S. have been advocating the pursuit of insurgents across the border rather than stopping and letting them regroup and come back. They want Pakistan's authority to act where they won't or can't. I have no doubt that western forces have crossed the border into Pakistan. Spec Ops types. If we are serious about Afghanistan we have to do something about Pakistan. Enough goofing around is enough, it is costing good NATO solidiers their lives to piss around with Musharuff. Why not enlist India's help in this, they have an interest in a stable, democratic Pakistan on their border... Quote
capricorn Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 Where has anyone in the Official Opposition said that dealing with the issue of Pakistan something that the government follows U.S. policy on? I did not say the Liberal party said that. You did in post #6: "The U.S. has already indicated that they are thinking along the same lines about the Taliban in Pakistan " Does this make Dion Bush's lapdog? Dion's announcement wasn't an accusation against the government. That's for sure. Dion's new foreign policy would take us into a whole new direction. This will come back to haunt him. I wonder what influence the Deputy Leader had on hatching this newfangled policy? It supported ideas the government has been proposing the last few years. Do you have a source for this? Thanks. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
jdobbin Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 I did not say the Liberal party said that. You did in post #6:"The U.S. has already indicated that they are thinking along the same lines about the Taliban in Pakistan " That's for sure. Dion's new foreign policy would take us into a whole new direction. This will come back to haunt him. I wonder what influence the Deputy Leader had on hatching this newfangled policy? Do you have a source for this? Thanks. I don't think Dion or the Opposition have referred to anyone being a lapdog on the issue of Pakistan. Do you have a cite for that? Back in December, there was plenty of talk of NATO having to be involved in Pakistan if Pakistan cannot or will not stop insurgents. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...b=SEAfghanistan Plunged into chaos after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, NATO troops may soon be working double duty in the lawless border region between Pakistsan and Afghanistan.Until now, the 41,700-strong NATO force fighting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan has relied heavily on Pakistan's help to control the flow of insurgents over the lawless border between the two countries. Prolonged instability following Thursday's assassination of the former prime minister could leave NATO's already strained forces with more responsibility in the dangerous region, says a former Canadian high commissioner to Pakistan. "If the Pakistani government is occupied with trying to stay afloat, it will be much less concerned with the Taliban and the people in the tribal areas," Louis Delvoie, a former Canadian diplomat in Pakistan, told CTV.ca. "For Canadians operating in Kandahar province, the solution is not going to come from Pakistan." McKay went to Pakistan last year to push for better border controls and didn't get very far. Canada's military must prepare for a worst-case scenario, said Braun, something that may eventually involve pushing into Pakistan itself."At some point, NATO might have no choice but to act in a trans-border fashion in Pakistan in order to protect the emerging democracy in Afghanistan and to protect its own forces," he said. That, however, would involve an increase in troops -- a long, labourious process that involves parliamentary approval and months of politics. As far as MacKenzie is concerned, the current situation is only one of many worthwhile reasons that NATO countries should dedicate more troops to Afghanistan. There has been substantial talk in Britain and the U.S. about pursuing Taliban across the border into Pakistan. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/200...4759772-ap.html So far Canada has supported interdiction at the border of both Pakistan and Iran. But there has been quite a lot of talk on the regional nature of the fight and how to deal with it. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...k=69919&p=2 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.