1  2  Next

At this point in time I'm afraid to say it isn't obvious what the Liberal position on Afghanistan will be. Initially they said they wanted out of the combat mission by 2009. However, since that time the Manley report has come out and the Liberal leaders took a tour around Afghanistan, and at one point After Dion said we should send troops into Pakistan.

So there is alot of indecision and head spinning, and I don't want to be one to predict the vote spread come time that the fate of the mission is put on the table. So if Harper wishes to stay until a later date and time, why not put pressure on the liberals to change their stance.

Basically the vote will be over this, "If NATO doesn't commit an additional 1000 troops to our region of fighting, then will we stay or will we leave Afghanistan AND NATO."

The point of this is that I'm fairly convinced that the majority of Canadians aren't aware of the true dangers of the world because of the security umbrella we live under called "NATO." This is what has pacified us over the years. I'm banking that if we put that layer of security up on the block, that the Liberals will not vote based on our Afghanistan commitment, but based on our confidence in NATO. Is this really an organisation we can trust to cover our backs when we need them?



If NATO does commit another 1000 troops to our area, then I think it would be completely immoral of us and hypocritical fo us to leave Afghanistan, so leaving in that case would be out of the question. I hope the liberals will come too realise that.

   

The liberals are still saying they want out by 2009.. but want to continue in a peace keeping and rebuilding force as was intended in the first place before Harper got us into a combat...

   

It was the liberals that got us into combat. o.o

   

kenmore

Canadian_Mind is right on the money.

No matter how often you replay that deliberate lie----it is still a lie.

Cretin put us into Afghanistan and Kandahar too, which was a combat mission from the get go.---prior to Harper et al.

That repetition of lies only appears to work with GW.

In reality the LIBRANOs do not speak for Canadians.

On TVO this evening Hillier admitted he underestimated the size of the mission.

   

We didn't bitch about the assignments in WW2, not Korea, Bosnia or now. Some might say we're too polite or to orderly but we've done what has been requested and sucseeded where few believe we could.

As a yardstick, I use the troops morale and there seems to be no flinching with the dedication, professionalism, and morale of our troops.

   

You got people joining just s they can get a piece of the action, including me. :\ We've got more than enough dedication and moral on the military front. People just need to smarten up and realise that there is more than one objective here to meet our ultimate goal. To meet multiple objectives you have to do multiple things, in this case rebuild the infastructure of the country, protect the government and civilians, and drive out organized terrorist groups and drug cartels.

   

The Americans wee committing 3200 Marines, and 20 000 soldiers are comming home from Iraq if NATO doesn't meet it's end we should ask America for help.

The other thing I was wondering about is helicopters. It's a shame we didn't ahve them earlier but if we can't get them from other NATO countires could we find alternatives? Perhaps buy Mil's, get out Iroquois choppers out of mothball, buy some Otter STOL planes.

   

They would still be targets as a Peace Keeping and Rebuilding Force having their hands tied once again which plays into the Taiban's hands..

   

Stop lying.

   

Peace keeping eh?

Please describe how Canadian troops will be peace keepers in Afghanistan?

   

They'd stay in the north and let other NATO countries fight. Might not be a bad idea after 2011 but in the mean time we at least owe to the French and any other ally who steps up because of our PM's threats to continue the fight.

   

Peacekeeping, as defined by the United Nations, is "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace." Peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas and assist ex-combatants in implementing the peace agreements they may have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development. Accordingly UN peacekeepers (often referred to as Blue Beret because of their light blue helmets) can include soldiers, civilian police officers, and other civilian personnel.

   

I didn't mean blue helmets, I menat out of combat assistance roles in low risk areas. And, we can't do it right now as the French joined the fight because we said we would leave if no one stood up.

   

Lots of folks think Canda should just do "Peacekeeping". While that would be nice and an easy sell to the public, the reality is Peacekeeping (negotiated consent, impartiality and minimum use of force) has been replaced by the three block war.

The 3 block war concept was devised by Gen Charles Krulak in the late 1990s to describe the complex spectrum of challenges likely to be faced by soldiers on the modern battlefield, and has been adopted by the CF. In three contiguous city blocks soldiers may be required to conduct full scale military action, peacekeeping operations and humanitarian relief. This is what is happening in Afstan, but mainly the fighting and fatalities are making headlines.

Interesting that Michael Ignatieff has taken the position that the Afghanistan mission proves the success of Canada's shift from "the peacekeeping paradigm to the peace-enforcement paradigm," the latter combining "military, reconstruction and humanitarian efforts together.

   

Don't people realize that combat at this stage of the mission is necessary. If all combat ended in the south, all the aid organizations would leave because they have no way to defend themselves. Also, zerio CDN troops died in combat in 2007. They all died from explosions of various kinds. Things that could happen if we focused only on reconstruction and were just driving around the country.

   

1  2  Next