O'Connor on the Afghan War

[tml12]

It was one of the things I didn't like about Chretien. It was a seat of the pants way of doing things.

It is the mix between between being decisive and arrogant. People like leaders like Chretien and Bush when they are decisive but if the situation goes south, it looks like arrogance.

Agreed. It is said that the Canadian Prime Minister is the most powerful leader in the free world, and he/she is not even Head of State (technically). At least Clinton / Bush got Congress to vote on the matter of bombing people in far away places.

The Canadian prime minister IS the most powerful leader in the free world because Canada is essentially an elected dictatorship. And if Harper loses the next election, the tyranny of the Liberal elite will continue.

[jdobbin]

jdobbin,

As prime minister, exactly what would your prescription be for Canada's military?

I think I would have listened to the military brass when they said that extending the mission would be straining the forces beyond limits. We are seeing that now.

I also wouldn't fall back on "national security" as a reason for not taking bids on military procurement. Nor would I try to move military contracts to Quebec like the Tories are attempting to do now by moving C-17 work from Winnipeg to Montreal.

Beyond that, the list is long but mostly involves getting more personnel first. Most military experts are saying the equipment focus is leaving large holes in recruitment.

[jdobbin]

CSIS believed Iraq had WMDs...Chretien claimed he stayed out because Canada is a peacekeeper and the war was not sanctioned by the UN. That was BS...no one in their right mind actually believes Canada is a peacekeeper except those most brainwashed by the Liberal myths of Canada. Canadians did not support the war because Chretien played down the CSIS reports. I also think weaponeer has demonstrated that our armed forces could not handle the invasion, even if that was not THE reason we didn't go in.

I think Harper wrote the story for the NY Times because the Liberal government was acting in an extremely unfriendly manner. Chretien's team couldn't control his government's volcanic eruption of anti-American sentiment, as well as his own blatant hatred for the U.S. Not that this would be justified in any civilized, developed country but it is quite ironic that the country in question is one that U.S. taxpayers pay to defend. Harper's letter was an attempt to ease Canada-U.S. relations...Harper recognized that Canada does not exist without the U.S., as well as the fact that Canada relies on the U.S. to pay for its defense as well as be the place where we send 90% of our exports.

Harper was acting in the best interests of Canada.

He didn't claim that Canada was a peacekeeper nation as a reason for not going in. He said that he couldn't participate without further support by the U.N.

I don't think anyone here has demonstrated that Canada could not have sent troops to Iraq.

As far as Harper's New York Time article, this is what he said:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/879589/posts

We did so for freedom, for democracy, for civilization itself. These values continue to be embodied in our allies and their leaders, and scorned by the forces of evil, including Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Right there is a nutshell, I thought Harper was linking September 11 to Iraq. It was cheap, it was crass and it was wrong.

[tml12]

But that's my point...Harper was writing a diplomatic-style letter to present reasons why Canada should go in. Instead of the official "screw the Americans...we hate the bastards" the Liberal government took, Harper was the one truly acting prime ministerial.

Of course Harper would not make the "Canada is a peacekeeper" argument because he knows we have historically never played such a role. That was one of the excuses of the Canadian left because they have been brainwashed by the Liberal myths of Canada.

Again, I did not make the claim that Canada did not go to Iraq because our military could not have handled it. However, because weaponeer is in the military and because he has provided a detailed claim that it was one of the reasons, I accept his claim.

[jdobbin]

But that's my point...Harper was writing a diplomatic-style letter to present reasons why Canada should go in. Instead of the official "screw the Americans...we hate the bastards" the Liberal government took, Harper was the one truly acting prime ministerial.

Prime Ministerial in his case would have been to go to Iraq all the while connecting it to September 11.

And now Harper doesn't talk about those days. He knows he dodged a bullet.

[Wilber]

Oh indeed I have, presented a great deal more than double what others have provided saying Afghans want us there, all that was produced was "karzi" wants us there. Of course he does, he is corrupt and making a fortune off of opium production.

You have presented links that express some dissatisfaction with some of the things we are doing there. I have seen none that have stated they want us to leave or that we should leave.

You are long on criticism but very short on solutions. We know what you are against. What are you for that is doable?

[tml12]

But that's my point...Harper was writing a diplomatic-style letter to present reasons why Canada should go in. Instead of the official "screw the Americans...we hate the bastards" the Liberal government took, Harper was the one truly acting prime ministerial.

Prime Ministerial in his case would have been to go to Iraq all the while connecting it to September 11.

And now Harper doesn't talk about those days. He knows he dodged a bullet.

I think it is pretty clear Harper would have gone, as would have Martin, as would probably Chretien had he not retired shortly after.

[jdobbin]

I think it is pretty clear Harper would have gone, as would have Martin, as would probably Chretien had he not retired shortly after.

I see no evidence that Chretien or Martin were going to send troops to Iraq. I don't take Sheila Copps word for it not have I heard anyone else mention it.

[tml12]

I think it is pretty clear Harper would have gone, as would have Martin, as would probably Chretien had he not retired shortly after.

I see no evidence that Chretien or Martin were going to send troops to Iraq. I don't take Sheila Copps word for it not have I heard anyone else mention it.

What I'll give you is that we may never know. I have a hunch Martin would have gone in and I am pretty sure Chretien would have too. Neither Chretien nor Martin were really Liberals...both were centrists, Martin probably centre-right. Both Martin and Chretien were pro-missile defense and had the NDP not blackmailed the Martin minority and former Defense Minister Bill Graham we would have probably joined that too.

The reality of the situation is that while "Canada standing up to the Americans" may always be popular among the Liberal Canadian elite, it is not possible for Canada to truly challenge the U.S. without actually making the rhetoric the reality. It is one thing for France not to go into Iraq because the U.S. does not defend France (even though they saved France after France lost WWI, WWII, and Vietnam) but the U.S. does ultimately pay to defend Canada. Canada, therefore, does not have the luxury of putting its foot down on the U.S.

If Canada began to be serious about playing a role in the world again, perhaps the options would be different.

[jdobbin]

What I'll give you is that we may never know. I have a hunch Martin would have gone in and I am pretty sure Chretien would have too. Neither Chretien nor Martin were really Liberals...both were centrists, Martin probably centre-right. Both Martin and Chretien were pro-missile defense and had the NDP not blackmailed the Martin minority and former Defense Minister Bill Graham we would have probably joined that too.

The Chinese sending a missile up into space this week pretty much blows the idea of space-based missile defence out of the water.

There was plenty of opportunity for Chretien and Martin to send troops to Iraq. They never did. Notwithstanding your hunches on the subject, we have seen what both men's decision was on the subject.

Harper pretty much said if he was prime minister at the time, he would have sent troops.

As for Chretien and Martin not being Liberals that is just non-sense.

[tml12]

What I'll give you is that we may never know. I have a hunch Martin would have gone in and I am pretty sure Chretien would have too. Neither Chretien nor Martin were really Liberals...both were centrists, Martin probably centre-right. Both Martin and Chretien were pro-missile defense and had the NDP not blackmailed the Martin minority and former Defense Minister Bill Graham we would have probably joined that too.

The Chinese sending a missile up into space this week pretty much blows the idea of space-based missile defence out of the water.

There was plenty of opportunity for Chretien and Martin to send troops to Iraq. They never did. Notwithstanding your hunches on the subject, we have seen what both men's decision was on the subject.

Harper pretty much said if he was prime minister at the time, he would have sent troops.

As for Chretien and Martin not being Liberals that is just non-sense.

Are you saying economically you would put Chretien/Martin and Trudeau in the same category?

Yes Harper would have sent troops to Iraq, I accept that, and I believe the Liberals would have too.

[jdobbin]

Are you saying economically you would put Chretien/Martin and Trudeau in the same category?

Yes Harper would have sent troops to Iraq, I accept that, and I believe the Liberals would have too.

The Liberals had the chance and didn't. They were government. This isn't something theoretical.

I put all three men in the same party. You said they weren't really Liberals.

[tml12]

Are you saying economically you would put Chretien/Martin and Trudeau in the same category?

Yes Harper would have sent troops to Iraq, I accept that, and I believe the Liberals would have too.

The Liberals had the chance and didn't. They were government. This isn't something theoretical.

I put all three men in the same party. You said they weren't really Liberals.

So does the Liberal Party support expanding the welfare state and social programs (Trudeau) or support cutting the welfare and social programs and balancing the budget (Chretien/Martin). Tell me jdobbin, where do the Liberals stand because I think Harper has been very up front about his plans.

[jdobbin]

So does the Liberal Party support expanding the welfare state and social programs (Trudeau) or support cutting the welfare and social programs and balancing the budget (Chretien/Martin). Tell me jdobbin, where do the Liberals stand because I think Harper has been very up front about his plans.

Don't know if this discussion should be conducted in the Afghanistan thread.

[tml12]

So does the Liberal Party support expanding the welfare state and social programs (Trudeau) or support cutting the welfare and social programs and balancing the budget (Chretien/Martin). Tell me jdobbin, where do the Liberals stand because I think Harper has been very up front about his plans.

Don't know if this discussion should be conducted in the Afghanistan thread.

Is that your excuse or do you recognize the reality and do not wish to respond (the reality being Chretien/Martin who are really centre-right and Trudeau who was far left-wing).

[jdobbin]

Is that your excuse or do you recognize the reality and do not wish to respond (the reality being Chretien/Martin who are really centre-right and Trudeau who was far left-wing).

I'll respond. Just open a new thread. I think you have to take into consideration that some threads drift away from the original topic. This thread was on Afghanistan and I think it should mostly be on that subject. We have to respect other posters who might not want to wade through the thread to get to the subject topic.

[madmax]

So does the Liberal Party support expanding the welfare state and social programs (Trudeau) or support cutting the welfare and social programs and balancing the budget (Chretien/Martin). Tell me jdobbin, where do the Liberals stand because I think Harper has been very up front about his plans.

Income Trusts :angry:

But you have diverged because JDobbin has pretty much proven that the Liberals didn't take us into Iraq while in government, and Stephen Harper would have.

This discussion has strayed off Afghanistan, or at least Canadian Military, or OConnor and his historical revision of Canadian Participation in Afghanistan.

[Catchme]

Sure, first O'Connor tries to re-write history about why we are in Afghanistan and talks stupidly of "retribution". Now we have this:

Bungling O'Connor shackles MPs

It is ironic that a war ostensibly being fought for freedom of the Afghan people is taking on the appearance increasingly in Canada of a cover-up.

Since becoming defence minister, Gordon O'Connor has stumbled from one blunder to another. If it wasn't the attempt to ban media from reporting on ceremonies for the repatriation of dead soldiers, it was the issuing of military contracts outside the regular bidding process or – more recently and ominously – ordering that MPs on a visiting Commons committee be prevented from seeing what's happening in Afghanistan.

It is as if O'Connor, a retired general, considers Canada's military to be his personal militia.

-snip-

The eight MPs had been planning this trip for months and budgeted an estimated $156,000 for it. In response, O'Connor told MPs that they would be restricted to the base during their brief visit.

The minister's interference is no small thing.

Canadians are concerned that the federal government is ignoring Canada's responsibility to help Afghanistan become self-sufficient. Proof of the value of this mission only can be found off the base, in meetings with locals and those involved with reconstruction teams.

-snip-

O'Connor and Prime Minister Stephen Harper should realize that they don't own the military and Canada isn't in Afghanistan as a part of the Tory campaign for a majority government.

Canadians have sent our military to Afghanistan at the request of the United Nations and the Afghan government and as part of the NATO mission to bring peace and development to a troubled land.

Given O'Connor's inability to understand such a critical part of his portfolio, perhaps it's time he was replaced.

O'Connor using the Canadian military as private militia

[tml12]

So does the Liberal Party support expanding the welfare state and social programs (Trudeau) or support cutting the welfare and social programs and balancing the budget (Chretien/Martin). Tell me jdobbin, where do the Liberals stand because I think Harper has been very up front about his plans.

Income Trusts :angry:

But you have diverged because JDobbin has pretty much proven that the Liberals didn't take us into Iraq while in government, and Stephen Harper would have.

This discussion has strayed off Afghanistan, or at least Canadian Military, or OConnor and his historical revision of Canadian Participation in Afghanistan.

And I think that I have proved that, given where they were in their term, it was quite easy for the Liberals to have made that decision.

[weaponeer]

O'Conner,

Best MND I have ever worked for. He's ex-military, knows the military, knows what we need & don't need. An ex-soldier running the military, almost as crazy as a doctor running Health department or a ex-cop or lawyer running justice.

Lefties do not like him because we in the military do. He knows military capabilities & equip, he knows what equip we need & really do not need, he gets us what we really need.

I have met him, great guy. Hope he's around for a long long time....

[tml12]

O'Conner,

Best MND I have ever worked for. He's ex-military, knows the military, knows what we need & don't need. An ex-soldier running the military, almost as crazy as a doctor running Health department or a ex-cop or lawyer running justice.

Lefties do not like him because we in the military do. He knows military capabilities & equip, he knows what equip we need & really do not need, he gets us what we really need.

I have met him, great guy. Hope he's around for a long long time....

I agree...I think O'Connor has proven himself to be a MND who actually cares about our armed forces.

If it's good for the Canadian military, it's good for Canada (regardless of what Layton and his leftist loonies might think).

[Remiel]

I hadn't known or hadn't remembered that he was a former general. I guess that does make him the best man for the job. However, I don't think it is his place to restrict what other MPs are allowed to see. That should be up to the brass at the base to determine where they can go, gauging the risks, not some guy sitting back in Ottawa, no matter what he used to do.

[Catchme]

Spurious comments about lefties not liking him have no bearing on what he is doing and seek only to deflect away from this latest nasty action action. Here is why Canadians should be and are concerned:

1. He was a military equipment lobbyist end of story.

2. He is trying to re-write history of why we are in Afganistan

3. We are seeing no bids contracts being given out.

4. He is misportraying Canada's long military history in peace keeping

5. He now will NOT let Canadian MP's see what is going on in Afghanistan, while he lets though he knows friendly to him go wherever they want?

6. He is treating the Canadian military like his own personal militia supporting Oil.

7. He changed Canada's mission parameters there

The list could go on.

[tml12]

Dear Catchme,

"1. He was a military equipment lobbyist end of story."

That was a long time ago. He has the support of Parliament and our military. As such, I agree...end of story.

"2. He is trying to re-write history of why we are in Afganistan."

He is not trying to re-write why we are there. His was not the government that put our troops there. Additionally, his recent reason is yet another reason why we should be over there.

"3. We are seeing no bids contracts being given out."

Not sure what you mean here.

"4. He is misportraying Canada's long military history in peace keeping."

That is a Liberal myth. Canada does NOT have a long peacekeeping history. In fact, Canada has a military history similar to that of the U.S., fighting in World War I, World War II, and Korea.

"5. He now will NOT let Canadian MP's see what is going on in Afghanistan, while he lets though he knows friendly to him go wherever they want?"

In my opinion, a skilled debater should learn how to type slowly and speak proper English. If you are talking about why he wouldn't let the MPs leave the base, it was because he wanted the military to be able to ensure their safety.

"6. He is treating the Canadian military like his own personal militia supporting Oil."

The Canadian military likes him...your quote is deceiving, making it sould like he is running some kind of totalitarian dictatorship. Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

"7. He changed Canada's mission parameters there"

Canada's military positions were assigned by NATO, were they not?

Clearly, your overall attack on O'Connor is partisan and does not all stem from the reality of the situation.

[Wilber]

"5. He now will NOT let Canadian MP's see what is going on in Afghanistan, while he lets though he knows friendly to him go wherever they want?"

In my opinion, a skilled debater should learn how to type slowly and speak proper English. If you are talking about why he wouldn't let the MPs leave the base, it was because he wanted the military to be able to ensure their safety.

I do have a bit of a problem with this one. A committee representing Parliament should be able to go where it chooses as long as they and the public are made to understand that the military might not be able to take responsibility for their safety in some situations.