Commons vote could undermine Afghan mission, says MacKay

[stignasty]

Commons vote could undermine Afghan mission, says MacKay

Last Updated Mon, 06 Mar 2006 15:20:43 EST

CBC News

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay says a parliamentary vote on Canada's participation in Afghanistan could undercut troops serving in the war-ravaged nation.

Link

[gerryhatrick]

What about just a debate Peter? Would that be anti-troop?

Man, just over a month in and they're already sounding like Bush/Cheney et al.

Don't even THINK about even DISCUSSING the Afghan mission or you're not supporting the troops!!

How long before political opponents are accused of supporting terrorists or giving aid & comfort to the enemy I wonder.

[scribblet]

What about just a debate Peter? Would that be anti-troop?

Man, just over a month in and they're already sounding like Bush/Cheney et al.

Don't even THINK about even DISCUSSING the Afghan mission or you're not supporting the troops!!

How long before political opponents are accused of supporting terrorists or giving aid & comfort to the enemy I wonder.

So you don't want to support the troops or what?

[Argus]

What about just a debate Peter? Would that be anti-troop?

Man, just over a month in and they're already sounding like Bush/Cheney et al.

Don't even THINK about even DISCUSSING the Afghan mission or you're not supporting the troops!!

How long before political opponents are accused of supporting terrorists or giving aid & comfort to the enemy I wonder.

I don't see any purpose to a debate. I grant you that a debate should be held before troops are sent overseas to this sort of mission. But now that they're there, and being shot at, what purpose would a debate serve? We're certainly not going to cut and run. That would be disastrous for our international reputation. So what's the point? So we could have various Liberal and NDP Mps get up and make anti-American, anti-Military speeches? They can do that elsewhere. There's nothing magic about the House which allows them to have their say. Let them drop into their local newspaper and spout.

As for giving aid and comfort - I've already seen some idiot anti-war nutjob not even from Canada, posting a big, jubilant headline "CANADA WANTS OUT OF AFGHANISTAN" . And that's just from a few people asking for a debate on he subject.

[geoffrey]

The time for debate was when we went over there before, not now. It's common sense that any vote would pass with the support of the CPC and LPC anyways.

[margrace]

The time for debate was when we went over there before, not now. It's common sense that any vote would pass with the support of the CPC and LPC anyways.

Would it and don't we just sound like Mr. Bush and friends. Mr Harper and friends are going to reap the whirlwind, Mr. Martin should never have allow them into Afghanistan from what I see.

[geoffrey]

The time for debate was when we went over there before, not now. It's common sense that any vote would pass with the support of the CPC and LPC anyways.

Would it and don't we just sound like Mr. Bush and friends. Mr Harper and friends are going to reap the whirlwind, Mr. Martin should never have allow them into Afghanistan from what I see.

Thats a very narrowminded answer. I don't think I'm sounding like Bush at all in saying its too late to turn back now. We are already in the world's bad books on peacekeeping since we abandoned the idea in favour of isolationism. Backing down from our obligations on this would end any respect we have remaining.

Afghanistan was an important war. I'm really actually tired of all these isolationists that are just opposed to caring about anyone outside our border. Remember, Canada is the only country on bin Laden's hit list that hasn't been attacked yet. The Americans thought like you before September 11, thought, "why should we care about the oppression and poverty half way across the world?" Then 3000 Americans died due to that attitude. Same happened in England and Spain.

What happens anywhere in the world might as well happen in our own borders. If we just sat by and watched terrorism flourish, we would be targets, we are currently targets!

We have an obligation in being one of the richest countries in the world, to assist those less fortunate then us in setting up the framework for a productive system of government and economics. I'm not saying its our fault they are poor. I'm saying lets help.

A world with less poverty and oppression is one that is safer for all of us.

Say I sound hawkish all you want, but I'm right. That big ocean doesn't protect us from terrorism.

There are alot of Canadians, perhaps most Canadians, that believe in splendid isolationism, just keeping to ourselves and letting the world pass us by. That has never worked. We need to step up military efforts and be world leaders in ending oppresion and human rights abuses. The status quo is not acceptable.

[margrace]

And that is exactly what I thought when we went in ostensially to free the afghan women but as long as this war is backed by the need of oil, as long as it is used as an excuse to build an oil pipe line it will only result in the death of our soldiers.

Remember as Canadians we were not taught in Grade one that we are the greatest country in the world and it is all right to look down on every other country. Remember we were not taught that if we are taken to war by our government that it is not our right to disagree. This is Canada with all its pimples and warts. We have had some great people, men such a Pearson who set up the peace corps. Men like Tommy Douglas who gave us poor people access to health care.

Where have they all gone.

[geoffrey]

And that is exactly what I thought when we went in ostensially to free the afghan women but as long as this war is backed by the need of oil, as long as it is used as an excuse to build an oil pipe line it will only result in the death of our soldiers.

Remember as Canadians we were not taught in Grade one that we are the greatest country in the world and it is all right to look down on every other country. Remember we were not taught that if we are taken to war by our government that it is not our right to disagree. This is Canada with all its pimples and warts. We have had some great people, men such a Pearson who set up the peace corps. Men like Tommy Douglas who gave us poor people access to health care.

Where have they all gone.

I'm sure Pearson would be in Afghanistan and possibly Iraq (as a part of the post-war peacekeeping group) if he were here.

I don't think Afghanistan is based on oil supply. It was a justified war against a government that harboured and backed terrorists that posed an immediate threat to our security. I don't know many people that disagree with this.

[Argus]

And that is exactly what I thought when we went in ostensially to free the afghan women but as long as this war is backed by the need of oil, as long as it is used as an excuse to build an oil pipe line it will only result in the death of our soldiers.

I'm afraid this is simply too incoherent to even attempt a response. Are you suggesting the Liberals sent us into Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline? Do you have any kind of halfway respectable cite for that?

Remember as Canadians we were not taught in Grade one that we are the greatest country in the world

Sure we were, and the Liberals reminded us of it constantly.

and it is all right to look down on every other country. Remember we were not taught that if we are taken to war by our government that it is not our right to disagree.

Can you tell me just how you're being prevented from disagreeing?

This is Canada with all its pimples and warts. We have had some great people, men such a Pearson who set up the peace corps.

The Peace Corps is an American institution set up by Kennedy.

[gerryhatrick]

What about just a debate Peter? Would that be anti-troop?

Man, just over a month in and they're already sounding like Bush/Cheney et al.

Don't even THINK about even DISCUSSING the Afghan mission or you're not supporting the troops!!

How long before political opponents are accused of supporting terrorists or giving aid & comfort to the enemy I wonder.

So you don't want to support the troops or what?

yeah, that's it.

Amazing how quickly Karl Rove style political manouvering started after Harper took office.

[gerryhatrick]

What about just a debate Peter? Would that be anti-troop?

Man, just over a month in and they're already sounding like Bush/Cheney et al.

Don't even THINK about even DISCUSSING the Afghan mission or you're not supporting the troops!!

How long before political opponents are accused of supporting terrorists or giving aid & comfort to the enemy I wonder.

I don't see any purpose to a debate. I grant you that a debate should be held before troops are sent overseas to this sort of mission. But now that they're there, and being shot at, what purpose would a debate serve?

It would serve the same purpose as the recent public questioning of a SCC judge served, to inform the public. The Canadian public is unsure what's going on now, which is probably what was reflected in the recent polls. They don't know what the mission is.

[Shakeyhands]

What about just a debate Peter? Would that be anti-troop?

Man, just over a month in and they're already sounding like Bush/Cheney et al.

Don't even THINK about even DISCUSSING the Afghan mission or you're not supporting the troops!!

How long before political opponents are accused of supporting terrorists or giving aid & comfort to the enemy I wonder.

You all should read this post again.

[geoffrey]

What about just a debate Peter? Would that be anti-troop?

Man, just over a month in and they're already sounding like Bush/Cheney et al.

Don't even THINK about even DISCUSSING the Afghan mission or you're not supporting the troops!!

How long before political opponents are accused of supporting terrorists or giving aid & comfort to the enemy I wonder.

You all should read this post again.

Why? There is nothing in it. I'm sick of being told I sound like Bush/Cheney.

I just have the common sense to know that a debate will accomplish nothing and that the vote will be favourable. And what if the vote isn't favourable? The world will put us about last on the list of semi-respected countries, most of them don't even listen ot us anymore because we've been marked irrelevant because of this behaviour.

Afghanistan is in our best interest and the best interests of the world. I'd hate to see progress destroyed by a left-wing coalition in our government, set on isolating us from the world, of course, until Osama follows through on his commitments to attack us.

We aren't there for corporate gains like the Americans, we aren't there because of some 20 year old political doctrine. We are there to help Afghani's and perserve our national defense.

[Wilber]

Geoffrey is correct, the time to debate this was before we sent troops. We are committed under NATO and the UN for at least another year. To leave our troops there for another year knowing they do not have the support of their people and Parliament would be down right criminal and you couldn't blame any of them for walking out the door the second they hit Canadian soil. To pull them out know would send the message to the world that Canada is not a reliable ally and cannot be depended on to keep its commitments. Canada might just as well pull the pin on NATO and become a neutral. Unfortunately that could be very expensive, not only from a credibility point of view but neutrals by definition have no allies and so must take care of themselves. Sweden and Switzerland spend far more per capita on defense than Canada.

[uOttawaMan]

What about just a debate Peter? Would that be anti-troop?

Man, just over a month in and they're already sounding like Bush/Cheney et al.

Don't even THINK about even DISCUSSING the Afghan mission or you're not supporting the troops!!

How long before political opponents are accused of supporting terrorists or giving aid & comfort to the enemy I wonder.

You all should read this post again.

Why? There is nothing in it. I'm sick of being told I sound like Bush/Cheney.

I just have the common sense to know that a debate will accomplish nothing and that the vote will be favourable. And what if the vote isn't favourable? The world will put us about last on the list of semi-respected countries, most of them don't even listen ot us anymore because we've been marked irrelevant because of this behaviour.

Afghanistan is in our best interest and the best interests of the world. I'd hate to see progress destroyed by a left-wing coalition in our government, set on isolating us from the world, of course, until Osama follows through on his commitments to attack us.

We aren't there for corporate gains like the Americans, we aren't there because of some 20 year old political doctrine. We are there to help Afghani's and perserve our national defense.

While I appreciate your use of fear mongering in regards to Osama attacking Canada; in truth, we can do nothing to prevent such an attack from occuring if someone wanted it to occur. Not even by playing superhero and removing all the poverty in the world.

Last time I checked that's what the US has always prided itself on doing, playing superhero. Maybe isolationsim is the way to go.. yes..

I just find myself hopelessly cynical. sigh.

[Wilber]

What about just a debate Peter? Would that be anti-troop?

Man, just over a month in and they're already sounding like Bush/Cheney et al.

Don't even THINK about even DISCUSSING the Afghan mission or you're not supporting the troops!!

How long before political opponents are accused of supporting terrorists or giving aid & comfort to the enemy I wonder.

You all should read this post again.

Why? There is nothing in it. I'm sick of being told I sound like Bush/Cheney.

I just have the common sense to know that a debate will accomplish nothing and that the vote will be favourable. And what if the vote isn't favourable? The world will put us about last on the list of semi-respected countries, most of them don't even listen ot us anymore because we've been marked irrelevant because of this behaviour.

Afghanistan is in our best interest and the best interests of the world. I'd hate to see progress destroyed by a left-wing coalition in our government, set on isolating us from the world, of course, until Osama follows through on his commitments to attack us.

We aren't there for corporate gains like the Americans, we aren't there because of some 20 year old political doctrine. We are there to help Afghani's and perserve our national defense.

While I appreciate your use of fear mongering in regards to Osama attacking Canada; in truth, we can do nothing to prevent such an attack from occuring if someone wanted it to occur. Not even by playing superhero and removing all the poverty in the world.

Last time I checked that's what the US has always prided itself on doing, playing superhero. Maybe isolationsim is the way to go.. yes..

I just find myself hopelessly cynical. sigh.

Gee, the same people who crap on the US for being isolationist at the beginning of the two world wars are the same ones who want to go the same route as soon as the going gets a bit tough. Go figure.

[Argus]

I don't see any purpose to a debate. I grant you that a debate should be held before troops are sent overseas to this sort of mission. But now that they're there, and being shot at, what purpose would a debate serve?

It would serve the same purpose as the recent public questioning of a SCC judge served,

No, it would serve the same purpose as questioning an SCC judge AFTER they had already been appointed to the bench; none.

to inform the public.

And how is it to do this? Do you seriously believe the public is going to be better informed due to the two or three sound bytes which are shown on the news (each of about 5 seconds duration) of statements made during this "debtate"?

[gerryhatrick]

No, it would serve the same purpose as questioning an SCC judge AFTER they had already been appointed to the bench; none.

No, the analogy was used only in terms of how both processes would inform the public.

why would you be opposed to a debate? Why would that hurt anything?

[Wilber]

No, it would serve the same purpose as questioning an SCC judge AFTER they had already been appointed to the bench; none.

No, the analogy was used only in terms of how both processes would inform the public.

why would you be opposed to a debate? Why would that hurt anything?

If you were serving in Afghanistan and the message came down from your Parliament that what you were doing was not in the interests of Canada but you are going to remain there for another year anyway, because we have made commitments, do you think that would hurt anything?

I agree that this kind of thing should be debated in Parliament but not after the fact.

[gerryhatrick]

I agree that this kind of thing should be debated in Parliament but not after the fact.

Canadians are not clear about the mission. It's not enough to say that any discussion about the mission is undermining the troops and expect people to be satisfied with that.

We've just seen that kind of garbage slung on the American people for the last 3 years and we're not going to swallow it. Don't accuse Canadians of not supporting the troops just because they want the mission clearly laid out and questions about things like detainees answered.

[Wilber]

I agree that this kind of thing should be debated in Parliament but not after the fact.

Canadians are not clear about the mission. It's not enough to say that any discussion about the mission is undermining the troops and expect people to be satisfied with that.

We've just seen that kind of garbage slung on the American people for the last 3 years and we're not going to swallow it. Don't accuse Canadians of not supporting the troops just because they want the mission clearly laid out and questions about things like detainees answered.

It is up to the government to clarify both the mission and the question of detainees, even though this was not the government that sent them there or defined the present mission. I don't see why a debate in Parliament is necessary to do so, or how it would help the troops who are there. As far as the mission goes, I really don't see how General Hillier could have made it much clearer as far as the military is concerned. Or did what he had to say sound so un Canadian that no one took him seriously?

When I hear the kind of blather coming from the likes of Layton about peacekeeping in a war zone and how peacemaking is different from making war, I really wonder what could be accomplished by a debate in Parliament other than make Canadians look like idiots to the rest of the world and especially to the people our soldiers are fighting.

On the other hand, maybe it is time we found out whether we are a country that can be relied upon keep its commitments or not. Whether we can take on a tough job for the long haul or be the nation of the fence sitters and the half assed. Let's have a debate.

[geoffrey]

I agree that this kind of thing should be debated in Parliament but not after the fact.

Canadians are not clear about the mission. It's not enough to say that any discussion about the mission is undermining the troops and expect people to be satisfied with that.

We've just seen that kind of garbage slung on the American people for the last 3 years and we're not going to swallow it. Don't accuse Canadians of not supporting the troops just because they want the mission clearly laid out and questions about things like detainees answered.

Hey, maybe Canadians should just take some responsibility for their own little niave world and get clear on the mission. It doesn't take much to research the goals and outlines of the mission and Canadian policy on detainees.

Those that care, know. Those that don't know, don't care. Debating it won't create some cultural revolution in Canada where the apathic 95% of Canadians all of a sudden have an amazing acquistion of knowledge and concern on the topic.

Debating it would just undermine the morale when we have NDP crazies up there saying we only need peace in the world and no Canadians abroad! NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!

[Riverwind]

Canadians are not clear about the mission. It's not enough to say that any discussion about the mission is undermining the troops and expect people to be satisfied with that.

Discussion and clarification of the mission is happening now in the media. Anyone who cares about it should now know that that Canadian troops have been deployed in a war zone and many more will be coming home in body bags. It is too late to revisit the decision whether we should be there or not so we just have to make sure the troops have everything they need to succeed as much as possible under the circumstances.

A debate in parliment where the outcome is a foregone conclusion is a waste of time and simply grandstanding on the part of opposition politicians.

[Black Dog]

I don't see any purpose to a debate. I grant you that a debate should be held before troops are sent overseas to this sort of mission. But now that they're there, and being shot at, what purpose would a debate serve? We're certainly not going to cut and run. That would be disastrous for our international reputation. So what's the point?

Oh no! Not our reputation! Why if we cut out now all the other kids will whisper about us in the hallway. And we can just forget about being invited to any parties for a while.

It's funny: Canadaians are the only people who care so much about what other countries think of them taht they are willing to put lives at risk to stay in others' good books. But really: how many othe rcountries make policy decisons based on how they'll be viewed by others? Withdrawing or scaling back our role in Afghanistan will not have any real ramifications.

As for giving aid and comfort - I've already seen some idiot anti-war nutjob not even from Canada, posting a big, jubilant headline "CANADA WANTS OUT OF AFGHANISTAN" . And that's just from a few people asking for a debate on he subject.

And what you think that some illiterate Taliban recruit squatting in the Afghan sands will see that and take heart?

Afghanistan was an important war. I'm really actually tired of all these isolationists that are just opposed to caring about anyone outside our border. Remember, Canada is the only country on bin Laden's hit list that hasn't been attacked yet. The Americans thought like you before September 11, thought, "why should we care about the oppression and poverty half way across the world?" Then 3000 Americans died due to that attitude. Same happened in England and Spain.

As nice at it is to see the right finally accepting the once-maligned "root-causes" argument, the poverty and oppression epidemic in the the Islamic world are only half of the equation. The other half is that Muslims see the West as the source of their poverty and oppression. The average Muslim in the Middle East and Central Asia probably wonders why we're so far ahead The militant jihadists have the explanation: western military and economic repression is holding the Muslim world back. And western occupations of Muslim lands like Afghanistan are great teaching tools.

I also have to marvel at the mass conversion of conservatives from hard-headed realists to starry-eyed dreamers who earnestly believe that we'll succeed in building democracy in a country that is little more than a graveyard for foreign armies.

Bah. Whatever. This whole "war on terror" is a big scam anyway.