Canada re-joins the adults in Afghanistan

[PIK]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/17/terry-glavin-canada-re-joins-the-adults-in-afghanistan/#ixzz15ZZ1eSGz

[nicky10013]

Of course, we can expect nothing but utter non-sense from the National Post.

For two full years, in spite of the pleadings of the Conservative government, the House of Commons refused to show any leadership at all on the question of Canada’s post-2011 role in Afghanistan.

Wow. Just wow. The government sets the agenda. It hasn't been the rest of parliament that has been holding up committees by not appearing and stonewalling culiminating in the suspension of parliament altogether. If I recall correctly, for the past 2 years, it's been Harper who has categorically denied any possibility of an extension.

[Alta4ever]

We should recall that for two full years the House of Commons Special Committee on Afghanistan refused to discharge its duties, in contempt of the Parliament by which its duties were assigned. Instead, it turned itself into a lurid chamber for the most foul (and groundless) “torture” allegations against members of the Canadian Forces. It had become like some kind of celebrity television show where the contestants were challenged to find ways to put the name of a cabinet minister in the same sentence with the words “war criminal.”

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/17/terry-glavin-canada-re-joins-the-adults-in-afghanistan/#ixzz15Zj5haj4

Lets post the rest of the paragraph.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Alta4ever

[nicky10013]

Lets post the rest of the paragraph.

The second part is redundant when he specifically mentions all of the HoC.

[Alta4ever]

It isn't redundant it points out how the house of commons failed to act.

[Moonlight Graham]

That article is mostly one big brown pile of crap. With chunks of corn in it.

[nicky10013]

It isn't redundant it points out how the house of commons failed to act.

Yes, "in spite of Conservatives attempts to the contrary." The first time we heard anything of an extension was a week ago. As for everything else, it wasn't the opposition that refused to attend committee meetings. It wasn't the opposition that suspended parliament over Afghan issues.

[Topaz]

I think the Globe and Mail says it all when it comes to the training and Canada's involvement in it. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/train-afghan-troops-good-luck-with-that/article1803486/

[Saipan]

It wasn't the opposition that suspended parliament over Afghan issues.

What "issues" are those??

Wouldn't that be the bombing of Serbian passenger train or some Embassy directed by Clinton and Chretien?

Edited November 18, 2010 by Saipan

[M.Dancer]

I think the Globe and Mail says it all when it comes to the training and Canada's involvement in it.

I agree. The Globe had said it all.

The worst option is to leave Afghanistan

The Conservative government has spelled out reasonable parameters for Canada's continuing involvement in Afghanistan. As the New Democrats said, more soldiers may die, though the three-year extension is to be focused on training that will take place on an army base near the capital of Kabul, and in classrooms in Kabul, but not out in the field. Soldiers can be attacked in transit. Military bases have been attacked before. It remains to be seen whether all the training will indeed be tucked safely “inside the wire.” But the NDP is wrong – that does not make it a combat mission. Nor does it mean Canada should shy away.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-worst-option-is-to-leave-afghanistan/article1801725/

[nicky10013]

What "issues" are those??

Wouldn't that be the bombing of Serbian passenger train or some Embassy directed by Clinton and Chretien?

Nope, torture. First they shut down the committees investigating torture. Then, they slandered and denigrated the diplomat that brought this all to light, then when the heat got too much, they just got out of the kitchen entirely. They shut down parliament.

[Saipan]

If I recall correctly, for the past 2 years, it's been Harper who has categorically denied any possibility of an extension.

Extension of what?

Btw, what are Canadian troops doing in the Balkans?

[M.Dancer]

Btw, what are Canadian troops doing in the Balkans?

All 5 of them?

[nicky10013]

Extension of what?

Btw, what are Canadian troops doing in the Balkans?

An extension of the mission in Afghanistan. Are you really that dense?

[Saipan]

Nope, torture.

Bombing of Serbian passenger train and some Embassy goes way past any "torture". Many people are dead.

[Saipan]

An extension of the mission in Afghanistan.

What kind of mission?

Are you really that dense?

Are you?

[Oleg Bach]

HARPER...has privately decided that American style imperialism will be good for Canada and maintaining the failing status quo..after all there is a lot of mineral wealth in Afghanistan ...and plunder maintains the rich..who maintain Harper! BUT we twits will still go on about democracy and sending little girls to school - and how nasty the woman are treated - when were really don't care...all we really care about is taking the meger untapped wealth the Afghans have and stealing it..which is a good plan...Let the public believe that the policy is one based in benevolence when all that is going on is some old fashioned privateering and priacy - harrrr!

[Saipan]

HARPER...has privately decided that American style imperialism will be good for Canada

HOW do you know what he decided privately? He told you?

..after all there is a lot of mineral wealth in Afghanistan ...and plunder maintains the rich..who maintain Harper!

Like the "oil" in Iraq we have to pay for through our nose??

And is it why we support the only M.E. country that doesn't have any oil? Oh, but they have lot of salt in the Dead Sea

..all we really care about is taking the meger untapped wealth the Afghans have and stealing it.

So why are you stealing?

Edited November 18, 2010 by Saipan

[eyeball]

The deal the Canadian government made with the Canadian people and the Afghan people was and remains the cause of peace, order, and good government

Horse crap, the deal was to capture Bin waldo.

[M.Dancer]

Horse crap, the deal was to capture Bin waldo.

Find a citatation to confirm.

[bloodyminded]

Bombing of Serbian passenger train and some Embassy goes way past any "torture". Many people are dead.

Saipan's anti-war rhetoric.

I keep thinking I've seen it all, but then new spectacles continually arise.

[capricorn]

Michael Ignatieff says he's willing to go along with the idea of a vote in the Commons on Canada's decision to keep troops in Afghanistan until 2014.

The Liberal Leader came out last week in support of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's announcement that 950 soldiers will remain in Kabul to help train the Afghan military.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-open-door-to-vote-on-afghan-extension/article1808935/

It seems just a few days ago, Bob Rae said a vote on Afghanistan was not required. The Liberal position is becoming murky and disjointed. As I read the above Globe article, I was thinking Ignatieff is reminding me more and more of Dalton McGuinty.

[nicky10013]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-open-door-to-vote-on-afghan-extension/article1808935/

It seems just a few days ago, Bob Rae said a vote on Afghanistan was not required. The Liberal position is becoming murky and disjointed. As I read the above Globe article, I was thinking Ignatieff is reminding me more and more of Dalton McGuinty.

They're not mutually exclusive. All Rae and Ignatieff said is the government has the right to send troops without a commons vote and they're right. If you didn't or won't understand, that's far different from arguing against a vote in the house.

[Moonlight Graham]

I think the Globe and Mail says it all when it comes to the training and Canada's involvement in it. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/train-afghan-troops-good-luck-with-that/article1803486/

/

good article that brings up a few points i hadn't thought of, just as the in-fighting/rivalry among Afghan soldiers from different ethnic groups. Wow it's even more of a mess than i thought! What a joke.

[capricorn]

All Rae and Ignatieff said is the government has the right to send troops without a commons vote and they're right.

There's no argument that Rae's and Ignatieff's position is that a vote is not required. IMO the Liberals would prefer not to have a vote on the question because the Liberals would end up voting with the Conservatives and once again, rightly or wrongly, critics and the opposition would say that the Liberals are propping up the government.

It's not a question of arguing for or against a vote. We all know that with or without a vote the proposed training mission will go ahead. My observation is that the Liberals are adjusting their message to try to please as many people as possible, including Bloc/NDP swing voters they hope to bring onside and some of their own supporters.