[martin14]

ok, boys you convinced me. Open her up for debate.

[herbie]

How about sticking to the subject? Which boils down, once again to a public perception that Harper views Parliament as [i]just one big pain in the ass{/i] that he will avoid by making all decisions himself. Reinforced by absolutely no mention of backing or decision making within his own caucus or the CPC.
Yes, they all come out in support AFTER his decisions.

As has been mentioned, the very first casualty will be totally pinned solely on his ass. Which is a pretty stupid position to put yourself in.

[Scape]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Whatever role we play there in the future, if we are in the country our guys are at risk. People will die, our people. Parliament should have a say. Mission 'creep' in this theatre is something our guys won't be able to avoid.

IF we were to have a vote this would be the only legitimate reason for it is to aviod the mission morphing into something we have little understanding of and even less control over all the while footing the bill. However, to have a vote would mean we would have to choose between options and right now I do not see any viable options except cold turkey being offered by the left. The rest is just a pipe dream of throwing money at NGO's to hope a war will go away. Sheer fantasy.

Other then that I see no reason for a vote at this stage.

[Chumley]

andyt andyt:

Mowich Mowich:

There is absolutely no need for debate on this matter. As usual, Layton is conveniently leaving out the fact that the troops will be in non-fighting capacity, teaching roles as you will.
Canada is right to stay in Afghanistan and do their best to help the people of that country.

The push is on from NATO to have the troops outside the wire, ie be involved in missions with the Astani troops. Sounds like a fighting capacity to me if that is how this shapes up.

OJT?

[djakeydd]

Yeah, forget Afghan mission, just wait till we get mired in a 20+ year war with Iran that will make Afghanistan and Iraq look like a walk in the park, this veteran has something to say on the topic and ppl had best sit up and pay attention. No one can say that they were not forewarned.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/11/11 ... ed-states/

[ASLplease]

I would be in favor of open discussion and debate, but I also applaud that we have a government that is not afraid to govern.

[djakeydd]

HOw does a guy with a minority hang on to power this freakin long? He has no mandate, he has minority rump support and he sits there and makes proclamations. The state of this country is truly pathetic.

[Curtman]

djakeydd djakeydd:

HOw does a guy with a minority hang on to power this freakin long? He has no mandate, he has minority rump support and he sits there and makes proclamations. The state of this country is truly pathetic.

Did you watch the video I posted in the first? Do you understand why Stephane Dion was ridiculed during and after the last election for proposing a non-combat role in 2011?

I thought maybe someone would come out and say it was a bad idea when Harper says it. Doesn't seem like it though 'eh?

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

djakeydd djakeydd:

HOw does a guy with a minority hang on to power this freakin long? He has no mandate, he has minority rump support and he sits there and makes proclamations. The state of this country is truly pathetic.

Did you watch the video I posted in the first? Do you understand why Stephane Dion was ridiculed during and after the last election for proposing a non-combat role in 2011?

I thought maybe someone would come out and say it was a bad idea when Harper says it. Doesn't seem like it though 'eh?

Well, I'm not thrilled, but the idea has merits, especially as it seems NATO does not believe the Afghan army is ready to operate by itslef (2014-15 has become the new 2011)

Would you prefer an inflexible government unwilling to adapt policy? That would be great, wouldn't it?

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Would you prefer an inflexible government unwilling to adapt policy? That would be great, wouldn't it?

No, not at all. 4 years has been enough of that.

[EyeBrock]

Personally I gravitate between staying with the mission or getting our guys the fuck out of there.

Sure we have helped them a bit. Now a few chicks can go to school but the whole society remains mired in the Stone-age and we would have to be there for decades to make an impact.

Do we want to be there that long? Little has changed since Churchill was there 110 years ago.

$1:

“The inhabitants of these wild but wealthy valleys are of many tribes, but of similar character and condition. The abundant crops which a warm sun and copious rains raise from a fertile soil, support a numerous population in a state of warlike leisure. Except at the times of sowing and of harvest, a continual state of feud and strife prevails throughout the land. Tribe wars with tribe. The people of one valley fight with those of the next.

To the quarrels of communities are added the combats of individuals. Khan assails khan, each supported by his retainers. Every tribesman has a blood feud with his neighbor. Every man's hand is against the other, and all against the stranger. “

Scaling the mission down to ‘training’ etc is a better strategy politically and militarily than ‘cutting and running’ and I’m thinking that’s really what is at play here. This is an exit strategy.

[Gunnair]

I would hope so, but frankly we already had an exit strategy in summer of 2011. As I've said, this doesn't thrill me, but I also think cutting and running is simply unsat. Sadly, though, part of me would have liked to see Harper tell NATO to go fuck itself - Canada has done far more than its share while other countries pussied out for the last seven years.

[EyeBrock]

I agree Gunny. Too many paper tigers in NATO, too many of them are in their barracks whoring it up while the Yanks, Canadians, Brits, Aussies etc are out there in combat.