1  2  3  4  5  Next

Looks like Harper will extend the mission one year, reguardless of tonights vote. The Afghan people, our allies and our troops need to know that we won't cut and run.
This just happened so details will follow.

Let the sniveling begin!

[web]http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060517/nato_afghan_060517/20060517?hub=TopStories[/web]

This deserves it's own thread.

Just a reminder on tonights vote.

NDP MP Peter Stoffer:

"Mr. Chair, I want to answer the question the Conservatives have been asking all day. The answer is yes, I support the mission and the troops in Afghanistan and so does my party"


Liberal MP Dan McTeague

"While we talk a great deal about what needs to be done and the purposes for which we are there, ultimately there has to be a solution and, one would presume, a political solution."


Liberal MP Irwin Cotler

"I supported the human security protection mandate with regard to Afghanistan as early as January 28, 2002, in this House. I mentioned it at that time then, have summarized some of it now and I continue and reaffirm that human security protection mandate with respect to Afghanistan this evening." (April 10th)


Liberal MP Robert Thibault:

"I believe that we have an important role to play in Afghanistan and I fully support our ongoing presence in this region. Make no mistake, we have a responsibility to finish the job that we started."


BQ MP Paul Crête:

"We very clearly support the Canadian Forces, that is the soldiers in Afghanistan. We hope they will accomplish their mission without too many casualties."


Liberal MP Keith Martin:

"This intervention is fully backed by the Liberal Party. We sent our troops in there. We are deeply honoured and respectful, and grateful for the incredible work that they do. I hope, at the end of the debate, that we will see all party support, fulsome 110% support, for our troops and the work that they are doing over there, not only for the benefit of the Afghani people but also for the benefit of Canadians."


NDP MP Alexa McDonough:

"It's not a question of should we be in Afghanistan. Yes, we should, we need to be, we need to be in in the long haul." (CTV, Question Period, May 14, 2006)


BQ MP Claude Bachand:

"Imagine how soldiers would feel tomorrow if we could tell them that 270 of 308 members of Parliament voted in favour of this mission. I believe that this would show our support."


For accountability:
How'd they vote

Harper is playing chicken with the opposition and any mission that costs $4.1B and takes almost 70% of the federal money allocated to international missions should never get a bums rush. Harper, by attempting to call the oppositions bluff, may have forced them to choose a side. This tactic has a huge downside as it has the potential to collapse the mission completely and force a snap election. By so doing this has endangered the mission, I hope this gamble is worth it.

Rant on:

I've been following some of the speeches made by members of all the parties and I'm frankly astonished at how ill-informed they are. Errors of the most basic facts are the rule not the exception. The whine is "we were caught by suprise, we didn't have enough time". We've been at this since 2002! Four years isn't enough? I guess it just goes to show you how much the average politican truly "supports the troops".

Back in the day they'd be branded a pack of yellow bastards. I wouldn't hazard a guess at how the politically correct version of today would go.

Rant off.

BY THE SKIN OF THEIR TEETH

Ladies and jellybeans we have the theme for the next election:

The rant was about the piss poor quality of their speeches and the errors of basic fact.

You mean like Iggy?

Avro, I am slightly confused by what you have said in this thread. Do you not like how Harper went about doing this? Or do you just not like the extension?

1  2  3  4  5  Next