So now Harper thinks Canada doesn't support the troops?

[gerryhatrick]

Who the f#$k said anything about not supporting the troops?

And oh yeah, who the f#$K said anything about "cut and run"?

Or not fulfilling our "obligations"?

This guy is kidding himself.

This is the same bullsh$t we've seen in the USA. Karl Rove must be inspiring this idiotic talk.

Earth to Stephen Harper.....the idea that was suggested was to have a debate. Nobody is cutting and running and everyone supports the troops. We all realize that we will meet all our obligations, so why are you spouting off about that?

This is bizarre.

It's exactly the kind of BS double-talk that everyone was fear-mongering about.

[geoffrey]

Well Layton is viciously against it, and would love to disgrace our troops in a Commons debate if he got the chance. He doesn't think Canadians should have to be in an offensive role ever.

TORONTO (CP) - As Canadian troops prepare to do battle with insurgents in the mountains of southern Afghanistan, NDP Leader Jack Layton says the public is not in favour of going on the offensive in that war-torn country.

He pledged Tuesday to use his party's influence in the next Parliament to maintain the Canadian military's good-guy peacekeeper role around the world.

"Our view is that Canadians support the peacekeeping role," he said following a speech to the Toronto Board of Trade.

"But what Canadians do not support, in my view, is a war-like offensive role in the context of Afghanistan."

At least the Liberals and CPC are behind our troops and the mission. Thank God we don't have socialists running the show.

[gerryhatrick]

Well Layton is viciously against it, and would love to disgrace our troops in a Commons debate if he got the chance. He doesn't think Canadians should have to be in an offensive role ever.

At least the Liberals and CPC are behind our troops and the mission. Thank God we don't have socialists running the show.

No, he doesn't think Canadians should be in an offensive role "in the context of Afghanistan".

Primarily he's saying in that article that there should be an explanation about the mission:

"As he did earlier in the election campaign, Layton called for a halt to future troop deployments and a Parliamentary debate about the changing role of the mission.

He said the country's top generals should appear before the Commons defence committee "to explain precisely what the mission is now and how they see it changing."

I think your accusation that this opinion held by Layton somehow means he's not "behind our troops" is ridiculous. Debating the nature of the mission is not going to somehow crush the spirit of the troops.

It's sickening to watch people use "the troops" as a political tool everytime a military mission is talked about, and that's what we're seeing from Harper and Mackay these days. If anything it's a bloody insult to them to suggest they can't handle seeing thier political leaders discuss the nature of thier mission.

[wellandboy]

Who the f#$k said anything about not supporting the troops?

And oh yeah, who the f#$K said anything about "cut and run"?

Or not fulfilling our "obligations"?

This guy is kidding himself.

This is the same bullsh$t we've seen in the USA. Karl Rove must be inspiring this idiotic talk.

Earth to Stephen Harper.....the idea that was suggested was to have a debate. Nobody is cutting and running and everyone supports the troops. We all realize that we will meet all our obligations, so why are you spouting off about that?

This is bizarre.

It's exactly the kind of BS double-talk that everyone was fear-mongering about.

I saw no reference to this in the media or from the PMO. Please provide a link or reference.

[scribblet]

Who the f#$k said anything about not supporting the troops?

And oh yeah, who the f#$K said anything about "cut and run"?

Or not fulfilling our "obligations"?

This guy is kidding himself.

This is the same bullsh$t we've seen in the USA. Karl Rove must be inspiring this idiotic talk.

Earth to Stephen Harper.....the idea that was suggested was to have a debate. Nobody is cutting and running and everyone supports the troops. We all realize that we will meet all our obligations, so why are you spouting off about that?

This is bizarre.

It's exactly the kind of BS double-talk that everyone was fear-mongering about.

Gee, I think your take on this is a bit off the wall too. Mind you, I'm pretty sure the NDP would vote to cut and run.

[gerryhatrick]

I saw no reference to this in the media or from the PMO. Please provide a link or reference.

National Post

Canada won't "cut and run'' from Afghanistan, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper,

"And when we send troops into the field I expect Canadians to support those troops...

"We will not be in any way backtracking from an obligation which has been undertaken.''

[scribblet]

I saw no reference to this in the media or from the PMO. Please provide a link or reference.

National Post

Canada won't "cut and run'' from Afghanistan, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper,

"And when we send troops into the field I expect Canadians to support those troops...

"We will not be in any way backtracking from an obligation which has been undertaken.''

Good for Harper, nothing wrong with that comment. Hope the NDP reads it.

[wellandboy]

Who the f#$k said anything about not supporting the troops?

And oh yeah, who the f#$K said anything about "cut and run"?

Or not fulfilling our "obligations"?

This guy is kidding himself.

This is the same bullsh$t we've seen in the USA. Karl Rove must be inspiring this idiotic talk.

Earth to Stephen Harper.....the idea that was suggested was to have a debate. Nobody is cutting and running and everyone supports the troops. We all realize that we will meet all our obligations, so why are you spouting off about that?

This is bizarre.

Quote from National Post

It's exactly the kind of BS double-talk that everyone was fear-mongering about.

Canada won't "cut and run'' from Afghanistan, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper,

"And when we send troops into the field I expect Canadians to support those troops...

"We will not be in any way backtracking from an obligation which has been undertake

The only thing that's bizarre about Harper's statements is your over the top, expletive laden reaction to them.

[cybercoma]

We all realize that we will meet all our obligations, so why are you spouting off about that?

That settles it then...there's no need to waste time debating the issue since we're all in agreement. Better to spend the time discussing things that matter.

Unless of course you want to have a debate because some people don't agree with the mission...

[cybercoma]

Well Layton is viciously against it, and would love to disgrace our troops in a Commons debate if he got the chance. He doesn't think Canadians should have to be in an offensive role ever.

TORONTO (CP) - As Canadian troops prepare to do battle with insurgents in the mountains of southern Afghanistan, NDP Leader Jack Layton says the public is not in favour of going on the offensive in that war-torn country.

He pledged Tuesday to use his party's influence in the next Parliament to maintain the Canadian military's good-guy peacekeeper role around the world.

"Our view is that Canadians support the peacekeeping role," he said following a speech to the Toronto Board of Trade.

"But what Canadians do not support, in my view, is a war-like offensive role in the context of Afghanistan."

At least the Liberals and CPC are behind our troops and the mission. Thank God we don't have socialists running the show.

Offensive mission in that country? ha! Layton is a joke. It's a defensive mission for a country that is having a hard time defending itself against terrorizers.

[geoffrey]

Offensive mission in that country? ha! Layton is a joke. It's a defensive mission for a country that is having a hard time defending itself against terrorizers.

Exactly Cyber. There is no invasion, we've already done that part. It's purely policing and chasing down terrorists and Taliban shit disturbers.

The RCMP are there, last time I checked the mounties aren't an invasion force.

[uOttawaMan]

Although I am in agreement with Harper, I would say that blindy accepting things without at least pondering them is not a sound plan. That being said, it seems we all at least agree that there really is no issue here.

As for that RCMP comment, even if they are there, that has nothing to do with military action, as they aren't a part of the Armed Forces. But the same being said, just because a group of men is designated a police force (MP's for example) does not mean they are not an invasion force. The US army used MP regiments as front line combat soldiers in Iraq.

[yorkman]

And what is wrong with "cutting and running" if the mission is proved to be wrong and if we are going to have to commit to 10 years of fighting Afghan insurgents and opponents of Karzai. God the 2nd World War was over in six years!! And these people are fighting with axes and car bombs. All this blather about cutting and running is simply macho posturing on the part of military and wannabe military types. Lets just have a debate and have someone clearly state why we are there and what are objectives are. And I don't mean defending our way of life (which doesn't appear to be being threatened by Afghanistan and its militia of car bombers and axe wielders) and freedom and democracy. What do we actually want to achieve in the next year or two. And lets have a vote in Afghanistan to see if they want foreigners on their land protecting the puppet Karzai. I don't see too many Afghans speaking out and begging us to stay. Andyway, lets just have some clarity from Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay as to the time line and the objectives.

[GostHacked]

And what is wrong with "cutting and running" if the mission is proved to be wrong and if we are going to have to commit to 10 years of fighting Afghan insurgents and opponents of Karzai. God the 2nd World War was over in six years!! And these people are fighting with axes and car bombs. All this blather about cutting and running is simply macho posturing on the part of military and wannabe military types. Lets just have a debate and have someone clearly state why we are there and what are objectives are. And I don't mean defending our way of life (which doesn't appear to be being threatened by Afghanistan and its militia of car bombers and axe wielders) and freedom and democracy. What do we actually want to achieve in the next year or two. And lets have a vote in Afghanistan to see if they want foreigners on their land protecting the puppet Karzai. I don't see too many Afghans speaking out and begging us to stay. Andyway, lets just have some clarity from Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay as to the time line and the objectives.

This is my line of thinking. I will support the troops, but I will not tolerate them dying for no reason. This is the same rhetoric we find common south of the 49th. Debate is healthy. If we cannot debate and discuss this, then democracy has failed us all. Dictators tell us what, and what not to do. (to harsh?) Martin should have given us a clear strategy as well. I cannot blame Harper for this totaly, but now that he is PM, it is on his shoulders now.

What you said here is close to the same thing me and my boss were talking about today. We need to have a plan, a clear strategy. If there are no goals set, then we are wondering aimlessy around trying to do patch work here and there. This also leaves the troops wondering why they are still there. I care enough about our troops to say this.

Being a military soldier takes, guts, courage, stamina, just a different type of human. If I were to put them in harms way, I better have a damn good reason for them being there. No goals? No plan? No strategy? NO TROOPS. Example, you cannot go to the bank and say you need money for a business venture. They ask if you have a business plan. You say no. They don't give you money.

No plan/goals/strategy in Afghanistan? I cannot support wasting human lives. This by no way means that I do not support our troops.

Also wtf is the RCMP doing in Afghanistan? They are NOT military. They really have no jurisdiciton there in any way shape or form. That is why we have an ARMY. Why are they there?

[JerrySeinfeld]

And what is wrong with "cutting and running" if the mission is proved to be wrong and if we are going to have to commit to 10 years of fighting Afghan insurgents and opponents of Karzai. God the 2nd World War was over in six years!! And these people are fighting with axes and car bombs. All this blather about cutting and running is simply macho posturing on the part of military and wannabe military types. Lets just have a debate and have someone clearly state why we are there and what are objectives are. And I don't mean defending our way of life (which doesn't appear to be being threatened by Afghanistan and its militia of car bombers and axe wielders) and freedom and democracy. What do we actually want to achieve in the next year or two. And lets have a vote in Afghanistan to see if they want foreigners on their land protecting the puppet Karzai. I don't see too many Afghans speaking out and begging us to stay. Andyway, lets just have some clarity from Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay as to the time line and the objectives.

This is my line of thinking. I will support the troops, but I will not tolerate them dying for no reason. This is the same rhetoric we find common south of the 49th. Debate is healthy. If we cannot debate and discuss this, then democracy has failed us all. Dictators tell us what, and what not to do. (to harsh?) Martin should have given us a clear strategy as well. I cannot blame Harper for this totaly, but now that he is PM, it is on his shoulders now.

What you said here is close to the same thing me and my boss were talking about today. We need to have a plan, a clear strategy. If there are no goals set, then we are wondering aimlessy around trying to do patch work here and there. This also leaves the troops wondering why they are still there. I care enough about our troops to say this.

Being a military soldier takes, guts, courage, stamina, just a different type of human. If I were to put them in harms way, I better have a damn good reason for them being there. No goals? No plan? No strategy? NO TROOPS. Example, you cannot go to the bank and say you need money for a business venture. They ask if you have a business plan. You say no. They don't give you money.

No plan/goals/strategy in Afghanistan? I cannot support wasting human lives. This by no way means that I do not support our troops.

Also wtf is the RCMP doing in Afghanistan? They are NOT military. They really have no jurisdiciton there in any way shape or form. That is why we have an ARMY. Why are they there?

This is typical Canadian fare.

wake up. what the west needs is more troops in the middle east. period.

option b? USA, CANADA, BRITAIN et al pulls out and militant islam continues to fester. we a go back to sleep, IRAN develops nukes while we pretent that peace is inevitable....

[GostHacked]

And what is wrong with "cutting and running" if the mission is proved to be wrong and if we are going to have to commit to 10 years of fighting Afghan insurgents and opponents of Karzai. God the 2nd World War was over in six years!! And these people are fighting with axes and car bombs. All this blather about cutting and running is simply macho posturing on the part of military and wannabe military types. Lets just have a debate and have someone clearly state why we are there and what are objectives are. And I don't mean defending our way of life (which doesn't appear to be being threatened by Afghanistan and its militia of car bombers and axe wielders) and freedom and democracy. What do we actually want to achieve in the next year or two. And lets have a vote in Afghanistan to see if they want foreigners on their land protecting the puppet Karzai. I don't see too many Afghans speaking out and begging us to stay. Andyway, lets just have some clarity from Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay as to the time line and the objectives.

This is my line of thinking. I will support the troops, but I will not tolerate them dying for no reason. This is the same rhetoric we find common south of the 49th. Debate is healthy. If we cannot debate and discuss this, then democracy has failed us all. Dictators tell us what, and what not to do. (to harsh?) Martin should have given us a clear strategy as well. I cannot blame Harper for this totaly, but now that he is PM, it is on his shoulders now.

What you said here is close to the same thing me and my boss were talking about today. We need to have a plan, a clear strategy. If there are no goals set, then we are wondering aimlessy around trying to do patch work here and there. This also leaves the troops wondering why they are still there. I care enough about our troops to say this.

Being a military soldier takes, guts, courage, stamina, just a different type of human. If I were to put them in harms way, I better have a damn good reason for them being there. No goals? No plan? No strategy? NO TROOPS. Example, you cannot go to the bank and say you need money for a business venture. They ask if you have a business plan. You say no. They don't give you money.

No plan/goals/strategy in Afghanistan? I cannot support wasting human lives. This by no way means that I do not support our troops.

Also wtf is the RCMP doing in Afghanistan? They are NOT military. They really have no jurisdiciton there in any way shape or form. That is why we have an ARMY. Why are they there?

This is typical Canadian fare.

wake up. what the west needs is more troops in the middle east. period.

option b? USA, CANADA, BRITAIN et al pulls out and militant islam continues to fester. we a go back to sleep, IRAN develops nukes while we pretent that peace is inevitable....

HOW MANY MORE?

Next you are going to say I hate freedom. I am either with YOU or the terrorists. Tell me what the plan is, give me some outlines, give me a reason to support you. Give me solid evidence as to why I should support the wars in the Middle East. I supported the war in Afghanistan at the start. But after finding out the truth about it all, and looking back in my life and realizing what has transpired there, I can no longer support sacraficing our own men and women for a cause that is no longer just, no longer valid, and no longer has a meaning. I really get F'N tired of all the rhetoric. Tired. Tired. Tired.

Tell me.

Tell me.

Tell me.

Educate me on it. Give me the plan, the right plan.

Somehow people are really not listening to something Dwight Eisenhower said in his farewall speech as he left the office of the President of the United States. Oh you do not know what he said? I will leave this in your hands to find out. Get back to me on that one ok?

[geoffrey]

Also wtf is the RCMP doing in Afghanistan? They are NOT military. They really have no jurisdiciton there in any way shape or form. That is why we have an ARMY. Why are they there?

The RCMP are pretty much one of the most respected and knowledgable police forces in the world, due to their wide range of activities in Canada. The RCMP regularly participates in the humanitarian role of training foreign police officers and building the law and order institutions in 3rd world countries. They are the best in the world at it.

They do have jurisdiction if the foreign government asks for their assistance.

It's one of the ways we barely squeak by with the minimum level of obligations to the world beyond our borders.

The RCMP have been deployed to:

• Namibia

• Former Yugoslavia

• Haiti

• South Africa

• Rwanda

• Bosnia Herzegovina

• Central African Republic

• Kenya

• Sierra Leone

• Guatemala

• Western Sahara

• The Hague, Netherlands

• Croatia

• Kosovo

• East Timor

• Guinea

• South Serbia

• Macedonia

• Sierra Leone Special Court

• Afghanistan

• Jordan

• Iraq

• Ivory Coast

• Democratic Republic of Congo

• Sudan

Source for deployment info: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/peacekeeping/index_e.htm

[Army Guy]

As a soldier that has already served in Afgan once, and is training for another tour i find this need to debate disturbing, for many reasons, first i can't not believe just how many people do not know "why" our nations military are over there in the first place."i ask myself" where were these people when the liberals gave the military thier orders some 4 years ago, and where were they when the liberals agreed to extend the orginal mandate, and where were they when the liberals agreed to take on the mission in Kanadar. (why was there no need for debate then).

Second I got to ask just what the liberals were thinking when they cut those same orders, did they not debate all the facts " atleast with those that made up the government " or was this just a snap decision that critien and Martin made "give them army guys something to do" "keep them busy and make me look good at the same time". As a soldier i pray that they did debate it, wieghed all the pros and cons, and came -up with a detailed plan before sending our troops into danger.

third, the need for debate brings up this question. "leadership" where was it, when the orginal decisions were made and why did they not question it back then. some of the requests to debate it are coming from the liberals, The party that sent us over there, are they saying they made the wrong decision!!! whats that say about thier leadership.

I agree with the need to debate, i pray that it's debated to death before a final decision is made. But once a final decision is made the government needs to stick with the plan, they need to show some backbone and stand behind thier decision. They need to show the very people that they are sending into these places that THEY have done thier job and it is the right decision.

And i think that is exactly what Harper is doing, although it was not his decision he is showing the troops that all thier sacrafice and hard work has been for the right reasons, and not for nothing.

[Army Guy]

I think that there is some misconception out there about the make-up of Canada's contribution to Afgan.

There is the Battle group, this group is made up of the bulk of troops deployed. who's job is security and policing the area of operations and assisting the PRT group when required. Carrying out the militaries 3 block war concept.,

The PRT or provincial restruction Team. is made-up of many different groups that have many different roles and functions. A) military group, diplomatic group C) NGO group all three are working together in the reconstruction not only of schools and wells, but developing relations with Clan leaders or other group leaders, but also finding out where the Aid is needed and how it could be best used.

The RCMP personal mentioned before fall under the diplomatic group, providing valuable assistance to Canada's diplomatic mission but also to clan leaders in regards to policing.

But it should be noted that it is not strictly a military group and not stictly under military authority.

[Army Guy]

Below are some sites about the Afgan mission, maybe they'll prove useful. another good source is the Special on CBC news which has been running most of the week and it deals with "why" we are there.

My Webpage

My Webpage

[cybercoma]

Well, look at it all this way. If we don't secure Afghanistan, it's going to make it a hell of a lot harder for the United States to get at Iran when all hell breaks loose. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were probably precursors to the biggest threat to the world today, Iran. Now the US is sitting on a split attack from both sides of Iran and the entire planet is going to support the States. Looking back 20 years from now, we'll be praising George W. Bush and his crew's foresight.

[Black Dog]

"Support the troops" is a smokescreen. Canada's armed forces are the instruments of policy, policy that may or may not be correct. It's pathetic to watch Harper hide behind the troops instead of standing up and defending the policy: it's political cowardice. If I were a member of the forces, I'd be pretty pissed about a politican using me as a prop.

The reason I don't support Canada's mission in Afghanistan is that I think it's doomed to fail. If I thought we could be successful and that our stated aims of helping the Afghan people were genuine (though statements liek the on below make me question that assumption), I'd probably suppport Canada's involvement.

Well, look at it all this way. If we don't secure Afghanistan, it's going to make it a hell of a lot harder for the United States to get at Iran when all hell breaks loose. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were probably precursors to the biggest threat to the world today, Iran. Now the US is sitting on a split attack from both sides of Iran and the entire planet is going to support the States. Looking back 20 years from now, we'll be praising George W. Bush and his crew's foresight.

I most definitely do not support Canada playing a role in Afghanistan if that role is to prrepare the ground for further U.S. aggression in the region (not that I think the United States the ability or stomach to carry out and Iraq-style intervention against Iran).

[GostHacked]

"Support the troops" is a smokescreen. Canada's armed forces are the instruments of policy, policy that may or may not be correct. It's pathetic to watch Harper hide behind the troops instead of standing up and defending the policy: it's political cowardice. If I were a member of the forces, I'd be pretty pissed about a politican using me as a prop.

The reason I don't support Canada's mission in Afghanistan is that I think it's doomed to fail. If I thought we could be successful and that our stated aims of helping the Afghan people were genuine (though statements liek the on below make me question that assumption), I'd probably suppport Canada's involvement.

Well, look at it all this way. If we don't secure Afghanistan, it's going to make it a hell of a lot harder for the United States to get at Iran when all hell breaks loose. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were probably precursors to the biggest threat to the world today, Iran. Now the US is sitting on a split attack from both sides of Iran and the entire planet is going to support the States. Looking back 20 years from now, we'll be praising George W. Bush and his crew's foresight.

I most definitely do not support Canada playing a role in Afghanistan if that role is to prrepare the ground for further U.S. aggression in the region (not that I think the United States the ability or stomach to carry out and Iraq-style intervention against Iran).

They cannot go after Iran just yet, but for the US's plan of total economic and military superiority/domination over the Middle East, Iran must fall.

I beg all of you to open your history books, get online , go to the library, learn and understand the Middle East and how long wars have been going on there. Also pay real close attention to the Iran-Iraq war during the 80s. Start there my friends.

And did anyone look up and find out what Eisenhower said on his final speech as President of the United States?

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

"Support the troops" is a smokescreen. Canada's armed forces are the instruments of policy, policy that may or may not be correct. It's pathetic to watch Harper hide behind the troops instead of standing up and defending the policy: it's political cowardice. If I were a member of the forces, I'd be pretty pissed about a politican using me as a prop

I don't think it is a smoke screen. The conseratives have always supported the Afgan mission as a noble cause. I think the message that He is sending is that the decision has already been made, It's already been debated, and he'll will not second guess that process, And does not want to send that message, be it to the troops or to the Bad guys that Canada can not make a decision and stick with it. Because the enemy will take advantage of that as they have in Iraq.

What the troops do not want to hear, is that our government is being wishy washy, and every time someone gets hurt or killed the public changes it mind. If we are going to risk our lives to carry out policy then the government damn well have done it's home work before hand.

There will be a time in which to debate this topic at great detail in the near future when the current mandate is up for review. Until then debate can only cause confusion, and questions about leadership in Canada.

Our lives are in danger the second we get off the aircraft in Afgan, we do not need the added distraction of wondering if we are supported back home. or our government saying oooppps we screwed up we changed our minds this mission is not what Canada wants ( that time passed once the first Soldier died).

The reason I don't support Canada's mission in Afghanistan is that I think it's doomed to fail. If I thought we could be successful and that our stated aims of helping the Afghan people were genuine (though statements liek the on below make me question that assumption), I'd probably suppport Canada's involvement

And you have every right to be sceptical, But this peace process is measured in years, most missions Canada has taken on have been long term, and have shown very good results. As for the other remarks, the Afganis are not a stupid people i highly dought that Afgan is a stepping stone for the US. Besides alot of people have under estamated the US military strength IRAN being on of those, if Iran was a target and the US wanted to invade they'd already done so. with plenty of troops left over.

[Black Dog]

I don't think it is a smoke screen. The conseratives have always supported the Afgan mission as a noble cause.

If I were to judge based on Harper's coments, I'd say it shows either a lack of faith in the mission or worse, it makes it look like yhey are hiding something. If they believe in this mission, just say so.

There's no need to try to paint people who have doubts about Canada's involvement as being anti-troop or giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

think the message that He is sending is that the decision has already been made, It's already been debated, and he'll will not second guess that process, And does not want to send that message, be it to the troops or to the Bad guys that Canada can not make a decision and stick with it. Because the enemy will take advantage of that as they have in Iraq.

That's what I have a problem with: that criticism of government policy not only equals criticism of the individuals carrying out that policy, but actively undermines and even endangers those individuals. There's not a single shred of evidence showing how questioning government policy helps the "bad guys", in Afghanistan or Iraq (the Taliban doesn't read the Globe and Mail letters page; hell, most can barely read).

What the troops do not want to hear, is that our government is being wishy washy, and every time someone gets hurt or killed the public changes it mind. If we are going to risk our lives to carry out policy then the government damn well have done it's home work before hand.

That's fair. But what isn't is the language Harper's using to defend the policy.

There will be a time in which to debate this topic at great detail in the near future when the current mandate is up for review. Until then debate can only cause confusion, and questions about leadership in Canada.

This is the most troubling aspect of this debate: that government decisions, once made, are sacrosanct(incidentally, I wonder how many Tories are willing to take the same attitude toward gay marriage, a policy that the Tories are intent on re-visiting despite the fact that issue had far more debate around it than Afghanistan).

Open debate, the freedom to question the government's decisions (especially those that place lives at risk) are halmarks of democracy. It's pretty hypocritical for the government to claim to be building democracy in Afghanistan while stifling it at home.

Our lives are in danger the second we get off the aircraft in Afgan, we do not need the added distraction of wondering if we are supported back home. or our government saying oooppps we screwed up we changed our minds this mission is not what Canada wants ( that time passed once the first Soldier died).

Honestly though: what difference does public support make to you in the field? You're job is soley to follow the orders you're given and carrry out you rmission: everything else is secondary.

And you have every right to be sceptical, But this peace process is measured in years, most missions Canada has taken on have been long term, and have shown very good results.

Yeah, well, the Russians had great success in the early days of their campaign too. I know I'm being cynical, but really, this what we're talking about: how long are we planning on staying there and how big a price are we willing to pay? These are the questions the government doesn't want to deal with.

As for the other remarks, the Afganis are not a stupid people i highly dought that Afgan is a stepping stone for the US. Besides alot of people have under estamated the US military strength IRAN being on of those, if Iran was a target and the US wanted to invade they'd already done so. with plenty of troops left over.

I don't think Afghanistan is a stepping stone for an invasion of Iran either, certainly not in the short to medium term. I can't imagine even the people who gave us the Iraq debacle would be stupid enough to attack a country the size of Iran with not one, but two insurgencies at their backs. (I disagree wih your assessment of the U.S's strength, but that's a nother story).