2011 Afghanistan and more LIES

[William Ashley]

So there isn't going to be a withdrawl from Afghanistan in 2011 unless the government changes and parliament decides to do an emergency evacuation.

Only 1/2 of the personnel are being secheduled to be withdrawn in time to meet the deadline.

Meanwhile NATO forces are being upped to 150,000, why you may ask?

None the less it is a lie that Canada is withdrawling in 2011, a complete lie!

Billions of Taxpayer dollars are being poured down the drain for an operation with no clear objective, other than build a nation, while Canada festers in debt and decline under the cons.

[Smallc]

A link would be helpful. The military, as far as I've heard, is making plans for a total withdrawal.

[William Ashley]

A link would be helpful. The military, as far as I've heard, is making plans for a total withdrawal.

As far as I've heard the making plans stage is over. It will already be to late to make plans in June, the operation has to be starting before the summer, which requires booking and purchasing. The longer the wait the higher the costs.

I can provide a link but it won't be very useful.

Also if sea lift is involved ships need to move.

From what I've heard there is overland and limited military airlift.

The operation is overbudgetted and being poorly administered, imo.

When are soilders tours set to expire?

What is the PRT, is it really civilian only?

Where are the assurance from a foreign country to provide security?

Surely this must all be hush hush, none the less the last report I have read clearly stated only about 1/2 of soilders are scheduled to be removed in time, and a large block of equipment isn't being moved.

BUT before parliament it was stated ALL EQUIPMENT AND ALL SOILDERS... ok, well if this isn't the case then where are the bookings, where are the moving ships? Where are the storage facilities?

You might also want to ask questions like are civlians REALLY civilians - we just heard about 8 CIA agents exercising in a gym - or 4 agents and 4 civilians - are the CIA really civilians? Last i heard the CIA recruits from the US military?

Hopefully NATO's plan for afghanistan is atleast 4 months ahead in planning and operational guidelines.. afterall you'd think they'd have a reason to have 150,000 troops in the country...

how long is this occupation going to be supported? Is Canada really at war? If so, with who?

Edited January 1, 2010 by William Ashley

[Keepitsimple]

I can provide a link but it won't be very useful.

Why would a link not be useful? Either it supports your story or it doesn't. Let's have it......or are you just making it up as you go along?

Edited January 1, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[ironstone]

So there isn't going to be a withdrawl from Afghanistan in 2011 unless the government changes and parliament decides to do an emergency evacuation.

Only 1/2 of the personnel are being secheduled to be withdrawn in time to meet the deadline.

Meanwhile NATO forces are being upped to 150,000, why you may ask?

None the less it is a lie that Canada is withdrawling in 2011, a complete lie!

Billions of Taxpayer dollars are being poured down the drain for an operation with no clear objective, other than build a nation, while Canada festers in debt and decline under the cons.

It wasn't the "Cons" that sent them there in the first place.Bet you didn't know that.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It wasn't the "Cons" that sent them there in the first place.Bet you didn't know that.

I knew it. I also know that it is only combat operations that will cease, not all of our involvement in Afghanistan.

[Army Guy]

William have you been watching the news at all....most of your questions have already been covered.....

[William Ashley]

Why would a link not be useful? Either it supports your story or it doesn't. Let's have it......or are you just making it up as you go along?

I don't see this going anywhere.

One place to look is - how does the PRT which the Defence minister states will stay function without its military element, currently PRT includes

"diplomats, corrections experts, development specialists, the Canadian police, including the RCMP, and the military."

Also it has been stated by the Cheif of Operations that equipment will be left. Given to allies, and the Aghans, yet no mention of equipment being left for the PRT- who is funding this - what type of equipment do RCMP and military elements need - what are they there doing?

There is a clear contradiction between the cheif of defence and minister of defence.

Who is telling the truth? Obviously conflicting opinions shouldn't exist.

for example

http://news.globaltv.com/world/Kandahar+consensus+sees+post+2011+role+Canada/2330978/story.html

The quote of planning for withdrawl until next christmas is Actually false, heavy load equipment is relatively scarce and bookings may need to be booked well in advance - especially if Canada plans on withdrawling troops when the US does (is suppose to start their troop withdrawls)- reducing availability, also costs will increase as logistic factors become more complext based on weather conditions, and other factors.

What exactly is the budget providing for the withdrawl - is the DND expected to handle the withdrawl with regular operating budget or is parliament allocating funding for the withdrawl?

What about resupply logistics - are factors such as supply evaporation being taken into consideration rather than leaving supplies.

If medical facilities are staying until after july 2011 - are doctors and medical staff? isn't every member of the Canadian forces a soilder when needed? Who is watching all the expensive equipment left behind - unarmed soilders surely that isn't every Canadian soilder?

Either the cheif of defence staff is lying or there are factors that arn't known such as which of his imaginary friends are watching all that equipment left behind after the pullout date?

What about all those leased tanks? Helicopters, etc..? Are the millions and millions of dollars just a write off? So much for modernization of the ill equiped Canadian forces.

Edited January 2, 2010 by William Ashley

[Army Guy]

I don't see this going anywhere.

One place to look is - how does the PRT which the Defence minister states will stay function without its military element, currently PRT includes

"diplomats, corrections experts, development specialists, the Canadian police, including the RCMP, and the military."

Also it has been stated by the Cheif of Operations that equipment will be left. Given to allies, and the Aghans, yet no mention of equipment being left for the PRT- who is funding this - what type of equipment do RCMP and military elements need - what are they there doing?

There is a clear contradiction between the cheif of defence and minister of defence.

Who is telling the truth? Obviously conflicting opinions shouldn't exist.

Both are, The last orders the military received,was our Countries military operations would cease in 2011, Our government still has not decided on what foot print we are as a nation going to have in AFghan, in order for the CDS to accomplish his last orders he has to make massive plans well in advance he is trying to make the government tell him what thier future plans will be....

What exactly is the budget providing for the withdrawl - is the DND expected to handle the withdrawl with regular operating budget or is parliament allocating funding for the withdrawl?

Who knows but DND has payed for the brunt of this mission and i can`t see it changing any time soon, hence why the military is trying so hard to get further orders from our government, so it can come up with a cost...

What about resupply logistics - are factors such as supply evaporation being taken into consideration rather than leaving supplies.

If medical facilities are staying until after july 2011 - are doctors and medical staff? isn't every member of the Canadian forces a soilder when needed? Who is watching all the expensive equipment left behind - unarmed soilders surely that isn't every Canadian soilder?

What about all those leased tanks? Helicopters, etc..? Are the millions and millions of dollars just a write off? So much for modernization of the ill equiped Canadian forces.

Equipment is going to be left behind, as it would cost more to ship it than to bring it home, remember alot of that equipment is pretty much worn out, the newer stuff will return with then troops ....Just one point to remember that the Kanadar base is very vast, bigger than any one here in Canada so security is not an issue.

[William Ashley]

It wasn't the "Cons" that sent them there in the first place.Bet you didn't know that.

Who voted for them to go..

bet you drank away far too many brain cells.

The Canadian commitment was originally planned to last to October 2003. not 2011

That, whereas,

this House recognizes the important contribution and sacrifice of Canadian Forces and Canadian civilian personnel as part of the UN mandated, NATO-led mission deployed in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan;

this House believes that Canada must remain committed to the people of Afghanistan beyond February 2009;

this House takes note that in February 2002, the government took a decision to deploy 850 troops to Kandahar to join the international coalition that went to Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and that this deployment lasted for six months at which time the troops rotated out of Afghanistan and returned home;

this House takes note that in February 2003 the government took a decision that Canada would commit 2000 troops and lead for one year, starting in the summer of 2003, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul and at the end of the one-year commitment, Canada's 2000 troop commitment was reduced to a 750-person reconnaissance unit as Canada's NATO ally, Turkey, rotated into Kabul to replace Canada as the lead nation of the ISAF mission;

this House takes note that in August 2005, Canada assumed responsibility of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar province which included roughly 300 Canadian Forces personnel;

this House takes note that the government took a decision to commit a combat Battle Group of roughly 1200 troops to Kandahar for a period of one year, from February 2006 to February 2007;

this House takes note that in January 2006, the government participated in the London Conference on Afghanistan which resulted in the signing of the Afghanistan Compact which set out benchmarks and timelines until the end of 2010 for improving the security, the governance and the economic and social development of Afghanistan;

this House takes note that in May 2006, Parliament supported the government's two year extension of Canada's deployment of diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan and the provision of funding and equipment for this extension;

this House welcomes the Report of the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan, chaired by the Honourable John Manley, and recognizes the important contribution its members have made;

this House takes note that it has long been a guiding principle of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan that all three components of a comprehensive government strategy - defence, diplomacy and development - must reinforce each other and that the government must strike a balance between these components to be most effective;

this House takes note that the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure and to create the necessary space and conditions to allow the Afghans themselves to achieve a political solution to the conflict; and

this House takes note that in order to achieve that aim, it is essential to assist the people of Afghanistan to have properly trained, equipped and paid members of the four pillars of their security apparatus: the army, the police, the judicial system and the corrections system;

therefore,

it is the opinion of this House that Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to July 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, and that the military mission shall consist of:

(a) training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole;

( providing security for reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar; and

© the continuation of Canada's responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team;

And it is the opinion of this House that, consistent with this mandate, this extension of Canada's military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:

(a) NATO secure a battle group of approximately 1000 to rotate into Kandahar (operational no later than February 2009);

( to better ensure the safety and effectiveness of the Canadian contingent, the government secure medium helicopter lift capacity and high performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009; and

© the government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, and, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011;

And it is the opinion of this House that the government of Canada, together with our allies and the government of Afghanistan, must set firm targets and timelines for the training, equipping and paying of the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, the members of the judicial system and the members of the correctional system;

And it is the opinion of this House that Canada's contribution to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan should:

(a) be revamped and increased to strike a better balance between our military efforts and our development efforts in Afghanistan;

( focus on our traditional strengths as a nation, particularly through the development of sound judicial and correctional systems and strong political institutions on the ground in Afghanistan and the pursuit of a greater role for Canada in addressing the chronic fresh water shortages in the country;

© address the crippling issue of the narco-economy that consistently undermines progress in Afghanistan, through the pursuit of solutions that do not further alienate the goodwill of the local population; and

(d) be held to a greater level of accountability and scrutiny so that the Canadian people can be sure that our development contributions are being spent effectively in Afghanistan;

And it is the opinion of this House that Canada should assert a stronger and more disciplined diplomatic position regarding Afghanistan and the regional players, including support for the naming of a special envoy to the region who could both ensure greater coherence in all diplomatic initiatives in the region and also press for greater coordination amongst our partners in the UN in the pursuit of common diplomatic goals in the region;

And it is the opinion of this House that the Government should provide the public with franker and more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan, offering more assessments of Canada's role and giving greater emphasis to the diplomatic and reconstruction efforts as well as those of the military and, for greater clarity, the Government should table in Parliament detailed reports on the progress of the mission in Afghanistan on a quarterly basis;

And it is the opinion of this House that the House of Commons should strike a special Parliamentary committee on Afghanistan which would meet regularly with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and National Defence and other senior officials and that the House should authorize travel by the special committee to Afghanistan and the surrounding region so that the special committee can make frequent recommendations on the conduct and progress of our efforts in Afghanistan;

And it is the opinion of this House that the special Parliamentary Committee on Afghanistan should review the laws and procedures governing the use of operational and national security exceptions for the withholding of information from Parliament, the Courts and the Canadian people with those responsible for administering those laws and procedures, to ensure that Canadians are being provided with ample information on the conduct and progress of the mission;

And it is the opinion of this House that with respect to the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities, the Government must:

(a) commit to meeting the highest NATO and international standards with respect to protecting the rights of detainees, transferring only when it believes it can do so in keeping with Canada's international obligations;

( pursue a NATO-wide solution to the question of detainees through diplomatic efforts that are rooted in the core Canadian values of respect for human rights and the dignity of all people; and

© commit to a policy of greater transparency with respect to its policy on the taking of and transferring of detainees including a commitment to report on the results of reviews or inspections of Afghan prisons undertaken by Canadian officials;

And it is the opinion of this House that the government must commit to improved interdepartmental coordination to achieve greater cross-government coherence and coordination of the government's domestic management of our commitment to Afghanistan, including the creation of a full-time task force which is responsible directly to the Prime Minister to lead these efforts.

Edited January 2, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

Who voted for them to go..

bet you drank away far too many brain cells.

The Canadian commitment was originally planned to last to October 2003. not 2011

That, whereas,

this House recognizes the important contribution and sacrifice of Canadian Forces and Canadian civilian personnel as part of the UN mandated, NATO-led mission deployed in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan;

this House believes that Canada must remain committed to the people of Afghanistan beyond February 2009;

this House takes note that in February 2002, the government took a decision to deploy 850 troops to Kandahar to join the international coalition that went to Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and that this deployment lasted for six months at which time the troops rotated out of Afghanistan and returned home;

this House takes note that in February 2003 the government took a decision that Canada would commit 2000 troops and lead for one year, starting in the summer of 2003, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul and at the end of the one-year commitment, Canada's 2000 troop commitment was reduced to a 750-person reconnaissance unit as Canada's NATO ally, Turkey, rotated into Kabul to replace Canada as the lead nation of the ISAF mission;

this House takes note that in August 2005, Canada assumed responsibility of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar province which included roughly 300 Canadian Forces personnel;

this House takes note that the government took a decision to commit a combat Battle Group of roughly 1200 troops to Kandahar for a period of one year, from February 2006 to February 2007;

this House takes note that in January 2006, the government participated in the London Conference on Afghanistan which resulted in the signing of the Afghanistan Compact which set out benchmarks and timelines until the end of 2010 for improving the security, the governance and the economic and social development of Afghanistan;

this House takes note that in May 2006, Parliament supported the government's two year extension of Canada's deployment of diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan and the provision of funding and equipment for this extension;

this House welcomes the Report of the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan, chaired by the Honourable John Manley, and recognizes the important contribution its members have made;

this House takes note that it has long been a guiding principle of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan that all three components of a comprehensive government strategy - defence, diplomacy and development - must reinforce each other and that the government must strike a balance between these components to be most effective;

this House takes note that the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure and to create the necessary space and conditions to allow the Afghans themselves to achieve a political solution to the conflict; and

this House takes note that in order to achieve that aim, it is essential to assist the people of Afghanistan to have properly trained, equipped and paid members of the four pillars of their security apparatus: the army, the police, the judicial system and the corrections system;

therefore,

it is the opinion of this House that Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to July 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, and that the military mission shall consist of:

(a) training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole;

( providing security for reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar; and

© the continuation of Canada's responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team;

And it is the opinion of this House that, consistent with this mandate, this extension of Canada's military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:

(a) NATO secure a battle group of approximately 1000 to rotate into Kandahar (operational no later than February 2009);

( to better ensure the safety and effectiveness of the Canadian contingent, the government secure medium helicopter lift capacity and high performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009; and

© the government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, and, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011;

And it is the opinion of this House that the government of Canada, together with our allies and the government of Afghanistan, must set firm targets and timelines for the training, equipping and paying of the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, the members of the judicial system and the members of the correctional system;

And it is the opinion of this House that Canada's contribution to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan should:

(a) be revamped and increased to strike a better balance between our military efforts and our development efforts in Afghanistan;

( focus on our traditional strengths as a nation, particularly through the development of sound judicial and correctional systems and strong political institutions on the ground in Afghanistan and the pursuit of a greater role for Canada in addressing the chronic fresh water shortages in the country;

© address the crippling issue of the narco-economy that consistently undermines progress in Afghanistan, through the pursuit of solutions that do not further alienate the goodwill of the local population; and

(d) be held to a greater level of accountability and scrutiny so that the Canadian people can be sure that our development contributions are being spent effectively in Afghanistan;

And it is the opinion of this House that Canada should assert a stronger and more disciplined diplomatic position regarding Afghanistan and the regional players, including support for the naming of a special envoy to the region who could both ensure greater coherence in all diplomatic initiatives in the region and also press for greater coordination amongst our partners in the UN in the pursuit of common diplomatic goals in the region;

And it is the opinion of this House that the Government should provide the public with franker and more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan, offering more assessments of Canada's role and giving greater emphasis to the diplomatic and reconstruction efforts as well as those of the military and, for greater clarity, the Government should table in Parliament detailed reports on the progress of the mission in Afghanistan on a quarterly basis;

And it is the opinion of this House that the House of Commons should strike a special Parliamentary committee on Afghanistan which would meet regularly with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and National Defence and other senior officials and that the House should authorize travel by the special committee to Afghanistan and the surrounding region so that the special committee can make frequent recommendations on the conduct and progress of our efforts in Afghanistan;

And it is the opinion of this House that the special Parliamentary Committee on Afghanistan should review the laws and procedures governing the use of operational and national security exceptions for the withholding of information from Parliament, the Courts and the Canadian people with those responsible for administering those laws and procedures, to ensure that Canadians are being provided with ample information on the conduct and progress of the mission;

And it is the opinion of this House that with respect to the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities, the Government must:

(a) commit to meeting the highest NATO and international standards with respect to protecting the rights of detainees, transferring only when it believes it can do so in keeping with Canada's international obligations;

( pursue a NATO-wide solution to the question of detainees through diplomatic efforts that are rooted in the core Canadian values of respect for human rights and the dignity of all people; and

© commit to a policy of greater transparency with respect to its policy on the taking of and transferring of detainees including a commitment to report on the results of reviews or inspections of Afghan prisons undertaken by Canadian officials;

And it is the opinion of this House that the government must commit to improved interdepartmental coordination to achieve greater cross-government coherence and coordination of the government's domestic management of our commitment to Afghanistan, including the creation of a full-time task force which is responsible directly to the Prime Minister to lead these efforts.

"

a) commit to meeting the highest NATO and international standards with respect to protecting the rights of detainees, transferring only when it believes it can do so in keeping with Canada's international obligations; "

Multiple operational continuations you think there is no blood on the hands of the Cons? Think again, not only did they willingly send them they failed parliament specifically with a.)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/12/15/afghan-committee-boycott.html

Edited January 2, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

William have you been watching the news at all....most of your questions have already been covered.....

I troll the news. All signs point to Cheif of Defence Staff is lying.

All signs point to the CONS want to keep them there.

Edited January 2, 2010 by William Ashley

[Army Guy]

I troll the news. All signs point to Cheif of Defence Staff is lying.

Keep trolling....Why would DND be taking action to return if there was no real pullout.... Ask yourself this question has the government answered any of your questions, have they stated what their future plans are, in any detail....

[William Ashley]

Both are, The last orders the military received,was our Countries military operations would cease in 2011, Our government still has not decided on what foot print we are as a nation going to have in AFghan, in order for the CDS to accomplish his last orders he has to make massive plans well in advance he is trying to make the government tell him what thier future plans will be....

Who knows but DND has payed for the brunt of this mission and i can`t see it changing any time soon, hence why the military is trying so hard to get further orders from our government, so it can come up with a cost...

Equipment is going to be left behind, as it would cost more to ship it than to bring it home, remember alot of that equipment is pretty much worn out, the newer stuff will return with then troops ....Just one point to remember that the Kanadar base is very vast, bigger than any one here in Canada so security is not an issue.

This statement after Khost, makes me giggle a bit.

[William Ashley]

Keep trolling....Why would DND be taking action to return if there was no real pullout.... Ask yourself this question has the government answered any of your questions, have they stated what their future plans are, in any detail....

I dunno why did the war measures act exist?

I think there is a conflict of interest. AND I have no confidence the Cons wlll withdrawl before the situation blows up.

Part of this issue is prorouging until march after the ball was dropped in December stalling any parliamentary decision for a few months.. and this in a time frame that only has 12 months till troops are suppose to be out of that base.. there are no take backs after they are gone. Also that personnel manpower may be required to move equipment meaning transfer would require months prior to the position withdrawl.. but stuff needs to be booked, already you are looking at the fall or this summer as the pull out commencement. the tanks arnt effective last I heard in the summer. are they going to leave them sitting there for when the other equipment needs to be withdrawn to meet the dealine over 1000 vehciles is a lot of equipment.

Also not counted is that logistics supply and withdrawl lines need to be stellar if land equipment is moving to pakistan or another bordering country .. as well as supply prepositioned and secure.

Edited January 2, 2010 by William Ashley

[maple_leafs182]

Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are based on lies, why not let them lie to us more, we should be use to it now.

The war on terrorism is not meant to be won, just sustained.

You guys realize we can live in a world without war and poverty, all it is is a choice between love and fear. We don't need to continue to live in this corporate slave state and bow down to bankers.

I hope sooner then later the people wake up and we take the power back.

[capricorn]

The war on terrorism is not meant to be won, just sustained.

That's probably exactly what Al-Qaeda and the Taliban think and want.

You guys realize we can live in a world without war and poverty, all it is is a choice between love and fear.

That is soooooo 1960s mentality. I hope that crown of rose petals is not too tight around your scalp. I swear, you were born too late.

We don't need to continue to live in this corporate slave state and bow down to bankers.

Bowing down to Allah facing the East would be so much more comforting, don't you think?

I hope sooner then later the people wake up and we take the power back.

I have a mental picture of you clenching a fist upward to the sky as you typed that.

[maple_leafs182]

That's probably exactly what Al-Qaeda and the Taliban think and want.

No man wake up, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not our biggest threat, the war on terrorism is a farce.

That is soooooo 1960s mentality. I hope that crown of rose petals is not too tight around your scalp. I swear, you were born too late.

I was born to late, I would of loved the 60's.

But seriously, we are headed for many dark years if people don't wake up to what is going on in the world.

Bowing down to Allah facing the East would be so much more comforting, don't you think?

...what are you talking about, you need to stop watching the propaganda on the mainstream media channels.

I have a mental picture of you clenching a fist upward to the sky as you typed that.

Nope, but I meant every word of it.

[Bugs]

Part of this issue is prorouging until march after the ball was dropped in December stalling any parliamentary decision for a few months.. and this in a time frame that only has 12 months till troops are suppose to be out of that base.. there are no take backs after they are gone. Also that personnel manpower may be required to move equipment meaning transfer would require months prior to the position withdrawl.. but stuff needs to be booked, already you are looking at the fall or this summer as the pull out commencement. the tanks arnt effective last I heard in the summer. are they going to leave them sitting there for when the other equipment needs to be withdrawn to meet the dealine over 1000 vehciles is a lot of equipment.

I would never suggest you trust any political party, Mr. Ashley, but you seem a little excitable on this one, in particular.

Actually, Chretien was far more deceitful than the present government is. Remember how he closed down the Somali Inquiry? So was Martin -- he declared he would never balance the budget on the backs of the working poor, and guess what? That's exactly what he did, through his fiddling with unemployment insurance. The surpluses from EI ware what balanced the budget.

I thought Harper made it very evident that he wasn't going to extend the mission if it was going to become a political issue. There ended up being a multi-party deal. The decision to extend the mission was supported by all the parties. I think, in the same way, Harper will do what the consensus of the parties say about the next step. He still has a minority. I predict that the mission will be over on a date certain in 2011. The other non-military NGOs will have their own agendas and schedules.

Personally, I think it's pretentious to think we can 'build' Afghans a society. What we 'build' is the elemental parts of a state. We're pushing a rock uphill on this one. The point is that the Afghan people are organized, and the main thing they need from government is security. They don't need us for anything more than keeping the bad guys away from them.

The other part, which was never addressed, is the economics of the situation. The farmers produce poppies for income. The way that works (often) is that the Taliban 'front' the money, and collect part of the crop as repayment. it's essentially 'sharecropping'. To take Afghanistan out of the Taliban orbit, the farmers must not take the money when the seed goes into the ground -- they have to pay off their obligation, and take the money for the next year's crop from the West.

We get squeamish because its opium, and, you know, big pharma, and all of that. But opium and its derivatives are the very best pain-killers. They could be a boon, I understand, to terminal cancer patients. My point is -- there is a legitimate, non-recreational use for opium and its derivatives. We should have thought down this line five years ago. Imho.

But it'll be OK, Mr. Ashley, this is the one area where all the parties have a genuine agreed upon policy.

[William Ashley]

But it'll be OK, Mr. Ashley, this is the one area where all the parties have a genuine agreed upon policy.

Tell that to the defence minister. Also the drug trade was eradicated under the Taliban, it wasn't until western influences showed up with guns that the drug trade started blooming again.

[Bugs]

Tell that to the defence minister. Also the drug trade was eradicated under the Taliban, it wasn't until western influences showed up with guns that the drug trade started blooming again.

Don't you think the Defense Minister knows what happened? Why is a rogue diplomat to be more trusted than the minister, when it comes to that? I know, politicians have a terrible reputation, with reason, for evading and lying about unpleasant facts, but diplomats are probably the one occupational role you could have chosen who are worse.

The 'drug trade' was 'eradicated' because the US paid the Taliban $30 million a year to stop production. I think it supports my version at least as much as yours, which is ... what? That our politicians are lying to the public so that the drugs can flow and the torturing can continue?

I understand, you are outraged at the idea of violence and pain being used to settle conflicts -- but that's what war is all about. Breaking things and making it hurt. In this, one side is as bad as another.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Don't you think the Defense Minister knows what happened? Why is a rogue diplomat to be more trusted than the minister, when it comes to that? I know, politicians have a terrible reputation, with reason, for evading and lying about unpleasant facts, but diplomats are probably the one occupational role you could have chosen who are worse.

The 'drug trade' was 'eradicated' because the US paid the Taliban $30 million a year to stop production. I think it supports my version at least as much as yours, which is ... what? That our politicians are lying to the public so that the drugs can flow and the torturing can continue?

I understand, you are outraged at the idea of violence and pain being used to settle conflicts -- but that's what war is all about. Breaking things and making it hurt. In this, one side is as bad as another.

The drug trade never stopped. The Taliban took the US money and sold rights to thugs at the same time. It was quiet but not gone.

[Topaz]

How many people are there fighting against the Taliban? Anyone know? Would you be surprised if I told you there are over 200,000+ and we still can't get a hold on this. It seems surprising that it was done the first time. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/so_how_many_private_contractors_are_there_in_afgha.php

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Its a war that cannot be won in the conventional sense. It can be won though, just not in the war that people want it to be.

[Smallc]

How many people are there fighting against the Taliban? Anyone know? Would you be surprised if I told you there are over 200,000+ and we still can't get a hold on this.

Oh, but you're wrong. Many of those people aren't fighting at all. They're locked in their military compounds and never let out. As to whether or not we're getting a handle on this, well, that depends on your definition.