The Manley Report

[M.Dancer]

The Crusades never got anywhere near Afghanistan. She'd have been better off in choosing another cliche and referring to our "colonialist" heritage. But never mind, I suppose one cliche is as good as another when you have no active brain matter to differentiate between the two.

Maybe she meant the Persians....they ruled for a while...or the Mongols.....or the Macedonians?

[White Doors]

Send the Greeks in!

[jdobbin]

Do you have evidence that says committees from "every single NATO country" visited Afghanistan and went to combat zones in the south? I find that highly unlikely. I would suggest that most other NATO countries could allow schoolchildren to visit for all the danger their troops are in, so that really wasn't an issue for them. For us, where rockets tend to land at the base every day, it is.

Both the National Post and the Globe and Mail reported in 2006 that Dutch, the British, the U.S., Norwegians, Germans and others have all sent legislators to Afghanistan. It has been posted here before and you have doubted it before. Harper didn't even permit a visit to Kabul to Parliamentarians. The Dutch, British and and Americans have all been in the south where their troops are. The Brits and Americans just got back. The Dutch were there in December when they decided to stay the same length of time as Canada.

Actually, from what I understand, the problem is the press is not interested in good news. Manley himself complained about that.

That may be true but Canadian reporters are often forbidden from reporting good news because of the Defence polices where no one is authorized to speak.

Oh bullshit. There is no one in the oppposition who has made any non partisan attempts at anything with regard to Afghanistan. The NDP and BQ are old-time anti-militarists who wouldn't consent to combat troops doing anything other than, perhaps, fighting the Americans. The Liberals have, under Dion, taken the position that Afghanistan is nothing more than an opportunity to score cheap political points, and have acted accordingly.

I guess if Harper wants to continue his thuggish ways on the issue, Canada will be back home in 2009. He himself says he needs support of one other party to stay till 2012.

If Dion finds anyone in his party trying to publicly say the mission is important in and of itself - as opposed to as a chance to score political points - Dion would silence him. Dion sees Afghanistan as one of his shining hopes - along with the environment - to unseat the Tories. He's being dispicably dishonest on both, but that would hardly matter to the media - much less to a party like yours.

Your party his frequently calling the Opposition supporters of terrorism. It is not going to get Harper his majority when he acts like a thug.

[M.Dancer]

That may be true but Canadian reporters are often forbidden from reporting good news because of the Defence polices where no one is authorized to speak.

That is out and out nonsense. They don't need any official to vet their stories about non military activities...indeed, It was the Globe and Mail who broke the prisoner exchange story.

I saw Greame Smith from the Globe befoe Xmas and he operates freely, goes anywhere he wished and (with the below exceptions) reports about what ever he wants.

The only caveat to the reporters job is not to report operational details, and even then they are self censoring as well as an embargo on the names of Canadians killed unti next of kin are informed.

The article below talks about embedded and no embedded journalists.

http://www.cdfai.org/bergenarticles/Oct.4....ain%20sight.pdf

[Leafless]

As far as Canada sending 1000 more troops, the problem is that it does not put any pressure on NATO to do anything. It isn't our committment that is in question, it is our allies who cheer from the sidelines.

Nato in my mind does not have to anything,as their interest are not the same as Canada's which mirror U.S. interest.

Canada is an ally of the U.S. and has a DIRECT obligation to support the U.S.

Fight on Canada and be proud.

[Army Guy]

That may be true but Canadian reporters are often forbidden from reporting good news because of the Defence polices where no one is authorized to speak.

news restrictions.

I guess i was beaten to the punch by Dancer....

I guess if Harper wants to continue his thuggish ways on the issue, Canada will be back home in 2009. He himself says he needs support of one other party to stay till 2012.

No what we need is for those in those postions of power to lay down thier petty differences and find solutions to this situation...lets remind them that everyday our soldiers are operating outside the wire and there lifes are in danger...( something that was not imprinted on thier tiny brains during thier vists)

And what the people of Canada need to do is drop this "it's a liberal war, or it's a cons war....thats bullshit it's a Canadian war, which involves or should involve all Canadians....time for us to put the remote down, and demand our government lliberal, Cons, NDP, who ever to find a solution to this nightmare....make it a Canadian solution, but find a solution fast before more of our boys and my comrads come in in an flagged drapped aluminum box.

[Army Guy]

As far as Canada sending 1000 more troops, the problem is that it does not put any pressure on NATO to do anything. It isn't our committment that is in question, it is our allies who cheer from the sidelines

No, the problem is not enough troops period...and the existing Canadian troops currently over there are covering more ground than they should, putting extra risk to our own troops....and while we are looking for answers from other nations to help us....we should be doing everything in our power to ensure our troops safety....

And it would put additional pressure on the other NATO nations, if a military the size of ours can pony up another 1000 to 1500...then we could get tough and start demanding more nations do more....Lets not forget that other reports done in the past have recommneded 25,000 extra troops were required....

[M.Dancer]

news restrictions.

I guess i was beaten to the punch by Dancer....

Tag team...ack ack

From your link

Ransom says there was no overt censorship of his pictures — but he was kept out of dangerous situations.

"There was no one looking over my shoulder saying, 'No, you can't move that picture.' As long as you're not putting Canadian soldiers' lives at risk or endangering an operation, it's fine. Good news or bad news."

[jdobbin]

That is out and out nonsense. They don't need any official to vet their stories about non military activities...indeed, It was the Globe and Mail who broke the prisoner exchange story.

I saw Greame Smith from the Globe befoe Xmas and he operates freely, goes anywhere he wished and (with the below exceptions) reports about what ever he wants.

It was on successful military operations where Smith commented on. He said it was difficult to report on good stories of military success because no one would speak with him on the record a lot of the time. All of this was reported back in November when he broke the story on detainees and people asked him why he didn't report good stories of our military. It was on CBC November 11.

http://www.cbc.ca/ourworld/index.html

You can ask him again when you see him.

[jdobbin]

Tag team...ack ack

This story was from 2003. Since Harper took over, it has been harder to get commentary even after missions.

Even when a reporter tried to a history of the JTF2 and their auirborne origins in World War 2, the information was redacted. It is in the history books about the Canadian/American unit and you can find it in the library. Heck, they even made a Hollywood movie about it. Still, DND blacked out the information on the unit. How is the World War 2 history of a unit hurt operational security?

Edited January 23, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

No, the problem is not enough troops period...and the existing Canadian troops currently over there are covering more ground than they should, putting extra risk to our own troops....and while we are looking for answers from other nations to help us....we should be doing everything in our power to ensure our troops safety....

And it would put additional pressure on the other NATO nations, if a military the size of ours can pony up another 1000 to 1500...then we could get tough and start demanding more nations do more....Lets not forget that other reports done in the past have recommneded 25,000 extra troops were required....

If Canada committed 1500 more troops I don't know that it would motivate NATO to act. I've seen no evidence to suggest that if Canada committed every unit it had whether it would make a difference to recalcitrant members.

Karzai's initial request for troops from Canada alone was something like 25,000-50,000. Imagine his surprise when he heard we didn't have anywhere near that amount in our entire Forces.

[Topaz]

Nato in my mind does not have to anything,as their interest are not the same as Canada's which mirror U.S. interest.

Canada is an ally of the U.S. and has a DIRECT obligation to support the U.S.

Fight on Canada and be proud.

Do you think the opinion of some Canadians would be different than what the government feels it should do? Do you really think most Canadians think we have a DIRECT obligation the the US, especially since Bush became Prez?

[Topaz]

If Canada committed 1500 more troops I don't know that it would motivate NATO to act. I've seen no evidence to suggest that if Canada committed every unit it had whether it would make a difference to recalcitrant members.

Karzai's initial request for troops from Canada alone was something like 25,000-50,000. Imagine his surprise when he heard we didn't have anywhere near that amount in our entire Forces.

If the next election, if the government was a majority, either for the Alliance/Conservative for the Liberals, do you think they would force mandatory military service, since we are short on personnel??? I kinda think a good maybe but not till after the election was over. IF this did happen I could see alot of problems for the government that did it.

[M.Dancer]

This story was from 2003. Since Harper took over, it has been harder to get commentary even after missions.

I heard Graeme Smith speak in December. He said no restrictions.

This...

http://www.cdfai.org/bergenarticles/Oct.4....ain%20sight.pdf

Is from 2006

You keep flailing....

Edited January 23, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Black Dog]

I think much of the Left in Canada would far rather see Al Quaeda thrive and blow up entire cities in the West rather than see George Bush win.

Al Qaeda being Godzilla and all....

[jdobbin]

I heard Graeme Smith speak in December. He said no restrictions.

This...

Is from 2006

You keep flailing....

No restrictions on non-military stuff. And just because you mention it, doesn't mean I believe it. Do you have any other citations for his talk on this?

He said he had no problems on reporting things like the history of JTF2 and the World War 2 origins?

Edited January 24, 2008 by jdobbin

[M.Dancer]

No restrictions on non-military stuff. You mentioned that. He said he had no problems on reporting things like the history of JTF2 and the World War 2 origins?

It didn't come up but I image he knows how to use libraries and achives.

Does it surprise you that JTF ( irrelevent towrds yoiur claim that CDN journalists were censored in theatre) being a formed as an anto terrorist special tactics unit has a little more security than say, the Medical Corp? Can you guess why? Perhaps for the same reasons units like the SAS or the Special Boat Squadron also have thicker layers of security?

[M.Dancer]

Do you have any other citations for his talk on this?

Globe and Mail Christmas Gala at the Carlu, me 6 rows stage right, Harry Rosen two rows behind me. He was the showcase speaker along with the publisher and Ed in Chief. Graeme was "interviewed" by the Ottawa correspondent. The served Ontario wine......

[jdobbin]

Globe and Mail Christmas Gala at the Carlu, me 6 rows stage right, Harry Rosen two rows behind me. He was the showcase speaker along with the publisher and Ed in Chief. Graeme was "interviewed" by the Ottawa correspondent. The served Ontario wine......

And he said that he had no problems getting the military to comment on good news stories that he could report that our military was involved with? This is what he said was a major difficultly in the November CBC report. He could not find people willing to speak on the record even when operational security didn't seem to be involved.

And if he can report good news stories, why doesn't he? he has been accused of dragging our soldiers good name through the mud in regards to detainees.

Edited January 24, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

It didn't come up but I image he knows how to use libraries and achives.

Does it surprise you that JTF ( irrelevent towrds yoiur claim that CDN journalists were censored in theatre) being a formed as an anto terrorist special tactics unit has a little more security than say, the Medical Corp? Can you guess why? Perhaps for the same reasons units like the SAS or the Special Boat Squadron also have thicker layers of security?

I didn't say that journalists were censored. I said they had difficulty getting official responses from the military on activities that helps explain what they do. The briefings are fewer than what the Americans do most certainly. Unfortunately, the briefings that the reporters do get are usually on casualties.

As far as JTF2, it was DND blacking out WWII documents that seemed laughable.

Edited January 24, 2008 by jdobbin

[M.Dancer]

As far as JTF2, it was DND blacking out WWII documents that seemed laughable.

It would be laughable because there are no second qworld war documents relating to the JTF.

[M.Dancer]

And he said that he had no problems getting the military to comment on good news stories that he could report that our military was involved with? This is what he said was a major difficultly in the November CBC report. He could not find people willing to speak on the record even when operational security didn't seem to be involved.

And if he can report good news stories, why doesn't he? he has been accused of dragging our soldiers good name through the mud in regards to detainees.

No he said he had no interference. No one is obliged to comment and no stories are stifles because there is no comment.

[jdobbin]

No he said he had no interference. No one is obliged to comment and no stories are stifles because there is no comment.

I guess then that he has no reason for negative military stories then. He has gotten raked over the coals by Conservative blogs as a negative reporter who refuses to print good news stories.

[M.Dancer]

.

That may be true but Canadian reporters are often forbidden from reporting good news because of the Defence polices where no one is authorized to speak.

Don't go all Dion on me.

This is what you said. You can nuance it if you want but you didn't say stories are hard to file because they can't get confirmation...you said canadians reporters are often forbidden from reporting. Either stand by or repudiate it.

[M.Dancer]

I guess then that he has no reason for negative military stories then. He has gotten raked over the coals by Conservative blogs as a negative reporter who refuses to print good news stories.

You really think he gives a crap about a blog? He's the Globe's Man in Khandahar for christ sake...he's been there for a few years....he worries more about being decapitated for allah than what some conservative nerd in his mother's basement says about him....

Edited January 24, 2008 by M.Dancer