1  2  3  4  Next

<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=30144" target="_blank">Tories won't promise Afghan combat role would end in 2011</a> (click to view)

<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/14-misc-cdn" target="_blank">Misc CDN</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=Hyack" target="_blank">Hyack</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2008-02-11 13:44:51
<strong>Canadian</strong>

   

well we all know the Republicans (tories)are willing to have canada stay there for 100 yrs..I suspect that is a promise they wouldnt want to break so why make it.

   

Why leave if there's still work to be done? Exact same reason as why we shouldn't pull next year, because there's still work to be done.
Lets not leave a half assed job.

   

well that sounds nice but we could be there for a 100 fucking years.. you people dont seem to get it .. its a no win situation.. we can bust our balls there and it wont make a diddly bit of difference...we can spend our hard earned cash and donate lives. but fact is its a muslim state and they could very well turn around and thank us by blowing up the very people who helped them.. they dont respect non muslims... wake up and smell the fucking coffee...

   

No government should ever enter a military conflict without an exit strategy. For most folks, the assumption is that the master plan ought to include a detailed timeline.

If we were talking about an undertaking with a high degree of predictability, that might be a reasonable demand. But when fighting a war you can't plan for every contingency because you can't identify every contingency.

The very idea of pre-mapping an entire military conflict from start to finish is naive at best, and ludicrous at worst. it's impossible to build a meaningful exit stragety without gauging the readiness of the Afstan Government and security forces as well as the strength and activity of the insurgents.

As soon as we set an ironclad date for withdrawal of forces based on a date alone, we have communicated the limits of our endurance to our enemies. Its like telling Tommy Taliban and Johnny Jihad we intend to pursue you until two-thirty p.m., next Friday. If you have not surrendered or been captured by that date, we will cease all attempts to apprehend you.

To withdraw unilaterally based on a date picked out of the air especally if the goverment is not secure would be a true disservice to those who have paid the ultimate price.

   

Why did Chretien put us in there then? Why did martin keep us there?
Where was Chretien's fireside chat about what we're doing and why we're there? There was none because the media for the benevolent dictator wanted to go on nice government junkets and not have to work for their stories. There was no actual news from Afghanistan untill Harper won then it was "OMFG, Look at Harper's war!!".

Did Chretien and martin make a mistake then?

   

"Tories won't promise Afghan combat role would end in 2011"

The CBC is for the Liberals what Aljazeera is for global Islamic terrorism

Latest PC line -

Homeless? No more. Now it's "Residentially Handicapped." jeesh

   

Chretien didnt put us in combat... harper did.... and you know it... get over yourself..

   

Chretien put us in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is combat. I know you'd love it if we sat back in the protected zone, waved the flag and bragged about how tough we are but Chretien didn't wimp out like those other Euro-weenies.

   

Perhaps the mission did change but when you look at 2001-2003 was what was done effective? Did it secure the initial success from the Taliban or did we end up losing the initiative to the enemy? If we were to maintain the tempo laid down by the initial mandate do you believe that it would it be a net gain or net loss? Keep in mind this is a mission that the UN/NATO needs to secure otherwise it will not be able to lead in areas such as Darfur and old war wounds like Yugo may well flair up as the lack of credible international effort will only fan the flames of insecurity.

   

By appointing his new advisory panel on Afghanistan, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has inadvertently underlined what this war is about. It is not about Afghanistan. It is about the U.S.

Now, as he tries to finesse the political unpopularity of the Afghan war, the Prime Minister is doing his best to ensure that official discussion remains tightly focused on what he sees as our real interest there – our relationship with Washington......this is a quote from as the world burns..an article on the american war..

   

So your saying we should emulate the position held by Moscow or of Beijing? Do you really think their national interest is any less nefarious then that Washington? Smarten up! Who do you think is selling the Taliban weapons for fuck sakes!

   

That quote needs to in the religion thread, it is certainly a leap of faith.

   

Actually ridenrain.. both Chretien and Martin did not want to go to Afghanistan and Martin can be quoted saying so. they both felt it was too costly and not worth the money or military lives.. they were sucked in as is Harper by the US..... part of an interview quote from Martin,,,Martin reveals he was unenthusiastic about Hillier’s proposal to deploy forces to Kandahar to repair Canada’s relationship with the U.S. and had other priorities for Canada’s resources.

“Afghanistan was not a priority for me the way Darfur, Haiti and the Middle East were,â€

   

Aug.16, 2005: Canada assumes command of the provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar City

August 2005: Canadian Forces begin process of re-deployment from Kabul to Kandahar

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=255924

Now who was the PM during that period?
Who do you think authorized us to go from Kabul to Kandahar?

I don't think it was Harper...

   

1  2  3  4  Next