Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Canadian tank deployment carries political risks

Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 1:02 AM EDT 13/09/06

Sending armoured units drawn from Quebec to Afghanistan could cost Conservatives support: experts ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. evelyn robinson from Canada writes: Sto9p0 sending any troop0s to Afghanistan. It has been over 4 years since this was supposed to have been fundamentally done; We shouold only6 be there to assist the Afghanistan government. Afghanistan should be capable of finishing this task much be3tter than any Canadians troops. They know the climate; territory and the hiding spots for the taliban.
  2. Tom L from Canada writes: I think this story makes it clear that we finally have a Prime Minister who dosent conduct our foreign policy based on public opinion polling. NATO commanders on the ground asked for more troops and equipment and our PMs immediate responce should make Canadians proud. Finally, its about doing the right thing (making sure our troops have the strenght and equipment they need to get the job done), instead of following polls from day to day.
  3. Scot Loucks from Pickering, writes: Gee, Quelle Surpise. Just don't lump the storied Van Doos in with the rest of Quebec. Created because of the same Quebec attitude during WWI. Although I love Quebec, have many friends from there and who are still there, their legacy is one of appeasement. (see France WWII). Second point; the Globe yesterday ran the headline "CANADA WILL SEND". Then reported that an "expert said". Not the government, not the military, an "expert". Tabloid reporting G&M. Very disappointed. Course I tried to make this point yesterday but I rarely get published anyway. Just remember bashers, this still WILL be debated in the house, this is not a forgone conclusion. (Should be, we need to protect our troops) But I believe other NATO troops have tanks, do they not?
  4. Denis Love from Canada writes: It makes sense, if you plan on killing everyone around you to batten down the hatches on a huge tank. But does it make Friends and influence people? i hardly think so. Whatever happened to the friendly candy handing out Canadian. and what happened to the Chief of the armed Forces who stated a few weeks ago that tanks wouldn't' work in the area. we are getting more like the Americans all the time. lots of fire power and to hell with the locals. Now if we can only convince the US Air Force that it isn't the tablban driving those slightly out of date tanks the death rate may go down. Styeve can call george to bring in a few heavy transports to haul them over to the rapidly being rebuilt country. Time to screw your heads on new Government.
  5. george mcfly from calgary, Canada writes: I dont care what Quebec Thinks,we haveto give our troops the best equipment to keep them safe!.
  6. Mark Collins from Ottawa, Canada writes: The UN Security Council on Sept. 12 voted unanimously to extend the NATO ISAF mission in Afstan. According to the UN News Centre: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19804&Cr=afghan&Cr1= "...Council members also called on UN Member States to contribute greater personnel, equipment and funding so that the force can be more effective." So if the UNSC wants ISAF's equipment strenthened, surely Canadians should support the dispatch of the thanks--I thought Canada was supposed to be a strong supporter of the UN? Full text of resolution here: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2006/sc8826.doc.htm Mark Ottawa
  7. D M from Canada writes: First, those tanks won't be utilized on presence patrols around town, they would obviously be used for specific missions. Second, those troops drawn from units in Quebec are employed by the Government of Canada, and that is who they take their orders from. Oh, by the way, why are they always referred to as "the famed Van Doos" , they are no more famous than the RCR or PPCLI, (or the Black Watch, 12 RBC, Nova Scotia Highlanders[the North Novas], 48th Highlanders, Gov. Generals Footguards, etc.) The last time I checked, their name was the Royal TwentySecond Regiment, whose soldiers have done, and still continue to do what the rest of us soldiers do; serve our country when called upon to do so.
  8. Michael Shannon from BAGHDAD, IRAQ, Canada writes: Apart from my concerns about whether this mission can succeed, the ballooning cost and the fear that we will mirror the military-industrial-political complex of the US, I am concerned that the Afghan adventure will lead to a Tory defeat in a spring election by an even more left wing government than we've been subjected to in the recent past. I expect casualties from Quebec will seal the Tory fate. It's just a matter of whether Quebecers will dump the Bloc to ensure they run the government again through the Liberals and give the Liberals a majority or only a minority. Prime Minister Rae. I don't like the sound of that.
  9. Kim Morton from Canada writes: So how a region might vote is now directing the military what assetts they might have available. Are we trying to win a war or simply fufill contractual obligations to NATO? Let the military decide what to use and keep the polsters and politicians out of it. Or pull out.
  10. Syed Abbas of Toronto from San Diego, United States writes: It is natural that Tories mind thinks like the Republicans in the US. History shows that tanks are useful against a tank-equipped army, not against populace. Firepower did not work for Nixon in Viet-Nam, and it is not working for Dubya in Iraq. It did not work for Israel against Hezbollah in Lebanon. What works every time is kind words and good deeds, even against enemy. The Tories want to make history that no, force of arm can succeed against the populace. But those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
  11. Dan L from Alberta, Canada writes: Newsflash for "Pierre Martin, political science professor at the University of Montreal" who said casualties among Quebec-based troops would bring the war more into focus in Quebec. “It will hit home much more strongly,” he said. “When the bodies go back to Joliette, Lac-St-Jean or wherever these people come from, in Quebec you'll see the regional media covering it more deeply." A high percentage of CF members are French Canadians who make up one of the two most readily identifiable regional groupings in the CF along with Newfoundlanders, with a significant number serving in units NOT based in Quebec. The only units of the CF that are both based in Quebec and nearly exclusively composed of Quebecers are the R22R battalions. Therefore the possibility of "bodies going back to Joliette" for burial has always been quite real. Any furor over French Canadian troops dying in Afghanistan will be virtually entirely media driven since up until recently, just as pretty well everywhere in Canada, the majority of Canadians haven't given a damn about what happens to CF members overseas. If the military really is so frowned upon in Quebec why can you not help but trip over uniformed Quebecers on bases from coast to coast??
  12. Mark Orr from Toronto, Canada writes: Hmm 15 Canadian tanks. How many tanks did the Russians send in? hundreds? A thousand? Hillier is dreaming if he thinks sending 15 targets to Afghanistan will help.
  13. 'Mad Dog Dillon from Rabiesville BC, Canada writes: How do you think the fighting "Van Doos" became famous. Certainly not from listening to a bunch of separatist political scientists that 's for sure. Another G&M boner trying to play the crying game. If Quebecers get killed they won't vote conservative. I've said it before and I'll say it again the people who join the military do so for a reason: to serve their country, not the whiners who think they are the country. Oh, they'll be in tanks and won't meet the people. They spend about 10% of their time in tanks you dolts. Francophone's are already in this fight for your information. Some of them are from Quebec and some aren't. These are the ones that are Canadians first!
  14. Remain Anonymous from Canada writes: The last time I checked, Quebec is a part of this country, and members of the Forces there are subject to Universality of Service as anywhere else . I also believe that the soldiers of the 22nd are just as professional as those in the RCR or PPCLI, and are looking forwards to contributing to the efforts of this country to preserve and protect freedom. Perhaps it is time for some people in Quebec to get over the notion that they are separate from the rest of Canada. As for the potential reaction Afghans might have to our tanks; let's give our people over there the tools to do the job, and leave the armchair generals out of it. If the command echelon over in the theatre of this conflict feels that tanks are necessary, then lets send some over. Good thing we didn't get rid of them yet like the snivelling Liberals wanted to do.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top