Liberals to introduce motion for 2009 Afghan withdrawal
Patrick_Ross @ Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:24 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/ ... erals.html
$1:
Liberals to introduce motion for 2009 Afghan withdrawal
The Liberals plan to introduce a motion Thursday demanding Canadian troops be withdrawn from combat in Afghanistan by February 2009, a move that could trigger an election.
Denis Coderre, the Opposition party's defence critic, says the motion will call on the Conservative government to immediately serve notice of the withdrawal plans to NATO allies.
"It is a very important issue for Canada … the time has come to take a stand," Coderre told reporters following a caucus meeting.
It's not clear whether the New Democrats, who've called for the troops to be brought home, or the Bloc Québécois will support the motion.
It could be debated Thursday and voted on as early as next Tuesday.
The motion could trigger an election if Prime Minister Stephen Harper declares it a confidence motion and loses the vote.
Last year, the House of Commons narrowly voted to extend the deployment in Kandahar province until February 2009, but the Conservatives have said they reserve the right to ask for an extension of that deadline. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has suggested troops could be needed until 2010.
Coderre said other NATO countries, particularly European members, should be taking a more active combat role in the war-torn country.
He said Canadians feel for the Afghan people and he expects they will likely want the Canadians to stay, but he added the burden needs to be spread around.
The Liberals plan to introduce a motion Thursday demanding Canadian troops be withdrawn from combat in Afghanistan by February 2009, a move that could trigger an election.
Denis Coderre, the Opposition party's defence critic, says the motion will call on the Conservative government to immediately serve notice of the withdrawal plans to NATO allies.
"It is a very important issue for Canada … the time has come to take a stand," Coderre told reporters following a caucus meeting.
It's not clear whether the New Democrats, who've called for the troops to be brought home, or the Bloc Québécois will support the motion.
It could be debated Thursday and voted on as early as next Tuesday.
The motion could trigger an election if Prime Minister Stephen Harper declares it a confidence motion and loses the vote.
Last year, the House of Commons narrowly voted to extend the deployment in Kandahar province until February 2009, but the Conservatives have said they reserve the right to ask for an extension of that deadline. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has suggested troops could be needed until 2010.
Coderre said other NATO countries, particularly European members, should be taking a more active combat role in the war-torn country.
He said Canadians feel for the Afghan people and he expects they will likely want the Canadians to stay, but he added the burden needs to be spread around.
2Cdo @ Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:31 pm
Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/18/afghan-liberals.html
$1:
Liberals to introduce motion for 2009 Afghan withdrawal
The Liberals plan to introduce a motion Thursday demanding Canadian troops be withdrawn from combat in Afghanistan by February 2009, a move that could trigger an election.
Denis Coderre, the Opposition party's defence critic, says the motion will call on the Conservative government to immediately serve notice of the withdrawal plans to NATO allies.
"It is a very important issue for Canada … the time has come to take a stand," Coderre told reporters following a caucus meeting.
It's not clear whether the New Democrats, who've called for the troops to be brought home, or the Bloc Québécois will support the motion.
It could be debated Thursday and voted on as early as next Tuesday.
The motion could trigger an election if Prime Minister Stephen Harper declares it a confidence motion and loses the vote.
Last year, the House of Commons narrowly voted to extend the deployment in Kandahar province until February 2009, but the Conservatives have said they reserve the right to ask for an extension of that deadline. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has suggested troops could be needed until 2010.
Coderre said other NATO countries, particularly European members, should be taking a more active combat role in the war-torn country.
He said Canadians feel for the Afghan people and he expects they will likely want the Canadians to stay, but he added the burden needs to be spread around.
The Liberals plan to introduce a motion Thursday demanding Canadian troops be withdrawn from combat in Afghanistan by February 2009, a move that could trigger an election.
Denis Coderre, the Opposition party's defence critic, says the motion will call on the Conservative government to immediately serve notice of the withdrawal plans to NATO allies.
"It is a very important issue for Canada … the time has come to take a stand," Coderre told reporters following a caucus meeting.
It's not clear whether the New Democrats, who've called for the troops to be brought home, or the Bloc Québécois will support the motion.
It could be debated Thursday and voted on as early as next Tuesday.
The motion could trigger an election if Prime Minister Stephen Harper declares it a confidence motion and loses the vote.
Last year, the House of Commons narrowly voted to extend the deployment in Kandahar province until February 2009, but the Conservatives have said they reserve the right to ask for an extension of that deadline. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has suggested troops could be needed until 2010.
Coderre said other NATO countries, particularly European members, should be taking a more active combat role in the war-torn country.
He said Canadians feel for the Afghan people and he expects they will likely want the Canadians to stay, but he added the burden needs to be spread around.
Since when has the liberal party ever made a principled stand on anything?
![[huh]](./images/smilies/icon_scratch.gif "huh?"){kind=icon}
They governed by a "what is trendy right now" approach which had Paul Martin declare that "this is our highest priorty" on a different topic almost every day. Looking forward to seeing this one play out and backfire on Dion and the kids!
Wada @ Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:22 pm
2Cdo 2Cdo:
Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/18/afghan-liberals.html
$1:
Liberals to introduce motion for 2009 Afghan withdrawal
The Liberals plan to introduce a motion Thursday demanding Canadian troops be withdrawn from combat in Afghanistan by February 2009, a move that could trigger an election.
Denis Coderre, the Opposition party's defence critic, says the motion will call on the Conservative government to immediately serve notice of the withdrawal plans to NATO allies.
"It is a very important issue for Canada … the time has come to take a stand," Coderre told reporters following a caucus meeting.
It's not clear whether the New Democrats, who've called for the troops to be brought home, or the Bloc Québécois will support the motion.
It could be debated Thursday and voted on as early as next Tuesday.
The motion could trigger an election if Prime Minister Stephen Harper declares it a confidence motion and loses the vote.
Last year, the House of Commons narrowly voted to extend the deployment in Kandahar province until February 2009, but the Conservatives have said they reserve the right to ask for an extension of that deadline. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has suggested troops could be needed until 2010.
Coderre said other NATO countries, particularly European members, should be taking a more active combat role in the war-torn country.
He said Canadians feel for the Afghan people and he expects they will likely want the Canadians to stay, but he added the burden needs to be spread around.
The Liberals plan to introduce a motion Thursday demanding Canadian troops be withdrawn from combat in Afghanistan by February 2009, a move that could trigger an election.
Denis Coderre, the Opposition party's defence critic, says the motion will call on the Conservative government to immediately serve notice of the withdrawal plans to NATO allies.
"It is a very important issue for Canada … the time has come to take a stand," Coderre told reporters following a caucus meeting.
It's not clear whether the New Democrats, who've called for the troops to be brought home, or the Bloc Québécois will support the motion.
It could be debated Thursday and voted on as early as next Tuesday.
The motion could trigger an election if Prime Minister Stephen Harper declares it a confidence motion and loses the vote.
Last year, the House of Commons narrowly voted to extend the deployment in Kandahar province until February 2009, but the Conservatives have said they reserve the right to ask for an extension of that deadline. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has suggested troops could be needed until 2010.
Coderre said other NATO countries, particularly European members, should be taking a more active combat role in the war-torn country.
He said Canadians feel for the Afghan people and he expects they will likely want the Canadians to stay, but he added the burden needs to be spread around.
Since when has the liberal party ever made a principled stand on anything?
They governed by a "what is trendy right now" approach which had Paul Martin declare that "this is our highest priorty" on a different topic almost every day. Looking forward to seeing this one play out and backfire on Dion and the kids
Rihx @ Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:20 pm
the plan is to pull out in 2009 anyway, there are plenty of our NATO allies still there and we have done an excellent job training and equiping the afgan forces.
Either way, the opposition can not dictate what the military does. Dion doesnt realize that this isnt France. The commander in cheif of our forces is the Governor General by proxie for the Queen; and she will sign off on whatever the PM wants.
Patrick_Ross @ Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:18 pm
Awww, isn't that cute? The Liberals think they're Democrats.
Durandal @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:12 am
If we pull out then, the islamo-fascists will have won another jihad : it would only make matters worst.
Wada @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:32 am
They killed 171 people yesterday in a city where there are God knows how many American troops who are doing their best to quash this foolishness and are not having success. Either get with the program and put these idiots where they belong, underground, or admit defeat. If we have the will to take this mission on then we should have the will to get the mission accomplished and not let it drag on forever and ever.
Durandal @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:12 pm
Wada Wada:
not let it drag on forever and ever.
How ? We may kill 100 taliban for every Canadian soldier that goes down, but they are still going to get re-enforcments from all over the ummah and still get support from Pakistan.
That mission will be a long one (if we ever have the guts to stay long enough to make it succed), and eventually we will have to take care of Pakistan.
When the US pulls out of Iraq in 08', the jihad will re-orient to other fronts : Israel, the Balkans, Ethiopia/Somalia, Chechnya, Cashmir, AFGHANISTAN, Nigeria, France, etc.
We CAN win, but we need the will to do it. And will is rare in the West these days, as the LIEberals are just prouving us.
The worst part of that it that it's the libs who sent our troups in A-stan (and said they were goind to stay there AS LONG AS THEY WOULD BE NEEDED), and then sent them in Kandahar, BUT THEN, all of a sudden [
], the Conservatives are nasty warmongers because they support the mission !
Patrick_Ross @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:27 pm
Durandal Durandal:
How ? We may kill 100 taliban for every Canadian soldier that goes down, but they are still going to get re-enforcments from all over the ummah and still get support from Pakistan.
That mission will be a long one (if we ever have the guts to stay long enough to make it succed), and eventually we will have to take care of Pakistan.
That mission will be a long one (if we ever have the guts to stay long enough to make it succed), and eventually we will have to take care of Pakistan.
You should get better information regarding the Afghan conflict.
First off, the Taliban is not recieving any help from Pakistan. Pakistan is an ally in the War on Terror. Pakistan did -- and, to a lesser extent, still does -- serve as a convenient staging ground for Taliban sympathizers, due to the lack of security along the Afghan/Pakistani border. The reason for this was the pepetual tensions with India over the Khasmir region. With war a possibility at almost any time (more recently, nuclear war being a definite possibility).
If the Taliban is recieving any support internationally, the prime suspect lies not to the east, in Pakistan, but rather to the west -- in Iran.
After all, who's more likely to support the Taliban -- an ally in the War on Terror who has recieved monetary aid and equipment upgrade from the Americans in order to help them secure an unstable western border, or an Islamic fundamentalist state pledged to annihilate Israel? Think about that.
$1:
When the US pulls out of Iraq in 08', the jihad will re-orient to other fronts : Israel, the Balkans, Ethiopia/Somalia, Chechnya, Cashmir, AFGHANISTAN, Nigeria, France, etc.
If the US pulls out of Iraq in 2008, the "jihad" will undergo no such reorientation. With or without US presence, Iraq will be in the middle of a civil war, which will only intensify as more and more supporters pour into Iraq to help establish an Islamic fundamentalist state.
$1:
We CAN win, but we need the will to do it. And will is rare in the West these days, as the LIEberals are just prouving us.
The worst part of that it that it's the libs who sent our troups in A-stan (and said they were goind to stay there AS LONG AS THEY WOULD BE NEEDED), and then sent them in Kandahar, BUT THEN, all of a sudden [ ], the Conservatives are nasty warmongers because they support the mission !
The worst part of that it that it's the libs who sent our troups in A-stan (and said they were goind to stay there AS LONG AS THEY WOULD BE NEEDED), and then sent them in Kandahar, BUT THEN, all of a sudden [
], the Conservatives are nasty warmongers because they support the mission !It's simple: they know that the Canadian anti-war crowd are almost universally retarded, and will believe them when the Liberals tell them that Harper started the Afghanistan conflict.
Clogeroo @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:02 pm
It is odd how you hear people mostly of the socialist persuasion are the ones who cry the loudest to help people. Now that we are they want us to leave and stop. This is nothing more as Patrick_Ross stated people trying to act like American democrats. Also the politicians trying to play on the voters in order to increase their own standings in parliament.
What a sad country this is because we have faced a little bloodshed we have to call it quits? Because it has cost our own funds from one of the richest countries in the world we should leave? We shouldn’t leave until the Afghanistan government and people are ready for us to leave. We are not there yet and we may not be there in two years. Forcing a timetable for withdrawal is a mistake.
The problems of the world do not just magically go away if we hide from them either. They tend to get worse and worse. So we could all just take off from Afghanistan watch their people go at it for a bit and maybe the Taliban and other religious fanatics will take control. Then we can sit by and let their people become ever more oppressed and have their minds and thoughts controlled and have little or no freedom to speak out against their masters above them.
Or we could do the right thing and protect the freedom of people who deserve it just as much as we do. They may not be from the same country as we are but they are still human beings and we shouldn’t brush them aside because we do not want to get our hands dirty.
Durandal @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:42 pm
Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:
You should get better information regarding the Afghan conflict.
First off, the Taliban is not recieving any help from Pakistan. Pakistan is an ally in the War on Terror.
First off, the Taliban is not recieving any help from Pakistan. Pakistan is an ally in the War on Terror.
Yeah, like Saudi Arabia ?
Both are playing the double game, openly fighting the terrorists while quietly supporting them.
Pakistan did -- and, to a lesser extent, still does -- serve as a convenient staging ground for Taliban sympathizers, due to the lack of security along the Afghan/Pakistani border.
$1:
After all, who's more likely to support the Taliban -- an ally in the War on Terror who has recieved monetary aid and equipment upgrade from the Americans in order to help them secure an unstable western border, or an Islamic fundamentalist state pledged to annihilate Israel? Think about that.
Both, because both are muslim. One is more fundementalist that the other, so one does it more openly than the other.
Pakistan an ally ?
Pakistan declared that they would behead the pope if he came to the country. Until very recently rape was completely legal. Pakistan is an "ally" because the US threatened them to "bomb them back into stone age" right after 9/11.
I don't know what we were thinking when we let this country get nukes.
$1:
If the US pulls out of Iraq in 2008, the "jihad" will undergo no such reorientation. With or without US presence, Iraq will be in the middle of a civil war, which will only intensify as more and more supporters pour into Iraq to help establish an Islamic fundamentalist state.
Yes, I guess that many jihadists will continue to flow into Iraq to fight their Shia/Sunni rivals, but it's sure many will also prefer to go for the "Crusaders imperialists" elseweare.
Patrick_Ross @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:54 pm
Durandal Durandal:
Both are playing the double game, openly fighting the terrorists while quietly supporting them.
:roll: Pakistan has been very cooperative. Why else would the Americans be helping their government update their military hardware? They gave Pakistan a refurbished squadron of F-16s just last year. But since you obviously know more about the Afghan conflict than the Pentagon...
Durandal Durandal:
$1:
After all, who's more likely to support the Taliban -- an ally in the War on Terror who has recieved monetary aid and equipment upgrade from the Americans in order to help them secure an unstable western border, or an Islamic fundamentalist state pledged to annihilate Israel? Think about that.
Both, because both are muslim. One is more fundementalist that the other, so one does it more openly than the other.
"Because both are muslim". Despite the fact that in contrast to Iran, which was a fundamentalist state, Pakistan is a secular state.$1:
Pakistan declared that they would behead the pope if he came to the country. Until very recently rape was completely legal. Pakistan is an "ally" because the US threatened them to "bomb them back into stone age" right after 9/11.
Correction: some crazies within Pakistan threatened to behead the Pope. If you want to argue that some crazies within Pakistan represent the entire Pakistani state, fair enough. By the same line of argument, Kevin Potvin's 9/11 comments shall henceforth be used to represent you and your ideas about 9/11.
Why do you think 9/11 was beautiful, Durandal?
Durandal @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:25 pm
Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:
Pakistan has been very cooperative. Why else would the Americans be helping their government update their military hardware? They gave Pakistan a refurbished squadron of F-16s just last year.
And the Americans also supplied Saudi Arabia with F-15's, but the Saudi top cleric still orders Muslims living in the UK to "live in a state within a state until you take over"... but that, your are not supposed to know.
Source : Dispatches - Undercover Mosque
And the Americans also supplied Egypt with Abrams when this same country was swearing the destruction of Israel not so long ago. Of course, moderates are in control now, but fundementalists are still active and nemerous :
Some good stuff from another Egyptien newspaper (Al Haram) :
"Hillary and Obama : a woman and a negro in the race to the White House -- Here is another proof of the decline of the West."
And when I think those two moonbats are pro-Islam...
So theses are our "allies", Patrick_Ross ? Well, they may be yours, but they are not mine !
$1:
Despite the fact that in contrast to Iran, which was a fundamentalist state, Pakistan is a secular state.
Just like lovely secular Turkey wich still denies the Armenian Genocide.
$1:
Correction: some crazies within Pakistan threatened to behead the Pope.
Yes, that's true because the Pakistani parliament ONLY unanimously adopted a resolution condemning Pope Benedict XVI for his statements (
-- one chance they don't do this every time the get "offended") :http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213923,00.html
And it's ONLY a top MMA leader and his supporters wich declared : wich declared :
"If I get hold of the pope, I will hang him !"
- Hafiz Hussain Ahmed
And it's ONLO his supporters who declared :
"Terrorist, extremist Pope be hanged !" and "Down with Muslims' enemies !"
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/ ... n_Pope.php
$1:
If you want to argue that some crazies within Pakistan represent the entire Pakistani state, fair enough.
Those crazies are much more numerous and have much more supporters than you think.
Here's what I have to back what I claimed earlier (ei : double game) :
Friend or Foe : The War on Terror In Afghanistan may be won or lost in Pakistan
Questions arise about the West's Policy towards Pakistan
Global Security - Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA)
Pakistan is just an "ally" because they have nukes, if you don't want to accept that, good for you, that's your opinion. Mine is that we will never win in A-stan if we don't take military actions against Pakistan (or at least some parts of it), but I can always dream.
$1:
By the same line of argument, Kevin Potvin's 9/11 comments shall henceforth be used to represent you and your ideas about 9/11. Why do you think 9/11 was beautiful, Durandal?
Do you sincerely think I think 9/11 was beatiful ? And what the heck does that Kevin guy has to do with what I'm saying ?
ridenrain @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:28 pm
Liberals put us in Afghanistan, now they want to pull us out for political reasons.. and we’re surprised?
Liberals signed Kyoto with no clue what it meant or required of Canada.
Martin had Belinda fix the Western seperation.. I guess that failed along with most of the things Martin did.
I could go on and on but the Liberals have the ability to tur gold into shit because all they can see is their own greed and power.