jdobbin Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories The total cost of Canada's mission in Afghanistan will balloon to more than $18.1 billion by 2011, according to a comprehensive report made public by Canada's parliamentary budget officer.The cost amounts to about $1,500 for every Canadian household, Kevin Page said at press conference in Ottawa on Thursday morning. Yeesh. $1500 for a war that might not be resolved in the end. It is certainly a lot higher than the Tories thought. I still think Harper will go back on his word about ending Canada's large commitment. The promise has as much weight as his fixed election dates or promise not to end income trusts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 I still think Harper will go back on his word about ending Canada's large commitment. The promise has as much weight as his fixed election dates or promise not to end income trusts. I think Dion will keep his word about raising my taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStoriesYeesh. $1500 for a war that might not be resolved in the end. It is certainly a lot higher than the Tories thought. I still think Harper will go back on his word about ending Canada's large commitment. The promise has as much weight as his fixed election dates or promise not to end income trusts. How is this higher that what Harper said? He said about $8b to date. The finding was between $7.7b and $10b to date over six years. And remind me again who was in power for most of those 6 years? And who voted with the CPC to join the mission and also extend it? Again, nothing to see here, folks. Edited October 9, 2008 by Jobu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
independent Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStoriesYeesh. $1500 for a war that might not be resolved in the end. It is certainly a lot higher than the Tories thought. I still think Harper will go back on his word about ending Canada's large commitment. The promise has as much weight as his fixed election dates or promise not to end income trusts. Canada does not have the equipment too be involved in the type of war going on in Afghanistan. The money invested too fight the battle their comes far short of what is needed too get the job done. If Canada is going to get involved in those kind of battles money should not come into play. We should not be sending troops to war ill prepared. The job that they did is a testament too how good our soldiers are. Canada had a good reputation as a peace keeping nation and should have stuck too that role. We should define the role that Canada is to take and stick too that role. If you try doing too many things you do not do anything well. What we need is an all party agreement with all politics thrown aside. It is my hope that all of the parties are being honest about our role in Afghanistan and are not taking a stand for political gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Billions of bucks eh? Wonder who got all that cash? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seabee Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Less than a week before the election, Harper has a lot of convincing explanations to give. Probably he should now forget forming a majority government, or maybe even a minority won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Canada does not have the equipment too be involved in the type of war going on in Afghanistan. Beg to differ...what equipment do you suggest we need? The money invested too fight the battle their comes far short of what is needed too get the job done. I agree. Lets give them more. If Canada is going to get involved in those kind of battles money should not come into play. Umm....? Canada had a good reputation as a peace keeping nation and should have stuck too that role. We have an even better reputation as fighters It is my hope that all of the parties are being honest about our role in Afghanistan and are not taking a stand for political gain. From your mouth to Layton's and Dion's ears Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Canada does not have the equipment too be involved in the type of war going on in Afghanistan. The money invested too fight the battle their comes far short of what is needed too get the job done. If Canada is going to get involved in those kind of battles money should not come into play. We should not be sending troops to war ill prepared. The job that they did is a testament too how good our soldiers are. As far as ground equipment goes we are one of the best equiped forces there....believe it or not i'd say the Dutch have the best gear.... The only gear we lack is air power be it helo or fast air....other than that we do more than hold our own on the battle field, but actually are the go to guys when it comes to coming to the rescue, of lighter equiped forces within the coalition.... Canada had a good reputation as a peace keeping nation and should have stuck too that role. We should define the role that Canada is to take and stick too that role. If you try doing too many things you do not do anything well. What we need is an all party agreement with all politics thrown aside. It is my hope that all of the parties are being honest about our role in Afghanistan and are not taking a stand for political gain. You make it sound like we still don't have a good repution as peace keepers....But lets be honest with each other anyone can peacekeep, what makes a good peacekeeper is a good warfighter. you want a military of peacekeepers , recruit the gaurdian angels...you want someone that can defend the nation, then recruit soldiers. Who's primary job is to close with and destroy the enemy....peacekeeping is a side job much like responding to national diasters, forrest fires and floods, it's something we do because we have the training and equipment to do it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 How is this higher that what Harper said? He said about $8b to date. The finding was between $7.7b and $10b to date over six years.And remind me again who was in power for most of those 6 years? And who voted with the CPC to join the mission and also extend it? Again, nothing to see here, folks. Yes, move along...don't mind the fact that the Tories now manage the war and that NATO says it is not winnable with the present strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Yes, move along...don't mind the fact that the Tories now manage the war and that NATO says it is not winnable with the present strategy. Your solution is...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) Your solution is...? Since we don't get nearly enough support from our allies and from the Afghan government, I suggest that Canada withdraws according to schedule. It took the Tories nearly three years to get heavy lift helicopters to the troops. That was not early good enough. That would have prevented quite a few casualties that have happened under the Liberals but especially under Tory management of the war. Too bad Mulroney sold them to the Dutch. They probably wave to Canadians each time they fly over them. In the end though, the issue of Pakistan won't go away. Afghanistan cannot be stable long into the future when it has a Taliban controlled state in the provinces along its border. I suggest that Canada plan for a rapid deployment force to deal with threats to Canadian security and extract itself from Afghanistan lest it wants to be there for decades with no prospect for peace. Edited October 9, 2008 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Beg to differ...what equipment do you suggest we need? Hover bicycles. Lots and lots of hover bicycles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Hover bicycles. Lots and lots of hover bicycles. And moon boots...you can never have too many moon boots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Since the guy in charge of going this couldn't get all the information he needed I say it's costing more alot more. I did see a piece last fall and then it said it was costing 500mil per day. The US is spending 1 Bil a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Since we don't get nearly enough support from our allies and from the Afghan government, I suggest that Canada withdraws according to schedule. In other words, your party has the same game plan as the tories. And yet yours is better for some reason... It took the Tories nearly three years to get heavy lift helicopters to the troops. That was not early good enough.They haven't even been in power three years. You guys first sent the CAF over to Afghanistan in 2002. And you never even developed any PLANS to buy helicopters - not even a plan to ask people their opinions on what helicopter you should buy. That would have prevented quite a few casualties that have happened under the Liberals but especially under Tory management of the war. Too bad Mulroney sold them to the Dutch. They probably wave to Canadians each time they fly over them. Mulroney was 13 years ago, and as I recall he had plans to buy helicopters - you might have heard of them, but your party said helicopters were a luxury Canadian military people didn't need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) Yes, move along...don't mind the fact that the Tories now manage the war and that NATO says it is not winnable with the present strategy. And especially never mind the fact the Liberals sent us there, underfunded the military to the point where soldiers died because of lack of equipment, and now plan to keep them there for another three years - while cutting military spending so they can devote more money to the arts. Remember when Dion cried out how hard it was to "make priorities"? Did we realize then just how bad it was for him? That he's willing to shortchange troops in the field in combat so he can devote more money to violins and sonnets about moonbeams shows his priorities are about as bad as they get. Edited October 9, 2008 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitch Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 get the job done What does this mean? What does it mean to get the job done? Why are our troops in Afghanistan anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 (edited) In other words, your party has the same game plan as the tories. And yet yours is better for some reason... The Liberals set a deadline. Harper has the same plan as the Liberals. The only problem is that Harper goes back on his word on fixed terms. They haven't even been in power three years. You guys first sent the CAF over to Afghanistan in 2002. And you never even developed any PLANS to buy helicopters - not even a plan to ask people their opinions on what helicopter you should buy.Mulroney was 13 years ago, and as I recall he had plans to buy helicopters - you might have heard of them, but your party said helicopters were a luxury Canadian military people didn't need. We had helicopters. Mulroney sold them. The Dutch use them now. The choppers he sold were not to be replaced under his purchase plan. The helicopters he was buying were for other areas. Edited October 10, 2008 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.