Duceppe threatens to topple Harper government

[normanchateau]

What certainly makes a situation unwinnable is pessimism.

George Bush has not been pessimistic with respect to the war in Iraq which at this point has cost the US 350 billion dollars. His lack of pessimism has not made the situation winnable but it has prolonged it. Now there is a civil war in Iraq, one which the Shi'ite majority is likely to win thereby increasing the chances that Iraq will ultimately ally with their Shi'ite majority neighbour Iran. Previously Iraq was a secular dictatorship. Thanks to meddling Bush, Iraq is on the pathway to an alliance with Iran.

Harper went on US television to let Americans know that he supported the US invasion of Iraq. Well he was wrong then and he was wrong to extend the Canadian mission in Afghanistan without further debate. With more debate, he might have got more than a mere 30 Liberal MPs to support the extension. As is, with a majority of Liberals, NDP and BQ MPs not supporting the mission, he has put Canadian forces in the unenviable position of risking their lives for a mission most Canadians no longer support. Now that Bush is a worthless, lame duck and only four NATO countries are willing to risk their forces fighting in southern Afghanistan, Harper needs to sell this mission to Canadians and not merely pretend to support our forces.

If Harper could go on US television to let Americans know why he supported the invasion of Iraq, he should have the b-lls to go on Canadian television to sell the mission to Canadians. Even if he sees no political gain, he should at least do it for the Canadian forces. They deserve it.

[geoffrey]

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!

Charles,

Where's the anarchy my friend? All neat and orderly? It's not like you.

[Argus]

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."

I agree that the government has done a miserable job in explaining things. But then again, how many times are they supposed to explain things to a population which clearly is too stupid and short sighted to pay attention anyway? It's not like you need to explain things once, and that's it. As you pointed out, they did the big publicity thing in the fall, and support for the mission rose much higher. Now it's fallen off again, as if people have now forgotten what they saw and heard in the fall. Does Harper need to make a monthly speaking tour on this because Canadians are too dumb to remember what he said last month?

And, of course, a major reason for lack of support is the politicing of the opposition parties, who, in my opniion, care nothing whatever about the mission in Afghanistan, whether for good or ill, but see a chance to make political points. The NDP are having orgasms reliving the sixties anti-war era, and so what if their support plunges, while the Liberals are doing what they always do: cynically playing both ends against the middle, talking out of both sides of their mouth, and doing whatever they can to better their own interests.

I think this is really why I so hate the Liberal party. Their utter dishonesty and lack of integrity. They care nothing about anything but themselves. They launched this mission, remember, and it hasn't changed one whit. The only thing the Tories have done is to extend it. Yet most Liberals are out there bemoaning the "tory" mission, and doing the best they can to portray the Tories as warmongers while slyly equating George Bush with Afghanistan and suggesting the Tories are Bush clones. You can easily see this will be the "scary scary" advertising campaign for next election - Harper as George Bush.

[Argus]

The information is scarce because it's bad and Harper would rather keep quiet than spin it and risk losing credibility as a result.

This is the Liberal Party's war.

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.

Our allies negotiated what roles they would play, and under what circumstances, as did Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party. While our allies, many of them, demanded soft, cushy jobs, the Liberals proudly boasted that we were ready to fight, and agreed to send us to the heart of the Taliban on a combat mission where it would be extremely dangerous. They said at the time that Canadians were going to die on the mission, that it wasn't a "peacekeeping" mission like before, and yet, there were no protests from the Liberal Party, or its supporters, and protests from the NDP and BQ, if they existed (I don't remember any), were pretty damned soft.

But now it's all Harper's fault, right? Please tell us how the mission would be any different if the Liberals had won re-election.

[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?

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

There is a difference between abandoning our military allies in the middle of a fight in which they, as well as we, are taking casualties, and abandoning a theoretical construct which never would have done anyone any good to begin with.

Remember that the Kyoto accord is based on the hope that if everyone got into it (the US, Russa and China did not) and we managed to meet all the targets this would _reduce_ the GROWTH of emissions. It would not halt emissions growth. It would not reduce world emissions. It would simply slow the growth, and if I recall correctly, by something like 5%, a piddling result for so much work and money spent. We will meet the spirit of the accord by doing the best we can to reduce emissions, but won't meet the target because unlike the others we're starting 13 years after the accord was signed instead of right away, and our emissions have skyrocketed since then.

[Jean_Poutine]

George Bush has not been pessimistic with respect to the war in Iraq which at this point has cost the US 350 billion dollars. His lack of pessimism has not made the situation winnable but it has prolonged it. Now there is a civil war in Iraq, one which the Shi'ite majority is likely to win thereby increasing the chances that Iraq will ultimately ally with their Shi'ite majority neighbour Iran. Previously Iraq was a secular dictatorship. Thanks to meddling Bush, Iraq is on the pathway to an alliance with Iran.

I'm aware of all that, but you're comparing apples to oranges. Iraq is not the same as Afghanistan. We can go into several pages of discussion about the differences if you'd like, but for now, I'll leave it at that to keep it short.

Also, the policy of regime change in Iraq started with George H.W. Bush and continued through Bill Clinton's presidency to George W. Bush. The only thing that changed was the method for achieving it. The "neo-cons" that surrounded Bush were involved in politics long before him, and advocated regime change long before he was in office. Many of the Democrats supported the Iraq war - including Hillary Clinton. So, you can focus on one man to embody all that is wrong if you like, and many people do, but it's more complicated than that.

Harper went on US television to let Americans know that he supported the US invasion of Iraq.

And both Jean Chrétien and John Manley expressed desire to see a swift American victory even though the goal was regime change and it didn't have UN support. We can go back and forth on this, but the important thing is that be it a Liberal or Conservative government, Canada isn't involved in the Iraq. Harper has shown an ability to take in information, evaluate it, and change his position if need be. On the other hand, Ignatieff was either too stubborn or too arrogant to do that, and it's dogged him as a result.

Well he was wrong then and he was wrong to extend the Canadian mission in Afghanistan without further debate.

In your opinion, and I disagree. The Liberals knew full well what to expect in Afghanistan. The Americans warned them about the challenges they'd face in Kandahar when they made the decision to deploy troops there. However, when you commit to a course of action, you don't leave people to wonder whether or not you're going to go back on your word from one day to the next.

I believe that Canada should participate fully and with clarity when involved in a mission with allies. That's just being a good ally. Some say that Canada is too involved in combat and not involved enough in reconstruction, but the truth is that Canada is involved in everything. Canada is offering assistance to the Afghan government, training Afghan troops and police, involved in both reconstrution and security, and Afghanistan is the number one recipient of Canadian aid. Canadian medics also treat wounded Afghans. I'd say that's pretty comprehensive. In addition, extending the mission to 2009 brings clarity to the duration of it. In 2009, the Canadian government can review it and decide what to do next.

So, what is to debate? That, like Mr. Dion says, we should concentrate on reconstruction? That's setting caveats on what we will do while involved in the mission and makes us no better than the countries we criticize. Rather than follow a bad example, it's better to set a good example.

More later.... There's a lot to unpack.

[Jean_Poutine]

As is, with a majority of Liberals, NDP and BQ MPs not supporting the mission, he has put Canadian forces in the unenviable position of risking their lives for a mission most Canadians no longer support.

It's easy to cherry pick numbers and say the majority is for this or that, but let's look at it closer.

First off, the BQ are self-serving rather than in the service of Canada, and that's worth keeping in mind. The province they represent is at odds with the rest of Canada:

Voters for the Bloc Quebecois, at 24 per cent, were the least likely to support sending troops to Afghanistan.

Six out of 10 (59 per cent) English-speaking Canadians support the action, compared to four out of 10 (38 per cent) French-speaking Canadians.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...61030/20061030/

I ask you, do you think the interests/views of one province should dominate the rest of the country? That can easily be applied to other issues too.

The NDP advocate peacekeeping and strengthening the UN. Peacekeeping doesn't work when there is no peace to keep, and strengthening the UN is contingent on the will of other member states.

As for the Liberals, I think it's pretty clear that they'll do whatever is politically expedient.

This CBC article talks about a drop in support, but if you look at the graph included, it also shows that support has gone up in June and November. In other words, it's fluctuation rather than a steady decline.

More numbers from this CBC poll:

Canada's recent involvement in Afghanistan? Proud 55%

As you may know, Canadian troops are now active in Afghanistan. Why do you think Canadian troops are there? What is the reason or reasons?

Peacekeeping 24%

Support U.S. troops / U.S. foreign policy / help George Bush 22%

Support NATO/support United Nations 5%

Just 5% got it right. More on this later.

More:

Regarding Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan, do you approve? Yes 50% No 48%

This is from November, and it shows the majority approve.

More:

As far as you know, is the Canadian mission in Afghanistan part of a U.S.-led coalition or part of a United Nations approved NATO mission?

U.S. led coalition? 35%

UN approved NATO mission? 53%

Don't know/No answer 12%

So, 53% say that it's a UN approved NATO mission, but only 5% say that's the reason why we're there? I'd say they're confused.

More:

In your opinion, should Canadian Forces Return from Afghanistan before 2009? 59%

Do you think in the end the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is likely to be successful or not successful? Not successful 58%

So, the majority are proud and approve of the mission, yet don't think it'll be successful and want forces out before 2009? Approving of something that you don't think will be successful is somewhat contradictory. Again, I'd say they're confused.

More:

Here are some reasons why Canadian Forces might stay in or might leave Afghanistan a) Some experts say that if Canadian Forces left Afghanistan, it would undermine international efforts to help that country and the Taliban might return to power there. In your opinion is this

A good reason to stay in Afghanistan, or 58%

So 58% think there's good reason to stay, but 59% don't think we should stay. Again, I'd say they're confused.

More:

So far 42 Canadian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan. In your opinion is this

Not a good reason to leave Afghanistan? 56%

Some experts say that Canada's mission in Afghanistan will increase the chances of Canada becoming a target of terrorist attacks. In your opinion is this

Not a good reason to leave Afghanistan? 53%

The majority do not think that these are good reasons to leave, and combined with the examples above, I'd argue that there's more confusion than clear opposition.

The mission in Afghanistan is supported by the UN and under NATO control. While countries like France the US didn't see eye to eye on Iraq, they're working together in Afghanistan. You'll be hard pressed to find more multilateral support for a mission.

Canadian troops want to be there, and Canadians should be proud of the work that they are doing.

As one Canadian soldier put it, you will never reach 100% consensus. Priority number one for them, however, is not to worry about that, but to achieve their objective as safely as possible.

I was reading a Globe & Mail article about Afghanistan, and a woman commented on it saying that she felt that the Liberals sent Canadians there as peacekeepers and the Conservatives turned it into a combat mission. However, the Liberals couldn't have seriously expected to do peacekeeping in the most dangerous part of the country where there is no peace to keep, and it was the Liberals that sent them there. There seems to be a disconnect for some people with regards to the fact that it was the Liberals that got Canadians more involved in combat.

There also seems to be a disconnect for some people with regards to the fact that it's a NATO mission now rather than a US lead coalition. In fact, Canada was in charge until recently, and the Dutch are now in control.

[Jean_Poutine]

...only four NATO countries are willing to risk their forces fighting in southern Afghanistan, Harper needs to sell this mission to Canadians and not merely pretend to support our forces.

First, two of those four countries you mention make up the bulk of the forces in Afghanistan. It's funny how you leave that out. Second, I take issue with your accusation that Harper is pretending to support the forces. This government has shown more support for the forces than Canada has seen in a long time.

If Harper could go on US television to let Americans know why he supported the invasion of Iraq, he should have the b-lls to go on Canadian television to sell the mission to Canadians. Even if he sees no political gain, he should at least do it for the Canadian forces. They deserve it.

He has:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/11/harper-speech.html

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/21/harper-un.html

It may help if he'd do it more often. However, I think reasonable people would seek to understand something before forming an opinion on it, and there is plenty of information available. All the major Canadian newspapers and networks have sections dedicated to Afghanistan:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/canada.html

http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/news/SEAfghanistan.html

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...61105/20061106/

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...60417?hub=WFive

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...d=1140433364397

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/afghanistan

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/features...stan/index.html

There's also lots of information and pictures available on the defence web site:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/home_e.asp

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/commo...mera/find_e.asp (just do a search on Afghanistan or Kandahar for the latest.)

And Canadian army forums here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php