Stephen Harper: Closet U.S. Democrat

[Wilber]

We could debate that issue forever. What matters to me is that Harper has positioned himself within the socially conservative wing of the Conservatives. That puts him outside of mainstream Canada in my opinion. I can easily relate to the fiscal conservatives but not the social conservatives within the Conservatives. I think that describes the majority of Canadians.

So bearing in mind that Clinton agrees with Harpers stance on Afghanistan that would make Clinton a social conservative?

[Canadian Blue]

Doesn't Clinton also support the death penalty. I think he might be more socially conservative then Clinton!

[scribblet]

How many American speakers have the Liberals had so far - around 3...gee imagine the stink if CPC did that - ooohhh who's taking advice from the Americans now. -

[normanchateau]

I think he might be more socially conservative then Clinton!

Never mind "might be". I think he's definitely more socially conservative than Clinton!

[scribblet]

From Clinton's speech, looks like that ole socially conscious Clinton support us and the Afghan war. Must have Taliban Jack squirming around.

http://www.pentictonherald.ca/article_2408.php

Thank you) for the sacrifice and service of your troops. I’m well aware that as your losses mount, your involvement there is controversial and victory is by no means assured. But it is very different from Iraq.”

“Afghanistan was the home of the perpetrators of 9-11,” Clinton said. “The entire world community endorsed through the United Nations the deposing of the Taliban, the most repressive regime on Earth. . . .

“We cannot fail for two reasons. One is you don’t want the Taliban to come back in and give al-Qaida free rein. The second: because we can’t secure the country now, President (Hamid) Karzai has to make agreements with Afghan warlords. And the price of their co-operation is the freedom to grow (opium) poppies. . . . They now produce 90 per cent of the world’s opium supply.”

[normanchateau]

From Clinton's speech,

Thank you) for the sacrifice and service of your troops. I’m well aware that as your losses mount, your involvement there is controversial and victory is by no means assured. But it is very different from Iraq.”

“Afghanistan was the home of the perpetrators of 9-11,” Clinton said. “The entire world community endorsed through the United Nations the deposing of the Taliban, the most repressive regime on Earth. . . .

“We cannot fail for two reasons. One is you don’t want the Taliban to come back in and give al-Qaida free rein. The second: because we can’t secure the country now, President (Hamid) Karzai has to make agreements with Afghan warlords. And the price of their co-operation is the freedom to grow (opium) poppies. . . . They now produce 90 per cent of the world’s opium supply.”

You're merely expanding upon the same point that was made in the initial post in this thread. Harper and Clinton agree on this point. So do Harper and Bush. So do Bush and Clinton, and probably most Americans as well.

But a majority of Canadians no longer support the mission and even among those who do support the mission, a majority of those support it only "somewhat" rather than strongly.

Unless the Liberals harm themselves by selecting Ignatieff as leader, this will be a powerful election issue

with only the Cons supporting it and the Liberals, NDP, BQ and Green Party opposed.

[kimmy]

But a majority of Canadians no longer support the mission and even among those who do support the mission, a majority of those support it only "somewhat" rather than strongly.

Unless the Liberals harm themselves by selecting Ignatieff as leader, this will be a powerful election issue

with only the Cons supporting it and the Liberals, NDP, BQ and Green Party opposed.

Gerryhatrick says that the Liberals don't oppose the mission in Afghanistan. In fact, if you look at the Liberal leadership condenders' positions on the subject, you'll notice that Brison and Ignatieff have stated firm support for the mission, and the remainder have taken PaulMartinesque positions where they talk a lot without taking a firm position either way. There's not a single firm commitment to withdraw from Afghanistan from any of the contenders.

I think the inference is clear: they know that they could potentially form the next government, and don't wish to make a promise that they'd have no possibility of keeping. (by contrast, it's easy for Jack Layton to pledge things like total withdrawal from Afghanistan, because he'll never be in a position to make good on that commitment.)

To make a long story short, I think the message is, don't expect Afghanistan to be a big election issue. Layton will talk a lot about it, but the Conservatives won't because they've already made their commitment and the Liberals won't talk much about it because they they're not going to withdraw our troops and they won't want to talk about that fact.

-k

[Canadian Blue]

If Canada were to withdraw as many of the left wingers want, then imagine the damage it will do to Canada's reputation on the international front. The Brits, Danes, Dutch, Australians, and the American's, would all be supremely pissed.

Canadian's are more or less ignorant about Afghanistan, hell when I joined the Canadian Army I can't even tell you how many people thought that we were in Iraq.

But a majority of Canadians no longer support the mission and even among those who do support the mission, a majority of those support it only "somewhat" rather than strongly.

As around the same number only "somewhat" oppose the mission. So with the proper information on Afghanistan then the actaul number supporting the mission would be around 70%. Once again it's unfortunate that the left wing is trying to undermine the good work our Canadian soldiers are doing overseas.

[normanchateau]

But a majority of Canadians no longer support the mission and even among those who do support the mission, a majority of those support it only "somewhat" rather than strongly.

Unless the Liberals harm themselves by selecting Ignatieff as leader, this will be a powerful election issue

with only the Cons supporting it and the Liberals, NDP, BQ and Green Party opposed.

Gerryhatrick says that the Liberals don't oppose the mission in Afghanistan. In fact, if you look at the Liberal leadership condenders' positions on the subject, you'll notice that Brison and Ignatieff have stated firm support for the mission, and the remainder have taken PaulMartinesque positions where they talk a lot without taking a firm position either way. There's not a single firm commitment to withdraw from Afghanistan from any of the contenders.

Brison is irrelevant. Dion, Rae and Kennedy all opposed extending the mission. Assuming one of the three wins the leadership, it remains to be seen how that will translate into withdrawal. But I anticipate it will be an election issue unless Ignatieff wins.

[Canadian Blue]

Brison is irrelevant. Dion, Rae and Kennedy all opposed extending the mission. Assuming one of the three wins the leadership, it remains to be seen how that will translate into withdrawal. But I anticipate it will be an election issue unless Ignatieff wins.

So then Canada would be one of the first nation's to have the proud honour of retreating from Afghanistan???

Allright troops, after fighting hard, losing comrades, and bringing about so much progress from your hardwork we have decided to retreat back to Canada. I'd imagine troop morale would take a hit, as every soldier I have talked to is proud of what they did overseas.

[normanchateau]

Brison is irrelevant. Dion, Rae and Kennedy all opposed extending the mission. Assuming one of the three wins the leadership, it remains to be seen how that will translate into withdrawal. But I anticipate it will be an election issue unless Ignatieff wins.

So then Canada would be one of the first nation's to have the proud honour of retreating from Afghanistan???

Depends on how you define "retreating". Most NATO nations have already retreated from any obligation to put their forces into Afghanistan. Only a small number of NATO countries even have troops in Afghanistan. And those who are in Afghanistan are fighting a losing battle to prop up a corrupt government with legislation which cannot be "contrary to the laws of Islam."

Of 249 members of the lower house of congress in Afghanistan, there are at least 17 known drug traffickers, 40 regional warlords, 24 members of criminal gangs, and 19 men facing allegations of war crimes or human rights abuses.

Retreating from fighting a battle to defend a corrupt, Islamic theocracy riddled with narcotics dealers controlling 92% of the world's opium trade would not be dishonourable.

[Canadian Blue]

http://www.jfcbs.nato.int/ISAF/index.htm

Troops Contributing Nations

More than 31,000 troops make up ISAF, with contributions from 37 nations. We track individual contributions by each nation but those numbers change on a regular basis due to the rotation of troops. Please contact the specific nations for their contributions.

Nations supporting the ISAF mission are:

Albania

Australia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Belgium

Bulgaria

Canada

Croatia

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia*

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States of America

Yeah.........................

Certainly more troops are needed in the south, but Canada would be the first to completely retreat as you are suggesting we do. That would hurt relations with 31 countries!!!

ISAF was created in accordance with Agreements resulting form the Bonn Conference, December 2001, after the ousting of the Taliban regime. Afghan opposition leaders attending the conference began the process of reconstructing their country by setting up a new government structure, namely the Government of Afghanistan.

The concept of an UN-mandated international force to assist the newly established Afghan Transitional Authority (ATA) was also launched to create a secure environment in and around Kabul and support the reconstruction of Afghanistan. These agreements paved the way for the creation of a three-way partnership between the previous ATA (in force before Oct 2004), UNAMA and ISAF.

ISAF is not a UN force, but it is deployed under a mandate of the United Nations Security Council (seven UNSC Resolutions - 1386, 1413, 1444, 1510, 1563, 1623, 1659 and 1707 - relate to ISAF). A detailed Military Technical Agreement between the ISAF Commander and the Government of Afghanistan provides additional guidance for ISAF operations.

During the Afghanistan Conference held in London on 31 January - 1 February 2006, NATO reconfirmed its long-term commitment to Afghanistan. The international donors present at the conference agreed a five-year "Afghanistan Compact", which commits both the Afghan government and the international community to benchmarks in areas such as security, economic development and better governance.

As for the Islamic theocracy argument, if their are human rights abuses you would see a massive backlash against that country. That is what happened with the muslim who converted to christianity, all of NATO was up in arms, and the man did get out alive.

Of 249 members of the lower house of congress in Afghanistan, there are at least 17 known drug traffickers, 40 regional warlords, 24 members of criminal gangs, and 19 men facing allegations of war crimes or human rights abuses.

Most of our operations are in countries which have corrupt governments. Do you honestly believe that all of the operation's we've been involved in the country was a pluralistic democracy similar to us. Democracy usually takes time, and as long as Afghanistan is poor, and is under constant attack from the Taliban it will remain this way. Do you think Haiti is a country worth dying for???

Retreating from fighting a battle to defend a corrupt, Islamic theocracy riddled with narcotics dealers controlling 92% of the world's opium trade would not be dishonourable.

Once again you have displayed your ignorance towards the situation. Afghanistan is in much better shape today then it was in 2001. What is dishonourable is leaving before getting a job done so Afghanistan gets taken over by the Taliban, and we see all of the progress we had achieved dissapear due to people's general ignorance on the issue. You obviously have no idea what the Canadian Forces is doing over there.

I don't know what you call abondoning 4.8 million children, a large portion who are girls based on ignorance of the Canadian public.

http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/menu-en.asp

Afghanistan has made remarkable strides since the fall of the Taliban with:

a new constitution;

successful presidential and legislative elections;

more than four million children enrolled in school;

reforms begun in defence, justice, and finance;

significant progress made in demining; and

the reintegration of nearly three million Afghan refugees.

Canada has taken a lead role in several initiatives: supporting the Afghan Government’s efforts to honourably decommission the Afghan Military Forces, and to collect and store more than 12,000 heavy weapons such as artillery, tanks, and rocket launchers; providing savings and microloan services to more than 150,000 Afghan small business owners, 90 percent of them women; and assisting with landmine education, demining and the destruction of ammunition stockpiles.

[Canadian Blue]

I'll give you actual troop counts as well. All nations providing over 100 troops.

http://www.jfcbs.nato.int/ISAF/media/pdf/p...7fe3799cac609b4

US=11,250

UK=5200

Turkey=475

Sweden=350

Spain=625

Romania=750

Portugal=180

Norway=350

New Zealand=100

Netherlands=2100

Lithuania=135

Finland=100

France=1000

Macedonia=120

Germany=2750

Greece=180

Hungary=200

Italy=1800

Denmark=320

Czech Republic=320

Croatia=120

Canada=1800

Bulgaria=150

Belguim=300

Australia=200

Depends on how you define "retreating". Most NATO nations have already retreated from any obligation to put their forces into Afghanistan. Only a small number of NATO countries even have troops in Afghanistan. And those who are in Afghanistan are fighting a losing battle to prop up a corrupt government with legislation which cannot be "contrary to the laws of Islam."

[normanchateau]

But a majority of Canadians no longer support the mission and even among those who do support the mission, a majority of those support it only "somewhat" rather than strongly.

As around the same number only "somewhat" oppose the mission. So with the proper information on Afghanistan then the actaul number supporting the mission would be around 70%. Once again it's unfortunate that the left wing is trying to undermine the good work our Canadian soldiers are doing overseas.

Here are the actual numbers:

somewhat support 23%

strongly support 21%

strongly oppose 37%

somewhat oppose 17%

As I said before, a majority of Canadians no longer support the mission and even among those who still support the mission, a majority of those do NOT support it strongly.

Assuming that the next Prime Minister of Canada is not Ignatieff but Dion, Kennedy or Rae, I anticipate that the wishes of the majority will prevail. It's a common feature of democracies.

[Canadian Blue]

So your then against the mission based purely on ignorance. As with most other Canadian's. So far I have seen around 50% of Canadian's who support the mission in Afghanistan, how would you say the vast majority oppose the mission based on that poll.

Assuming that the next Prime Minister of Canada is not Ignatieff but Dion, Kennedy or Rae, I anticipate that the wishes of the majority will prevail. It's a common feature of democracies.

So he is willing to turn his back on the countries I listed who are currently in Afghanistan. Once again any PM who completely withdraws troops from Afghanistan will see a substantial backlash from NATO nations, as they would then have to replace the 1800 troop contingent in Afghanistan. Not to mention are role in Kandahar right now which is essential for rebuilding Afghanistan and securing the country.

As well your only using one poll, so thats a pretty poor standard to go by.

So do you believe that Canadian's are opposed to the mission based on ignorance??? After all even you had no clue what the situation was like in Afghanistan with relation to what countries commitments were.

[normanchateau]

As well your only using one poll, so thats a pretty poor standard to go by.

So do you believe that Canadian's are opposed to the mission based on ignorance??? After all even you had no clue what the situation was like in Afghanistan with relation to what countries commitments were.

If you have a current poll that asks a similar question, by all means post it. The only other current polls I've seen ask different questions relating to reconstruction and so on. The results I posted relate to the combat mission per se.

You're absolutely right that I did not know of the large number of NATO countries in Afghanistan. Given the large number of foreign troops there, can you explain why so far the only deaths seem to have been among the Americans, Canadians, British and possibly Dutch? What are the other troops doing there if they're not fighting?

And if they are fighting, why do they seem impervious to death?

[Canadian Blue]

Because Canadian's, Brits, American's, and the Dutch, are all currently in the southern portion of Afghanistan. Other countries are in the north which is more peaceful then the south which used to be the Taliban stronghold. Once again, your ignorance has been shown again.

[normanchateau]

Because Canadian's, Brits, American's, and the Dutch, are all currently in the southern portion of Afghanistan. Other countries are in the north which is more peaceful then the south which used to be the Taliban stronghold.

Let's hope the next Canadian Prime Minister, presumably Rae, Dion or Kennedy, decides either to withdraw or place the Canadian troops up north where the majority of NATO troops are located and where the Taliban are scarce. Apparently you'd rather see Canadian troops in the south and you're entitled to your opinion. However, most Canadians disagree with you and no matter how much you whine, most Canadians will continue to disagree with you.

[Canadian Blue]

What, is their a need for anymore NATO troops in the north.

Once again I love hearing this whining from somebody who has no clue what is going on in Afghanistan. Especially when they make a comment saying that only a "few" NATO nations are in Afghanistan when 31 nation's have troops currently in that theatre.

[normanchateau]

What, is their a need for anymore NATO troops in the north.

Once again I love hearing this whining from somebody who has no clue what is going on in Afghanistan.

And I love watching someone twist and turn to support a mission to defend a corrupt government whose human rights legislation is secondary to the laws of Islam.

And now the eloquent Gordon O'Connor is travelling across Canada trying to persuade sceptical Canadians of the wisdom of this mission. Fat chance.

[Canadian Blue]

What are you talking about???

In World War 2 while we were fighting the German's do you think anybody said, "Hey guys you think we should go back to Great Britian and help there instead of in France".

And I love watching someone twist and turn to support a mission to defend a corrupt government whose human rights legislation is secondary to the laws of Islam.

Once again, for I don't know around the 20th time now, maybe, we have constantly referred you to previous articles on Abdul Rahman who was not put to death.

Let me ask you this question should Canada pull out of the former Yugoslavia, East Timor, and Haiti, as well???

And now the eloquent Gordon O'Connor is travelling across Canada trying to persuade sceptical Canadians of the wisdom of this mission. Fat chance.

Well its better that Canadian's know more about Afghanistan then nothing at all. Thats how people make stupid mistakes. Let me show you what I mean.

QUOTE

Depends on how you define "retreating". Most NATO nations have already retreated from any obligation to put their forces into Afghanistan. Only a small number of NATO countries even have troops in Afghanistan. And those who are in Afghanistan are fighting a losing battle to prop up a corrupt government with legislation which cannot be "contrary to the laws of Islam."

Countries with over 100 troops in Afghanistan.

US=11,250

UK=5200

Turkey=475

Sweden=350

Spain=625

Romania=750

Portugal=180

Norway=350

New Zealand=100

Netherlands=2100

Lithuania=135

Finland=100

France=1000

Macedonia=120

Germany=2750

Greece=180

Hungary=200

Italy=1800

Denmark=320

Czech Republic=320

Croatia=120

Canada=1800

Bulgaria=150

Belguim=300

Australia=200

Apparently all those nations are blinded by what is happening in Afghanistan. So Norman why are all those countries in Afghanistan fighting for a corrupt, theocracy. I highly doubt you will answer that.

[normanchateau]

And I love watching someone twist and turn to support a mission to defend a corrupt government whose human rights legislation is secondary to the laws of Islam.

Once again, for I don't know around the 20th time now, maybe, we have constantly referred you to previous articles on Abdul Rahman who was not put to death.

There you go again, once again twisting and turning and distorting what I said. I NEVER said that Rahman was put to death. If you think I did, go ahead and provide the evidence.

What I said is that he was SENTENCED to death. Of course the sentence was not carried out. I never said it was. Rahman was exiled to Europe in order that the corrupt Karzai government could sweep this issue under the table.

[Canadian Blue]

Actually the Karzai government helped stop the execution.

Diplomats said that the Afghan government was "desperately searching for a way to drop the case"[7] by declaring Abdul Rahman mentally unfit to stand trial.

On March 24, 2006, Afghan authorities announced that they were considering releasing Abdul Rahman soon. A special government meeting on his case was held on the following day during which President Hamid Karzai conferred with several Cabinet ministers for a way to free him without angering the country's powerful conservative Muslim clerics who have called for Abdul Rahman's execution.

Agence France Presse (AFP) quoted an unidentified Afghan official as saying that president Hamid Karzai has personally interfered in Abdul Rahman's case to secure the convert's release. "The president is personally working to resolve it peacefully. There is a way out of it," said the official. "I believe it'll take one or two days."[28]

Karzai is considered a moderate in the country.

In all honesty would you rather have happen in Afghanistan???

All I am hearing is all of this talk about how much you hate Harper, yet for some reason have no hatred for Chretien's support of the KLA oddly enough. But why don't you tell us what should happen in Afghanistan.

What I said is that he was SENTENCED to death. Of course the sentence was not carried out. I never said it was. Rahman was exiled to Europe in order that the corrupt Karzai government could sweep this issue under the table.

You didn't even mention Rahman's name till now, this is the first time I saw that. It actually sunk in after showing you the article for about 20 times.

That's clearly stated in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and gives the corrupt Karzai regime and its mullahs the right to imprison blasphemers and execute those who convert to Christianity.

Even though no one has been executed yet. Even gays aren't executed in Afghanistan.

Seems unlikely. Theocracies like the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan whose constitution states that the Koran reigns supreme routinely violate human rights. Powerful mullahs can over-ride any human rights if those rights are, as stated in the Afghan constitution, "contrary to Islam." For example, they imprison people for blasphemy and sentence people to death for converting to Christianity. The Karzai government has done both yet Harper not only invites Karzai to Canada but is willing to sacrifice Canadians for that country.

How many people have been killed in Afghanistan for converting to christianity again. Apparently pretty well all western countries believe in supporting Afghanistan. You know, it is supported by the UN, and NATO is involved. I guess you should go on a hate trip on the leaders of Canada, United States, Germany, France, Sweden, Great Britian, Slovakia, New Zealand, Australia, Spain, etc.

I wonder what in the hell the rest of the world is thinking???

You've been very confused before.

I'm sorry that stating the truth about Mr. Harper makes people want to hate me. He did vote against Bill C-250. Bill C-250 states, among other things, that killing lesbians and gays is a hate crime. I've provided the link. Have you read it and if so, what have I said that's untrue?

Not really.

This is true. There is no legislation in the US declaring the killing of homosexuals to be a hate crime. Thus, Bush could not have voted against the legislation as Harper did.

Other than the 24 states which do have such laws.

This is my favorite qoute so far......

QUOTE

Depends on how you define "retreating". Most NATO nations have already retreated from any obligation to put their forces into Afghanistan. Only a small number of NATO countries even have troops in Afghanistan. And those who are in Afghanistan are fighting a losing battle to prop up a corrupt government with legislation which cannot be "contrary to the laws of Islam."

Countries with over 100 troops in Afghanistan.

US=11,250

UK=5200

Turkey=475

Sweden=350

Spain=625

Romania=750

Portugal=180

Norway=350

New Zealand=100

Netherlands=2100

Lithuania=135

Finland=100

France=1000

Macedonia=120

Germany=2750

Greece=180

Hungary=200

Italy=1800

Denmark=320

Czech Republic=320

Croatia=120

Canada=1800

Bulgaria=150

Belguim=300

Australia=200

Maybe your just confused all the time. The only person's words your distorting are your own.

In all honesty would you rather have happen in Afghanistan???

[normanchateau]

There you go again twisting and turning. You claimed that I said Rahman was put to death. I never said that nor were you able to provide evidence that I said that.

[Canadian Blue]

Stop smoking dope, you probably never even knew who Rahman was till I provided you the link. You said Afghanistan put christian's to death, even though it was only one incident.

For example, they imprison people for blasphemy and sentence people to death for converting to Christianity. The Karzai government has done both yet Harper not only invites Karzai to Canada but is willing to sacrifice Canadians for that country.

Even though the Karzai government didn't sentence him to death, they actually had a hand in saving his life.

The Karzai government didn't sentence anyone to death, and nobody has been put to death.

Hold on try answering this question.

What would you rather have happen in Afghanistan, and what would be the consequences???

What would you rather have happen in Afghanistan, and what would be the consequences???

What would you rather have happen in Afghanistan, and what would be the consequences???

What would you rather have happen in Afghanistan, and what would be the consequences???

What would you rather have happen in Afghanistan, and what would be the consequences???