Duceppe threatens to topple Harper government

[watching&waiting]

It would be foolish for Duceppe to make the Afghan mission an election issue. The only reason that the public are getting upset with this mission is because they do not know much about it, and they do not understand the differences between peace keeping and battlefront operations. If pushed to do so the CPC will spend the time and money to expalin all this out in an election format and it will be egg on the nay sayers faces not the CPC.

I could never understand the fact that Harper did not explain the mission clearly to the people, or if he feels he can not then get some one who can to do so. What Canada is doing in Afghanistan is honourable and the right thing to do and be part of. The public just needs to be made aware of it. To call an election on an issue that can be explained and then come back on you for calling the election on it, would not be wise. The biggest gainer would be the CPC in that. The NDP in any election call will be losing most of the seats they now have and I can not see them being any real crown maker in the future. Thay missed their chance and now they will just go off and seek a new leader, or at least I hope, as I really can not stand Layton.

The Liberals with Dion have hedged their bets as Dion is trying to blur the stance of the party as of yet, towards the issue. But in the light of an election he will have to take a firm stand one way or the other, and that will be the stand of showing him being unsure, and that is a fatal flaw for a party leader. The Bloc may well be looking at this and hoping it will translatre inot gaining seats, but as I said earlier this to me would be a wrong thing to do.

[normanchateau]

I could never understand the fact that Harper did not explain the mission clearly to the people, or if he feels he can not then get some one who can to do so. The public just needs to be made aware of it.

Wasn't it just a month ago that O'Connor went coast-to-coast to explain the mission. Source:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...fghanistan/home

Obviously O'Connor had little impact, was ignored and/or spoke to the wrong people.

In any event, Duceppe would be wrong to topple the government over this issue. He'd likely lose seats in Quebec to Dion. The latest polls have the Liberals only about 10 points behind the BQ in Quebec. Elsewhere in Canada, especially in BC and Ontario, the Liberals would pick up seats from both the NDP and CPC.

I anticipate Dion will take a position intermediate to Harper and Duceppe and gain seats from both. So unless Duceppe's goal is merely to replace Harper with Dion, I'm not sure why he'd do it other than to recapture some BQ seats that went CPC in January. Sure he'll recapture those seats given Harper's unpopularity in Quebec but Dion will recapture some Liberal seats.

[Charles Anthony]

I anticipate Dion will take a position intermediate to Harper and Duceppe and gain seats from both.

Like what would that intermediate position be?

Like being a little pregnant?

And a majority of Canadians might vote Harper out because of what they don't know about Afghanistan. Who's fault do you think that is?

Canadians do not know about Afghanistan?

The only reason that the public are getting upset with this mission is because they do not know much about it, and they do not understand the differences between peace keeping and battlefront operations.

That is a bold assumption.

How easy it is to say that Canadians just need to be educated or enlightened.

Is anybody open to the possibility that Canadians DO know enough about Afghanistan and actually object to the "mission" over there?

[normanchateau]

I anticipate Dion will take a position intermediate to Harper and Duceppe and gain seats from both.

Like what would that intermediate position be?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/

[fellowtraveller]

Isn't Dion calling for an 'honourable withdrawal'?

I'm not sure exactly what that means, it sounds like a surrender.

Perhaps his French citizenship is emerging if he is calling for surrender.

[Argus]

Isn't Dion calling for an 'honourable withdrawal'?

I'm not sure exactly what that means, it sounds like a surrender.

Perhaps his French citizenship is emerging if he is calling for surrender.

The British Foreign Minister is in Canada, and dismissed the idea of a "Honourable" withdrawal. The only honourable thing to do, he said, is to stay put and do the job we promised to do. I mean, what is our reasoning for blowing off our commitment? It's too hard? We've lost some men? The Brits have lost some men too. And really, while the sacrifice to the individuals and their families is immense, strategically speaking their miniscule. The real problem the BQ, NDP and Libs have is ideological. They don't think we should be involved in anything which smacks of "militarism". We should be the much admired, righteous peacekeeper, standing nobly above the fray, shaking our head sadly at those pitiful people involved in violence.

[fellowtraveller]

I agree with what you say Argus, and would add that IMO our international reputation has been enhanced by the heavy lifting we are doing in Afghanistan.

Certainly our allies in NATO think better of us lately. Of course, they didn't have a very good opinion to begin with after the gutting of the military by Chretien.

[jdobbin]

I agree with what you say Argus, and would add that IMO our international reputation has been enhanced by the heavy lifting we are doing in Afghanistan.

Certainly our allies in NATO think better of us lately. Of course, they didn't have a very good opinion to begin with after the gutting of the military by Chretien.

Our allies still don't know about Canada in Afghanistan. European papers have it that we are supporting American efforts rather that doing NATO's work. So go figure...

[jdobbin]

If people won't read newspapers or magazines, or put any thought into the basis for their political beliefs there isn't a lot anyone can do about it. It would be nice if such people weren't allowed to vote, though.

There was a throwaway line in today's Toronto Star story on Afghanistan's president cursing at the Pakistanis. It was: According to a tally by The Associated Press based on reports from Afghan and western officials, nearly 4,000 people have died in war violence during 2006 — mostly militants but also including about 300 civilians.

Yet if you asked many of those who want us to run away you'd be told the war is going terribly, we're accomplishing nothing, and the Taliban are on the verge of driving us into the sea (yes, I know there's no sea, but regardless...)

So put Harper out there to explain the real story. Where is he? Even members of the military were pissed that he was not speaking out in the summer. After a brief spurt in the fall, we're back to "no comment."

[jdobbin]

And a majority of Canadians might vote Harper out because of what they don't know about Afghanistan. Who's fault do you think that is?

Canadians do not know about Afghanistan?

They don't know how the war is going because they don't hear the story from the prime minister on a regular basis. The information comes in dribs and drabs. They should take a note from Karzai who helped make the case for Canada being there in the fall. Yet a month later, information from a variety of sources made it seem like the war might not be winnable or that Canada was stretched to the limit. Or that our allies were leaving us out there with our asses hanging in the breeze.

If Harper won't come out and explain the war, it will inevitably be explained by someone else. And explaining the war, doesn't mean spinning it. Eventually, Bush was not able to spin the war to an election advantage. People simply didn't believe him anymore.

If Canada is going to be in Afghanistan beyond 2009, Harper will have to do a far better of explaining what good we are doing.

[Saturn]

Isn't Dion calling for an 'honourable withdrawal'?

I'm not sure exactly what that means, it sounds like a surrender.

Perhaps his French citizenship is emerging if he is calling for surrender.

The British Foreign Minister is in Canada, and dismissed the idea of a "Honourable" withdrawal. The only honourable thing to do, he said, is to stay put and do the job we promised to do. I mean, what is our reasoning for blowing off our commitment? It's too hard?

So we can't blow off our commitment to Afghanistan but we can blow off our commitment to Kyoto. You are a good sport.

[Saturn]

They don't know how the war is going because they don't hear the story from the prime minister on a regular basis. The information comes in dribs and drabs. They should take a note from Karzai who helped make the case for Canada being there in the fall. Yet a month later, information from a variety of sources made it seem like the war might not be winnable or that Canada was stretched to the limit. Or that our allies were leaving us out there with our asses hanging in the breeze.

If Harper won't come out and explain the war, it will inevitably be explained by someone else. And explaining the war, doesn't mean spinning it. Eventually, Bush was not able to spin the war to an election advantage. People simply didn't believe him anymore.

If Canada is going to be in Afghanistan beyond 2009, Harper will have to do a far better of explaining what good we are doing.

The information is scarce because it's bad and Harper would rather keep quiet than spin it and risk losing credibility as a result. The war is unwinnable and our allies are leaving us out there with our asses hanging in the breeze. We are simply the dumb ones who get to pay for it because Mr. Harper made the mistake to make Afghanistan a pet project of his and he will look bad if he changes his mind on it. That's it - we are paying billions and losing lives for optics.

[normanchateau]

The information is scarce because it's bad and Harper would rather keep quiet than spin it and risk losing credibility as a result. The war is unwinnable and our allies are leaving us out there with our asses hanging in the breeze. We are simply the dumb ones who get to pay for it because Mr. Harper made the mistake to make Afghanistan a pet project of his and he will look bad if he changes his mind on it. That's it - we are paying billions and losing lives for optics.

I wonder if Harper has yet figured out that speaking out to Canadians on Afghanistan might give him as much credibility as Bush has with the American people about Iraq.

The more Harper says about Afghanistan, the more that opposition parties are likely to bring up corruption in the Karzai government, members of the government involved in drug smuggling, mullahs and Islamic courts who sentenced an Afghan man to death for converting to Christianity, Canadian forces dying for an Islamic theocracy, etc. Between Harper's militarism and declining, Bush-like credibility, and the strident and shrill attacks of Layton and Duceppe, Dion will look like the moderate, centrist that he is.

[Jean_Poutine]

They don't know how the war is going because they don't hear the story from the prime minister on a regular basis. The information comes in dribs and drabs. They should take a note from Karzai who helped make the case for Canada being there in the fall. Yet a month later, information from a variety of sources made it seem like the war might not be winnable or that Canada was stretched to the limit. Or that our allies were leaving us out there with our asses hanging in the breeze.

If Harper won't come out and explain the war, it will inevitably be explained by someone else. And explaining the war, doesn't mean spinning it. Eventually, Bush was not able to spin the war to an election advantage. People simply didn't believe him anymore.

If Canada is going to be in Afghanistan beyond 2009, Harper will have to do a far better of explaining what good we are doing.

The information is scarce because it's bad and Harper would rather keep quiet than spin it and risk losing credibility as a result. The war is unwinnable and our allies are leaving us out there with our asses hanging in the breeze. We are simply the dumb ones who get to pay for it because Mr. Harper made the mistake to make Afghanistan a pet project of his and he will look bad if he changes his mind on it. That's it - we are paying billions and losing lives for optics.

It's not Harper's pet project. It was Paul Martin that sent troops to Kandahar where they've been more involved in direct combat. The Conservatives have simply given them the equipment that they need to deal with the threats they face there. For example, they had problems penetrating Taliban positions with the 25mm gun on LAV IIIs, and they have to deal with attacks on convoys. So, they sent in tanks, and spent $200 million on it, which includes upgrades that are specifically for the mission. If you read reports about the tanks, you'll see that the troops are very happy to have the extra support, and that's what counts.

Canada is not involved in combat at the expense of everything else as is often implied by critics. Canada is also training Afghan troops, helping the government, and involved in reconstruction and aid. Afghanistan is the number one recipient of Canadian aid. In addition, most of the people that are treated at the Canadian medical facilities there are Afghan soldiers and civilians. However, they do have the ability to kick butt if butt needs to be kicked.

As for allies, understand that it's to be expected that Germany will be reluctant to get involved in fighting given the past. I'm sure German forces would like to help out, and Dallaire has called todays German forces exemplary, but it's political, and that's somewhat understandable given the past. They also have a significant number of forces involved in other missions such as Kosovo while Afghanistan is Canada's main mission. As for France, were you expecting them to lead the way? Again, I'm sure they have soldiers that are willing to help out, but the French government is another story. There are, however, allies backing up Canadian forces. The British, Americans, Dutch and Australians, to name some, are helping. In fact, Canada just handed over control to the Dutch.

The problem with governments setting conditions on how their forces are used in a coaliton has always been around. It's the weakness of multilateralism. It's not because other countries have something against Canada, nor an indication that the mission in Afghanistan is unwinnable. It's just another obstacle to overcome.

What certainly makes a situation unwinnable is pessimism. Canadians are proud of the nations past accomplishments, which did not come from sitting around saying that the situation is hopeless.

[jdobbin]

It's not Harper's pet project. It was Paul Martin that sent troops to Kandahar where they've been more involved in direct combat. The Conservatives have simply given them the equipment that they need to deal with the threats they face there. For example, they had problems penetrating Taliban positions with the 25mm gun on LAV IIIs, and they have to deal with attacks on convoys. So, they sent in tanks, and spent $200 million on it, which includes upgrades that are specifically for the mission. If you read reports about the tanks, you'll see that the troops are very happy to have the extra support, and that's what counts.

What certainly makes a situation unwinnable is pessimism. Canadians are proud of the nations past accomplishments, which did not come from sitting around saying that the situation is hopeless.

It isn't just simply maintaining and supporting the Martin government's decision. It is the extension which Harper owns now. And if there is pessimism, it is Harper's job to address it.

[mikedavid00]

The Liberals with Dion have hedged their bets as Dion is trying to blur the stance of the party as of yet, towards the issue. But in the light of an election he will have to take a firm stand one way or the other, and that will be the stand of showing him being unsure, and that is a fatal flaw for a party leader. The Bloc may well be looking at this and hoping it will translatre inot gaining seats, but as I said earlier this to me would be a wrong thing to do.

I agree. Dion has not been giving a firm stance on anything. Canadians seem to like that though.

And I hear something about a 'volunteer army'..

what is that?

[mikedavid00]

It isn't just simply maintaining and supporting the Martin government's decision. It is the extension which Harper owns now. And if there is pessimism, it is Harper's job to address it.

You mean the extension that the majority of Liberals voted for?

Harper gets an F grade for explaining the milatary mission.

Hell, Martin didn't even put it to a vote. He just sent everyone out dictator style. One day I woke up and heard on the radio that Martin sent troops to Afganistan. I couldn't beleive it.

[Jean_Poutine]

The information is scarce because it's bad and Harper would rather keep quiet than spin it and risk losing credibility as a result. The war is unwinnable and our allies are leaving us out there with our asses hanging in the breeze. We are simply the dumb ones who get to pay for it because Mr. Harper made the mistake to make Afghanistan a pet project of his and he will look bad if he changes his mind on it. That's it - we are paying billions and losing lives for optics.

I wonder if Harper has yet figured out that speaking out to Canadians on Afghanistan might give him as much credibility as Bush has with the American people about Iraq.

The more Harper says about Afghanistan, the more that opposition parties are likely to bring up corruption in the Karzai government, members of the government involved in drug smuggling, mullahs and Islamic courts who sentenced an Afghan man to death for converting to Christianity, Canadian forces dying for an Islamic theocracy, etc. Between Harper's militarism and declining, Bush-like credibility, and the strident and shrill attacks of Layton and Duceppe, Dion will look like the moderate, centrist that he is.

Drawing comparisons between Harper and Bush, or Afghanistan and Iraq is a mistake. It's simplistic, and it certainly lends itself well to partisan bickering like the "cut and run" vs. "stay the course" debate in the US, but reality isn't so simple.

[normanchateau]

It isn't just simply maintaining and supporting the Martin government's decision. It is the extension which Harper owns now. And if there is pessimism, it is Harper's job to address it.

You mean the extension that the majority of Liberals voted for?

What??? Only 30 Liberals voted for the extension.

[mikedavid00]

It isn't just simply maintaining and supporting the Martin government's decision. It is the extension which Harper owns now. And if there is pessimism, it is Harper's job to address it.

You mean the extension that the majority of Liberals voted for?

What??? Only 30 Liberals voted for the extension.

My bad. I thought the majority of the house voted for the extension and supported it.

[Jean_Poutine]

It's not Harper's pet project. It was Paul Martin that sent troops to Kandahar where they've been more involved in direct combat. The Conservatives have simply given them the equipment that they need to deal with the threats they face there. For example, they had problems penetrating Taliban positions with the 25mm gun on LAV IIIs, and they have to deal with attacks on convoys. So, they sent in tanks, and spent $200 million on it, which includes upgrades that are specifically for the mission. If you read reports about the tanks, you'll see that the troops are very happy to have the extra support, and that's what counts.

What certainly makes a situation unwinnable is pessimism. Canadians are proud of the nations past accomplishments, which did not come from sitting around saying that the situation is hopeless.

It isn't just simply maintaining and supporting the Martin government's decision. It is the extension which Harper owns now. And if there is pessimism, it is Harper's job to address it.

I think the vote was a good move and a strategic one. The Liberals sent Canadian forces into Afghanistan and into Kandahar. They are, however, divided on it, and people shouldn't be left to wonder how long Canada will be there. The vote brings clarity to it, and puts the Liberals that voted for it on the record in support of it. That helps bring an end to instability caused by political division. Canada will probably be in Afghanistan beyond 2009, but this gives clarity for the time being.

[Jean_Poutine]

So we can't blow off our commitment to Afghanistan but we can blow off our commitment to Kyoto. You are a good sport.

The Liberals were in power for nearly 13 years, and during that time, emissions went up not down. On the other hand, the Conservatives have been in power less than a year. Therefore, it's a bit premature to compare records on the environment.

[Charles Anthony]

Just a point of order: there is a lot of empty whitespace (sometimes more than the added response!) in the quotes throughout this thread. Check out #5 of

Using the [ Quote ] Feature: Avoid using more too many quotes!

---

Some of you have already gone back and tightened the formatting up. Excellent!

[jdobbin]

I think the vote was a good move and a strategic one. The Liberals sent Canadian forces into Afghanistan and into Kandahar. They are, however, divided on it, and people shouldn't be left to wonder how long Canada will be there. The vote brings clarity to it, and puts the Liberals that voted for it on the record in support of it. That helps bring an end to instability caused by political division. Canada will probably be in Afghanistan beyond 2009, but this gives clarity for the time being.

There have been broad hints that Canada will be in Afghanistan beyond 2009. If this is the case, there will have to measurable success there. It is doubtful that Canadians will be swayed by the same argument for extension without the promise that things are getting better and that peace appears closer than farther away.

[scribblet]

Afghanistan certainly is unpopular in Quebec. A fight on it would probably not go well for the Conservatives there.

Nor in British Columbia where approval for the Afghanistan mission has now dropped to only 37%.

http://www.mustelgroup.com/pdf/20061122_fvi_release.pdf

I'm sure the Liberals will give all their support to Duceppe.

Then who'll be in bed with separatists