Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

O'Connor sees swift Afghan changeover

BRIAN LAGHI

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 1:29 PM EST 22/07/07

As Afghan army trains for heavier fighting, Canadians likely to step back, Defence Minister says ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Scotty Tranna from Toronto, Canada writes: If that turns out to be the case, fine. But stop talking about it, as in raising the expectations of the cut and run crowd who will happily don their hob-nailed boots and stomp all over this less than bright NDM we currently enjoy, if that's the word, if his expectation doesn't come to fruition.

    You'd think he would have learned by now.
  2. Gerry Pankhurst from westport ontario, Canada writes: Good report. No spin. Congratulations G&m. And, by the way, the two hosts of today's question period were so superior to the other two regulars, I hope it is a permanent change. No bias, and none of the usual loaded questions. They peformed as interviewers, not as the interviewed as the other pair does.

    Note to Elmo Harris: Elmo; you have a definite singular advantage over Mr. O'Connor: You can kiss his rear end and he can't.
  3. Ontario Man from Canada writes: I wonder how much this decision was based on the fact that French, I mean Quebec, soldiers are in harms way.
  4. Elmo Harris from Niagara, Canada writes: Gerry Pankhurst says 'Note to Elmo Harris: Elmo; you have a definite singular advantage over Mr. O'Connor: You can kiss his rear end and he can't.'

    Sure he can Gerry, he and the rest of the Conservative Caucus have lots of practise kissing Harper's rear end - in fact that is just about all they are allowed to do.

    .
  5. Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: Considering that last time he was in Afghanistan, Mr. O'Connor had a hard time convincing the top Afghani human rights guy to even meet with him, I would take the minister's claims about cooperation with the Afghanis with a very large grain of salt.
  6. alex just a canadian from montreal, Canada writes: I hope people realize that the Vandoos are not only from quebec. Yes the majority are but there are also soldiers in that regiment that come from other provinces. Just as there are quebecers in the other two regiments. But i guess its easier to blame Qc and the language than actually debate.
  7. I R from Canada writes: 'Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says he believes by next winter Canadian troops in Afghanistan will be relegated to the back seat when it comes to fighting the Taliban.'

    But...what does this mean? Canada will join the ranks of those other NATO countries 'not pulling their weight'? Sounds like a really consistent policy to me...NOT.

    Like the other posters, I think Mr. O'Connor lacks any credibility in what he says as does the Harper government.

    I suppose by next winter, CF troops will be involved in a Pakistan civil war why the war in Iran rages on...
  8. I R from Canada writes: ...a second thought...

    Does this mean the purchase of the C-17s, the hundreds of Leopard II tanks etc. will be put on the shelf? If our troops are not going to be playing an active combat role, what is the need of all this expensive equipment?
  9. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: The rhetoric is becoming increasingly toned down as the popularity of the mission decreases amongst the electorate. So much for a government of principles. It's not surprising given the recent revelations on what a total sham the (un)Accountability Act is.

    O'Conner is painting a pretty rosy picture of Afghanistan that flies in the face of reality. First, a major problem with the current mission is that there are not enough ISAF forces to win this 'war'. Second, our very presence in Afghanistan and Iraq has led to a dramatic rise in the radicalization of Muslims resulting in more, not less, jihadists. There is no one disputing this last point.

    In any case, this is merely politics. The CPC see that they have no way to maintain themselves in government without backing away from the combat role in Afghanistan. We're seeing rising discontent with the mission in other NATO countries so it's not clear that this is even a decision that we will have to make. Cynically, one might interpret O'Conner's statement as simply setting the stage for withdrawal regardless of whether or not the Afghan military is capable of taking over. In other words, we will be told that they are and we (NATO) will withdraw its troops.
  10. I R from Canada writes: Michael H from Edmonton, Canada

    Michael, your post is very interesting. Thanks.
  11. True North from Canada writes: But Harper just spent $22 billion on military hardware, enough for an operational force twice our current size. Harper is out of touch with Canadians or perhaps he has a war planned he is not telling us about.
  12. Jason Roy from Nova Scotia, Canada writes: I R from Canada writes:

    '...a second thought...Does this mean the purchase of the C-17s, the hundreds of Leopard II tanks etc. will be put on the shelf? If our troops are not going to be playing an active combat role, what is the need of all this expensive equipment?'

    Uh, I believe to replace current equipment that is either past or fast approaching the end of its 'shelf life'.
  13. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: Is this based on tea leaf readings or what? Such prognostications are not only foolhardy they are dangerous. I don't see how anyone could make such a declaration UNLESS IT WAS ALREADY PREDETERMINED and politicians are the best at manipulation.
  14. Just the Truth from Canada writes: All the tough-talkin' Christian Soldiers who WANT to fight in what THEY call 'the war for civilisation' are, of course, free to join another army (there's one that has recruiting offices nearby) and take a more active role than the CF is taking. No doubt there are churches here in Canada which will be happy to facilitate this.

    But, y'know, that would require . . . uh . . . .
  15. Allan Eizinas from Simcoe, Canada writes: If nothing else, it is nice to hear O’Connor and Hillier giving out the same opinion and information.
  16. Freddie Fender from Canada writes: True North from Canada writes: 'But Harper just spent $22 billion on military hardware, enough for an operational force twice our current size. Harper is out of touch with Canadians or perhaps he has a war planned he is not telling us about.'

    Like most uninformed and ignorant posters who pontificate about defence policy on this site, you eagerly lap up the disinformation spread by Colonel (Retired) Michel Drapeau regarding the current re-equipment plans for the CF. Drapeau' s disinformation may make for a good soundbite on the 11 o'clock news, but it is not true.

    Further to Drapeau's misrepresenting reality, this is not the 'biggest build up since the Second World War.'
  17. Jasper the Black Lab from Port Moody outside of Vancouver, Canada writes: Here's hoping Gordon O'Connor will be taking a back seat long before next winter.
  18. Keith Ball from Canada writes: alex just: What you said about the Vandoos is true but most of them are from Quebec.

    Bottom line, if too many Canadian soldiers with French surnames, coming from towns and villages in Quebec, die the Conservatives will suffer fatal damage in that province.

    That is the reason why they are stepping back. The Vandoos and other regiments from Quebec are only scheduled to be their for about 8 months and then they will be replaced by units from the West, safe Conservative country.

    So the Conservatives will tone down the rhetoric and take steps to reduce the chances of Canadian casualties until the Quebec troops come home and then they will return to form.
  19. Hugh McNeil from toronto, Canada writes: i smell an election call by the following spring....
  20. Stude Ham from Outremont, Canada writes:

    We deserve to be told the truth about a'stan and our troops... not a bunch of obvious lies from the minister who will eventually pull the hillier no more comments or info so as to safeguard our troops... blah blah.. blah...

    That's why the harper guvmint has so little support for this mission. And that's why so many in canada (with the exception of the brain washed if not brain dead right wing knee jerk reflexers) want us out of that narcotic pushing death trap.


    GET OUR TROOPS OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW!

    DUMP HARPER!
  21. alex just a canadian from montreal, Canada writes: I know Keith but I would like to believe that all soldiers lives are worth the same english french vandoos rcr pplcli all have the same value. If the media would stop all these stories that somehow one life is more valuable than another or conspiracy posts here that this a government plot to save qc, its just a slap in our faces(soldiers) who have been there.

    The infantry deplyment or combat arms is still 6 month, the hd staff will stay for 9.
  22. Joe Flow from Canada writes: That is very magnanimous of OConnor to only allow our youth to die in unproportionally large numbers relative to the other participating UN countries ( for George) for this reduced time period. When Harper originally comitted our troops to the highest risk duty of all participating UN countries, he gave George a full two years of putting our youth at disproportionately high risk.

    Now, after reading a few polls that say Canadians aren't loving the deployment, he has 'generously' reduced the time period our youth are expected to sacrifice their lives in disproportionately large numbers. He should have been trying to ensure this, without the polls telling him he needs to do it to stay in power. Harper is a total disgrace.
  23. L.B. MURRAY from Canada writes: alex just, you are correct when pointing out that some Vandoos are from other provinces and some regiments have Quebec troops within their ranks.

    Amazing how some people yapping on these conversations soon forget very recent events...don't even remember that a very short while ago, there was a FUNERAL in Quebec for one of the 6 Canadian troops killed in Afghanistan. These very same posters keep preaching about war and 'supporting the troops'... Hypocrites.

    Good day.
  24. Dennis sinneD from Calgary, Canada writes: This is great news, I hope more NATO countries take a front seat sooner, in this NATO sanctioned and led mission.

    I'm incredibly proud of our soldiers and leaders.

    When the mission is complete and great things are left for a people who really needed our help and mercy, you turncoats will be saying, 'We sure are great humans us Canadians. Look what we've accomplished'.

    Of course, you and I will know the truth. You never cared for your brothers and sisters. You never cared for your fellow humans. You would prefer to let them live in fear and ignorance. You would prefer they die under torture and beheadings, simply for wanting a meager existence and freedom to move about, learn and love.

    To all of you backstabbing, sniveling wimps, I salute you with my middle finger.

    Thanks and thanks and thanks again soldiers. The sacrifice made by you saves, exponentially, a vast number of human beings, and their decedents, and theirs...
  25. Denis Love from Victoria, Canada writes: I don't know anything about retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, but I figure he has a better handle on things military than somebody who calls himself freddie fender. Does freddie have a real name one might ask? I don't know what freddie or the Col have said about buying military stuff, but from what I read elsewhere, the C17'S are going put of production. Must have taken some good salesmen to folg a about to be out of production aircraft to our new government. wonder who the lobyist was on that deal? The Chinnoks we used to have were sold years ago because at the time the governments decided we didn't need them for any job the service folks would be getting involved with. Things change no doubt but with the canadian military is required to keep using equipment that is hard to get parts for, any purchases can be wasted unless our government has some ideas in which way we are heading. The folks selling military equipment are having a field day as the present PM keeps buying stuff we maybe or may not really have a use somewhere soon. The tanks are a bit of a weird item in my view as we were about to junk the ones we owned as there are very few tank folks around. And if we leave the present rebuilding program in Aphganistan, now littered with dead Russian tanks, just where do we plan on using the air conditioned one? Our interest is supposedly in the high arctic. Not much need for tanks up north. As a ex C130 guy I am pleased by the purchase of newer ones but the J model has a few problems. The 'E' is getting awful long in the tooth. So back to freddie , you have no problems writing about others but chose not to identify yourself. why might that be?
  26. Barney F from Canada writes: Re Scotty:'.... cut and run crowd..'

    If you are referring to the Americans because they started the war and then went on to Iraq. Remember they had got a lot of killing done before they went and left enough troops behind to kill more, including Canadians and civilians. They do have their eyes on the remainder of the middle east and may just nuke Iran rather then continuing to threat. It's not cut and run if they leave nothing behind. Canadian can always do the cleanup as they are doing in Afghanistan now. I'm sure O'Conner got permission to make the statement from the Americans.
  27. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: Dennis sinneD, I don't think that anyone believes that liberating the Afghan people (and other oppressed peoples across the world) is not a worthwhile thing to do. The bigger question is: can we expect to transform a society so fast? Will we not just end up replacing one band of despots with another? I'd also like to point out that the mission was never sold as a liberation mission until after the fact. It was always sold as a 'war against terrorism'. Since those objectives are unattainable using the approaches implemented, it is right to criticize this mission.

    If we are going to use our collective military might to fight for human rights across the world, then we need to have a debate on where, when, and why? In other words, develop priorities that are justified based upon human rights and not other critieria. For example, there are lots of repressive regimes in the Middle East. Why is there so little pressure on the Saudis, as one example? These inconsistencies leave a lot of doubt in terms of the true purpose of these missions.

    It's also important to recognize that democracy may be far less important than the separation of Church and State if we are to liberate people from oppression. For example, in Turkey right now the military is threatening a coup to prevent the democratically elected government from implementing further Muslim-based influence on the society. On the other hand, we have the democratically elected Hamas government in Palestine where we undermined the stability of the government by withdrawing aid. Democracy, as a goal, may not achieve the results we are seeking. Rather, they may lead only to the tyranny of the majority. Would this be the case in Afghanistan if we had allowed the Taleban to participate in the democratic process rather than outlaw their participation?
  28. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: And the polls say....

    This is no surprise given that Harper and the CPC are no longer in the 'good' with MOST Canadians. Just watch the campaigning now.This by a party who accused the opposition of using the CF for political gains.In the past week we've heard $500M in military spending in QC and now this announcement by a minister who hasn't a clue what the truth means.

    Who's really using the CF for political gains? First it was to lure the fearful through the 'fight them there...' lines and then they used the 'saving A-stan from torture and litle girls,schools,etc ...' trying to keep the support of the fearful through humanitarian appearances.Since the CPC has been in power we've heard nothing but lies with regards to any progress and any handlings of detainees, all in it's attempt to remain in favour of the electorate while trying to continue in it's quest to be the creator of Canada as a military super-power.

    BTW Dennis sinneD,you just keep your saluting finger in that dark place behind you and get it ready to join the rest of your fingers to wave buh bye to Stevie come the next election.Without a majority he's toast and if he's voted back to opposition he's toast. The question is 'How dark do you like your toast?', 'cuz it's coming.
  29. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: It's quite sad that O'Connor et al will take credit for deciding to build the Afghan Army when this policy was on the table from day one in 2002 and largely ignored. Now when it looks like the combat mission may cost the Tories the next election the CF sees the light and decides Afghanization is the next phase of their 'plan'.
  30. Joe Loria from calgary, Canada writes: O'Conner is sounding more like a politician and less like a military man.
    The interviewers were a bit better, but they keep beating the same dead horse--oh no, what if van doos get killed ? support for Harper is bound to go down in Quebec, there goes his majority, etc etc. The same stale commentary. Try something new guys. Like what does O'Conner think of what's happening in Pakistan.
  31. MJ Patchouli from Regina, Canada writes: My friend's son is an officer serving in Afghanistan. He told his parents several months ago that the country is destroyed and that NATO activities there are acts of futility.

    I realize it's an unpopular view and that those who have lost friends and relatives don't want to acknowledge they were killed in acts of futility.

    I'm sorry for all who have died in this war, but this is just rhetoric to make Canadians think our beloved PM and his defence minister are looking out for us and calling on the other NATO countries. They aren't; they are looking out for their own political careers.
  32. Dana Dana from Canada writes: In November of '05 George W. Bush said, 'Our strategy can be summed up this way: As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down, and when our commanders on the ground tell me that Iraqi forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the honor they have earned.'

    O'Connor still can't think with his own brain.
  33. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Freddie Fender:-- Let's see - you tell us we're ignorant because we purportedly believe someone named Drapeau (haven't heard of him, nor heard his views), but you don't take the time to refute what you quote said Mr. Drapeau as saying. Would you care to aim for some content instead of an insult followed by a blanket denial?
  34. Keith Ball from Canada writes: alex:

    One soldier's life is as important as anothers regardless of where they come from.

    However, we are talking about politics here so that assertion goes out the window when you begin to take politics into account.

    Many Conservatives will probably howl at this assertion but to the Conservative government the lives of Quebec soldiers are more sacrosanct than those from the West because there are more consequences politically to a dead Quebec soldier than a dead soldier from the West.

    That is the type of government we are dealing with. Every decision is a political one.
  35. Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: I think it is entirely logical for our troops to go into reserve next year, most likely in preparation for a change in our role. Trouble is too many of you are so partisan you are incapable of contemplating this possibility. You then go on a general anti-military rant questioning recent equipment purchase announcements. The equipment is needed, war or no as a result of decades of mismanagement by successive federal governments.
  36. Annie Turner from by the Avon, Canada writes: True North...how about Pakistan ?
  37. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: MJ Patchouli, I believe what you are saying is true of what many of our troops are feeling.The thing many people fail to aknowledge is that the military instills a non-defeatist attitude (and rightly so) onto our soldiers.You can't have them going into combat without a sense of success.To engage in battle otherwise could be and usually is deadly.

    The real problem is at the top. For a variety of different reasons these leaders are more concerned with the continuation of this mission than they are with what the costs are and what the results will be. I tend to get the feeling that some of there reasons could be that they are afraid of being exposed as erroneous in the choices and predictions they have made in this mission. Saving face if you may, and at any cost it seems.

    Canadians fully support the troops but when they question the mission, they are made out to be anti-troops and pro-Taliban. This of course is an outright lie. Then again lying is nothing new to the pro-war promoters.
  38. THE LAKEMAN from THE LAKE, Canada writes: Never mind the reprieve, get out troops the hell out of Afganistan and back home where they belong.
  39. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: Bill G., logical yes, probable is yet to be seen. Why this sudden announcement now? Right after the latest polling showing a sinking CPC, two announcements totalling 1/2 billion dollars and then this. Doesn't it strike you as being a little political?

    BTW, do you really think we need 100 A/C equipped tanks in our inventory? Do you also not think that there are more sensible places rather than southeastern Quebec for the 'new' response base?Maybe North Bay for instance.More to the center of the country and closer to the north,all without the heavy air traffic that it would face in the southern area of the Quebec.
  40. Festina Lente from Tampa Bay, United States writes: There is no doubt that Canadian Defense Ministers like O'Connor and John McCallum are appointed for political reasons than for their ability to lead. Of particular concern was when Canada chose to re-structure her armed forces, she neglected to update them with the best of modern durable offensive weapons. The greast concern was the lack of combat aircraft to support her troops on the ground. Reliance on others for that support resulted into many incidents of friendly fire, often fatally. Canadian Forces have operated in the hostile sector of Afghanistan superbly and all Canadians should laud them for it. They deserve a less hostile sector and France and Germany should have their go in the hot zones, if they like fair play. Lack of combat aerial support for her forces is a Canadian national disgrace. Canada, long associated with the airplane should develop and update her tactical fighters and purchase modern aircraft suitable to needs of her extended coasts. The price is high but Canadians deserve and need it. It appears the lower echelon in the forces identify their needs much better than the ministers at the head...whose main job is to articulate and pacify the Canadian public. Malcolm McCallum in Florida.
  41. THE LAKEMAN from THE LAKE, Canada writes: Did anyone see Peter macKay? If you see him tell him his Atlantic Friends have a message for him. I think he may be hiding out in Europe doing some meaningless task that will not help Canadians one little bit. Peter.....we want to talk to you!
  42. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Malcolm McCallum:-- Good afternoon. Now, here's the problem as I see it. When a nation spends billions upon billions of dollars on materiel that has no purpose except offence (masquerading as defence), aka pre-emptive war, there's the need to invent combat situations in order to use one's 'investment' and the cost of keeping one's troops combat-ready. How else to justify what you've spent on outright purchases and ongoing maintenance and staffing? That's why you hear front-line soldiers comment that 'it will be nice to put ourselves to the test, to do that which have been trained to do', or people on these fora say, as one said yesterday, 'thanks for buying us all these new toys to play with.' Those invented combat situations have a tendency to create new opportunities (look what Iraq is doing for the U.S. - creating a new crop of terrorists), which then provide the market for the materiel, which then needs a theatre, which... All so that on-line manly-men can call others 'cut and run' cowards, or - worse yet - accuse them of being opposed to little girls going to school. Yup, it's a great world.
  43. Steven Koning from Bloomfield, ON, Canada writes: When Canadian troops were first sent to Afghanistan by the Liberals, the troops didn't even have proper desert camouflage uniforms, instead they were walking around in forest camouflage. That's the type of army the Liberals were promising hither and yon to keep the peace with, it was like offering target practice to the bad guys. The equipment now on stream will still be able to be used in other places when the miltary scale down the confrontation commitment to Afghanistan after the Afghanis learn to fight the Taliban with modern methods. That was always the plan and still is. Those who scream; 'Bring the troops home now!' are really saying: 'Allow the Taliban to kill more students on their way to school, and more female journalists that are trying to help women have proper role models.' They are just spokes persons for people like Cont Coderre of the Liberals who parades with the cowardly Hezbollah on Montreal steets.
  44. John Tan from mississauga, Canada writes: This war in Afghanistan or that in Iraq will never be won by foreign troops when there is no discernible conviction on the part of the local populace in both countries to win. When such is the case, the enemy targets are moving, fluid and working in stealth with the implicit cooperation of their own people. It is a lost cause and the sooner US and Canada wake up to this reality the better because less lives will be loss on all sides.
  45. Steven Koning from Bloomfield, ON, Canada writes: diane marie, just what is wrong with men being manly? What else should a man be? Womanly? Childish? Get my drift? Perhaps you could refrain from using sexist stereotypes and carricatures to make your points. A line of reasoning is not right or wrong because it is made by a man, or a woman or because it is manly or not manly, or womanly or not womanly. It is right or wrong or partially right or partially wrong, or mostly right or mostly wrong. Your argument is based on assumptions from the past and you are applying those rearview mirror interpretations to the future in Canada. That's like convicting a person for possible future crimes because of what their neighbour did in the past. And that is totally wrong.
  46. L.B. MURRAY from Canada writes: WHO and WHAT are we to believe?
    Any person who saw Question Period this afternoon should be asking serious questions:
    Within minutes,
    On one hand, we have Mr O'Connor who says one thing.
    On the other hand, the British study group on Afghanistan have their spokesman who says exactly the opposite.

    A few minutes before, on CNN:
    To further complicate matters, the U.S. does not plan to have boots on the ground on the Pakistan side of that most volatile border (between Kandahar, Afghanistan and Islamabad, Pakistan). The General interviewed on CNN was talking about ''air support''...
    Meanwhile, we hear that Pakistan does not want U.S. on the ground
    or in the air over its territory.

    USAF? Bomb from 35000 feet whatever and whenever and let the Canucks pick up the pieces and get blown up when the Afghans seek revenge. No help coming and the rest of the Nato troups are staying as far away from Kandahar as possible, up in and around Kabul.

    Please, God, if you're up there, keep our troops safe and sound.
    Thank you.
  47. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: Steve Konig, you a nothing more than false propoganda spreader(similar to a manure speader) who belongs to an ever shrinking minority.

    We went there to erradicate the Al Quaida.Had the Taliban handed him/them over we wouldn't have even gone there.

    Do you honestly believe that things will change to our way of life in a Muslim dominated Afghanistan? Or another question is how many of these torturing women incidents actually occurred? A few or the rampant numbers being suggested by those looking to continue this mission?

    Small wonder you're a Harper supporter.You'll believe anything his says. I bet you also believe he doesn't pay attention to polls either.
  48. The Globe and Mail's Liberal Party Agenda from Toronto, Canada writes:

    This isn't a Globe report, Gerry. It's a Canadian Press newswire item.

    If it were the Globe, the article would have been empty of information and full of Liberal Party spin.
  49. Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: Dennis sinneD writes:

    'To all of you backstabbing, sniveling wimps, I salute you with my middle finger.'

    Dennis, absolutely nobody buys the line that if you're against the government's campaign in Afghanistan, you're against the soldiers. But then, I don't expect anyone capable of writing the line above to understand this.
  50. Mary Hines from Canada writes: 100% agreement with Gerry - It sure was a 'treat' to watch Question Period and not have all questions 'loaded' in the liberal favor, or given liberal guests 75% of the time to speak... I have refused to watch when Jane Tabor has been hosting, she is so bias, it is sickening, having Gloria Galloway, whos husband is a liberal strategist and also a reporter for the Globe and Mail on as guests each week, loading all questions at the end of the show in the liberal favour.... no western reporters allowed any more,they are just too Harper supportive!... It makes me laugh at comments about Harper now starting to run from the above mission... Harper stated that he would not extend the mission until he had the support of Parliament and within 5 minutes Dion was stating, he was not going to support the mission, and wanted Harper to announce immediately that Canada would be pulling out in 2009.... He wanted Harper to announce to the world, we were not staying....Layton said he wouldn't and we know the Quebec leader will not as well... so what was Harper left with.... He knew he could never get an extension to this mission. so he has tried to turn it in another direction.... now it is Harper's fault.... we hear the media over and over and over, reporting the 'polls' that say Canadians do not want to extend the mission.....then when Harper tried to do what the Canadians are asking for, all the liberals are saying it is now Harper's fault.... what a joke you liberals are... you are just like dion... have no idea what you want...
  51. Festina Lente from Tampa Bay, United States writes: To Diane Marie: Hello again. I was commenting on the subject matter not the purpose and intent of weapons produced by the USA whose weapons during the cold war were DEFENSIVE AND OVERWHELMING IN THE AIR and resulting in a lowering of the defense of Europe. Fortunately these weapons were not used but they were there to defend Europe and North America. Now back to Canada: Canadians decry the deficiencies in her aircraft whether for war or saving lives on her extensive and far flung coasts. That in its self should be sufficient reason for the expenditures and to keep Canada a modern force with which to meet exigent circumstances. Canada will do well and spend the money her subjects are calling for. The political climate and the real terror threats do not give a country such as Canada the leisure to sit back and not have a viable striking force. Having offensive weapons for a good defense is money well spent by a nation that cares for its subjects and is one of the principles of warfare since Alexander the Great. Malcolm McCallum in Florida.
  52. Al , from Maritimes, Canada writes: Britain is protecting the biggest heroin crop of all time -Daily Mail.

    In six years, the occupation has wrought one massive transformation in Afghanistan, a development so huge that it has increased Afghan GDP by 66 per cent and constitutes 40 per cent of the entire economy. That is a startling achievement, by any standards. Yet we are not trumpeting it. Why not?

    The answer is this. The achievement is the highest harvests of opium the world has ever seen.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?inarticleid=469983&inpageid=1770&inpageid=1770&expand=true#StartComments

    Nice to know that our troups aren't involved...
  53. p m from vancouver, Canada writes: Afghan army! Iraqi army! who's kidding who!
    undereducated, undertrained, underequipped and loyal only to their local warlord.
    We are wasting our time, energy and money trying to impose our western values where they really aren't wanted.
    Better the money and efforts should be expended either at home where they are needed or elsewhere where they are appreciated and the reciprocation isn't a bullet or a bomb.
  54. Jason Roy from Nova Scotia, Canada writes: F.T. Ward from Canada writes: 'It's quite sad that O'Connor et al will take credit for deciding to build the Afghan Army when this policy was on the table from day one in 2002 and largely ignored. Now when it looks like the combat mission may cost the Tories the next election the CF sees the light and decides Afghanization is the next phase of their 'plan'.' Since '01, the US has provided more than 2B worth of military equipment/facilities. Another further 2B worth of military aid was announced in '06 and will be delivered in '07, which will include 2,500 Humvees, tens of thousands of M-16s & body armored jackets. It will also include the building of a national military command center. To thwart/dissolve localized militias, the Afghan government has offered cash & vocational training to encourage members to join the ANA. Hamid Karzai set a goal of an army of 70K men by '09. The problems of desertion/difficult recruitment are recurring problems. Total manpower is at around 50K personnel & 3K new personnel are being recruited each month. The basic unit in the ANA is the battalion, consisting of 600 troops. Although the vast majority is infantry, at least 1 mechanized and 1 tank Battalion have been formed; more may be planned. An elite special forces unit modelled on the U.S Army Rangers is also being formed. Plans are for it to include 3,900 men in six battalions under French/US tutelege. Every Corps will be assigned a commando battalion with the 6th as a special national unit under the Afghan defense ministry's watch. As of 09/05, 28 of the 31 battalions were ready for combat operations & many had already participated in them. At least 9 brigades are planned at this time, each consisting of 6 battalions. By 03/07 half of the planned army of 70K soldiers has been achieved with 46 battalions operating in the fore or in concert with NATO forces. A total of 14 brigades that will primarily be regionally oriented are planned for '08.
  55. The Loyal Canadian Work Farce from Canada writes: I know my understanding of military matters is extremely limited. But this all seems like bullshit. In 2009 Canadians leave Afghanistan still in the Dark Ages, economically, politically and culturally, but with an army that is 'professionally' trained to be modern enough to kill Taliban. But will the Afghan army have modern equipment? And why does a country of some 10 million military age men fighting wars of invasion and civil wars for decades need to be trained by young Canadians with little or no battle experience? If Afghans wanted, these last six years, to take out the Taliban why has it taken six years to raise an army of the willing? Seems some of the Afghans are just playing along with the invading armies, getting what they can out of them while the vast majority of Afghans refrain from opposing the Taliban; and as soon as the foreign troops leave, the Taliban will regain power. I could be wrong, but that's the way it looks to me. Can anybody enlighten me?
  56. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: Mary Hines quit your whining. The only reporters Harper cares for are the ones he/PMO hand picks and they're usually the ones without note pads or recorders. Just cameras.

    If it ain't scripted,he can't give an 'honest' answer. Or haven't you noticed?
  57. Dennis sinneD from Calgary, Canada writes: Michael H from Edmonton, I appreciate your position and will definitely take it into account.

    Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: 'Dennis, absolutely nobody buys the line that if you're against the government's campaign in Afghanistan, you're against the soldiers. But then, I don't expect anyone capable of writing the line above to understand this.'

    Mahatma, my salute was to those who don't seem to care for the Afghani people, the reason our country was invited to help, the reason for the NATO led mission, the reason our troops are there.
  58. The Loyal Canadian Work Farce from Canada writes: Is 'training the Afghan Army' merely a pretext for maintaining the military occupation of Afghanistan? That's how the Americans began the Vietnam war - by sending in 'technical and military advisors'.
  59. James C. from ontario, Canada writes: ' diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Malcolm McCallum:-- Good afternoon. Now, here's the problem as I see it. When a nation spends billions upon billions of dollars on materiel that has no purpose except offence (masquerading as defence), aka pre-emptive war, there's the need to invent combat situations in order to use one's 'investment' and the cost of keeping one's troops combat-ready. How else to justify what you've spent on outright purchases and ongoing maintenance and staffing? That's why you hear front-line soldiers comment that 'it will be nice to put ourselves to the test, to do that which have been trained to do', or people on these fora say, as one said yesterday, 'thanks for buying us all these new toys to play with.''
    ----------
    despite what you think, the recently purchased items are meant to replace inventory that is either outdated, too old to be serviceable in the field any longer, or to give us the capability that we previously only had through renting from outside contractors. a well equipped and well trained military force is our national insurance policy against outside threats. if you dont agree with that, then i suppose you probably dont purchase home insurance either.
  60. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: Our claim that we are exporting democracy to Afghanistan is as ludicrious as our claim that the mullahs want to export radical Islam to the West. At least, we make consistently ludicrous claims!
  61. Fred Draper from Kingston, Canada writes: The Loyal Canadian Work Farce from Canada writes: I know my understanding of military matters is extremely limited.

    Maybe, but you're willing to learn, no?

    To your questions, I would answer:

    1. It takes more to run an army than picking up an AK-47 and killing Russians.
    2. The Taliban are paying 50% higher salary than the Afghan army. That's disgraceful considering how far euros/USD/canbucks can go in A-stan.
    3. Maybe some Afghans are reluctant to cast their lot with us, since they think we might 'cut and run' and leave them in the lurch to face the reprisals? (Geesh, why would they think that?)

    The Afghan army project seems to be working better than the Iraqi army one. Certainly the soldiers seem braver.
  62. Jason Roy from Nova Scotia, Canada writes: Dwayne Allan from Canada writes:

    'Do you honestly believe that things will change to our way of life in a Muslim dominated Afghanistan? Or another question is how many of these torturing women incidents actually occurred? A few or the rampant numbers being suggested by those looking to continue this mission?'

    Good evening Dwayne.

    With regards to your above words; I don't believe NATO is in Afghanistan to impose 'our' way of life on the Afghan people; but rather to establish a democratic style of government (however imperfect as it may be). No one is forcing the Afghan people to do anything they don't want to do (intimidation by the Taliban or ANA are another story) as far as lifestyle and traditions go. They are able to maintain their culture and custom as they see fit. Karzai has said Afghan Taliban are welcome back into the fold.
    They just are not going to impose their interpretation of Islam on the entire populace as before.

    IMHO. Cheers.
  63. Robert Billyard from Mission, Canada writes: O'Connor is following the Rumsfeld script to the letter. He still hasn't addressed the fact there is an acute shortage of troops on the ground, too many civilians are being killed and there is an indescriminate use of air power and heavy weapons.
  64. Mary Hines from Canada writes: Robert - Rumsfeld is 'GONE'.... Bush will soon be gone, and who are you liberal going to try and connect Harper to then?..... God forbid, if Dion is ever elected Prime Minister.... what kind of a relationship is he going to have with the United States, like it or not, the most powerful country in the world, when all he does is 'bash' the President of another Country.... Let Bush run his country, and let dion come up with a few ideas to try and run ours......... I know he is only doing it, thinking he is turning Canadians against Harper.... but after all, Bush is the President, and what right does he have bashing him at every move..... Why doesn't he come up with his own ideas, forget Bush, for awhile that was okay for awhile, but it is getting sickening now, and Canadians are catching on.... ... Bush is not going to be there forever, and let's think, what are we going to do if a 'Liberal President is elected...... bash him as well.... I don't think he and all you liberals are setting very good examples, just every sentence that comes out of your mouth.... bashing another country.... run your own, and come up with a few ideas, if that is possible....
  65. I R from Canada writes: Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: I think it is entirely logical for our troops to go into reserve next year, most likely in preparation for a change in our role. Trouble is too many of you are so partisan you are incapable of contemplating this possibility. You then go on a general anti-military rant questioning recent equipment purchase announcements. The equipment is needed, war or no as a result of decades of mismanagement by successive federal governments.

    Bill you may correct in that the equipment is needed - or maybe not. The problem is what is needed is not the same thing as what is wanted. What was purchased was claimed to be needed for the mission in Afghanistan. Now we find that mission is about to change and that equipment is not necessary. Yet the equipment is still to be bought. All I see is a bunch of arms dealers selling stuff the the CF that will never been needed. The CF brass is only too happy to have 'new' equipment, but whether it is needed is another question entirely. I see NO leadership, just gluttony.
  66. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: Michael H (at 2:00PM) I would add this to your clear assessment: there is no conceivable way that the Afghan Army will be in a position to take over Canada's current combat role in Kandahar by next winter. To even hint at that possibility borders on the criminally negligent.

    The first objection to the possibility is the state of the Afghan Army itself. Despite the abject poverty of Afghanistan (GDP: $800 per capita. Haiti GDP: $1800 per capita.) they can't get sufficient Afghans to commit to a career in the military. And those who do are only interested in the paycheck; they have little or no loyalty to the Kabul government. The Afghan Army suffers extensive AWOL's when the poppies need harvesting... 'cause the pay is better.

    Thus, the idea that the Afghan Army can successfully take over from a professional, dedicated fighting force like the Canadian military beggars belief. Likewise consider that the CF works hand in glove with the other NATO military organizations through an elaborate communication and command structure. How will the Afghan Army ever match that?

    The second objection to Mr. O'Connor's prediction carries a serious warning. There ARE elements of the Afghan Army who could carry a serious fight in Kandahar: the former Northern Alliance. They're the only part of the Afghan Army that's got a credible fighting capability. Bur they're bitter enemies of almost everyone in the south and east of Afghanistan. Turning them loose in Kandahar would be to invite disaster.

    The wise money says, Mr. O'Connor's suggestion doesn't reflect the reality in Afghanistan. They wise money also says that if they go ahead with that idea anyway, there's a serious risk of disaster.
  67. Mary Hines from Canada writes: Dwayne Allen - I am not winning - I am stating the facts. and maybe if you would honestly think about it... the PMO has to hand pick his reporters..... Imagine taking 'Gloria Galloway' with you, whos husband is a liberal stragistist and who carries her husband's liberal questions around with her to ask.... wouldn't that be a smart move?.... the Globe and Mail are full of liberals securing their jobs when the liberals were in power.... Harper is only being smart... why have the liberal reporters trying their best to put you on the hot seats.... Dion sure can't come with anything smart himself... they have to try and help him along.... with the bias reporting, then he picks up on that for the week..... The only think he can come up with is try and connect Harper to Bush.... that is his only line!
  68. Alistair McLaughlin from Ottawa, Canada writes: Great. So the Taliban knows they only have to hang on and lay low until next winter. There's no way our European 'allies' are going to take the risks that we did. We may as well go home right now.
  69. Freddie Fender from Canada writes: Denis Love and diane marie: Thank you for proving the point of my post - get an education! Obviously, you only get the 'truth' from the G&M site, so here is the article from CTV news last night. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070721/military_spending_070721/20070721/ The biggest build up of the CF in the post-Second World War period was announced by Liberal Defence Minister, Brooke Claxton on 5 February 1951 with a $5 billion three year programme that including expansion of military strength from 50,000 to 105,000, ordering 3,000 aircraft for the RCAF and 100 ships for the RCN. Put into context, in FY 1952-53, Canada expended 8.8 per cent on GNP on defence, today we spend 1 per cent. $5 billion in 1951 would be approximatley $100 billion today, so the $22 billion announced by the Harper government (some of which are repeats from the Martin era, i.e. C130s, JSS and trucks) is not as dramatic as critics such as Drapeau and others would suggest. Transport aircraft, helicopters, transport trucks, UAVs, Joint Support Ships, Arctic Patrol Ships are not 'offensive' equipment. No member of the CF would ever refer to military equipment as 'toys,' that is your tasteless and immature term. Your remarks that these acquistions are in preparation for Canadian participation in 'pre-emptive war' is completely unsubstantiated. You obviously feel that Canada should not have properly equipped armed forces in order to ensure its own sovereignty and support its own foreign policy - a rather anti-Canadian view. The Harper government like it or not has to deal with the rust-out of the CF due to previous Liberal and Conservative governments going back to the late '50s. Drapeau is retired, he can appear on TV and is free to say whatever...that doesn't make it correct.
  70. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: Jason Roy, good evening Jason. By our way of life I mean treating women as equals.This is not not part of the Muslim culture.Even here they are more often than not considered to be less than equal by their own Muslim communities. I seriously don't see this changing in a country that is populated by a Muslim majority with centuries of their religious beliefs steeped into their daily lives. I also believe that much of the torture and executions by the Taliban are due to those who violated the religious laws they follow.Not that I agree with this type of punishment I do think it is the case. Our own laws of society are in many cases based on Christian beliefs. These are viewed as unacceptable in many other cultures around the world and sometimes here at home as well. What many of those who promote this mission are expecting, simply won't happen in A-stan.I find it hard to see how many still refuse to recall the reason why we went there.Not to liberate but seek justice from Al Quaida and OBL. Even GWB,the one who started this invasion,has stated publicly that this is not a nation rebuilding mission. It was to reprimand those who were behind 911. Revenge if you will. Given that Karzai is a US appointed Pres. and there is a ton of money being offered, of course HE wants to see NATO there for as long as possible. That and the fact that once NATO leaves,his gig is up. It'll be leave or die.
  71. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: Jason Roy. Thanks for the update. The initial plan in 2002 called for a 70,000 man Central Corps for Kabul alone but was hamstrung by lack of funding, resources and a sense of urgency. It seems the manpower goal is slipping to the right yet again. The DDR plan to incorporate militias into the ANA while providing education for troops who didn't want to join was accepted by the Afghan MOD in 2002 but cancelled by the US because the UN had accepted this task. Nothing was done for at least the next two years. I presume most of the militia are now guarding opium fields. NATO & the US dropped the ball on building the ANA and are now in a rush to do what they should have done in 2002 but were more worried about a Northern Alliance coup d'etat than the Taliban. The equipment you mention is coming at the earliest five years after the need for it was identified. I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of where all the money went. I suspect the same kind of waste, fraud and mismanagement that characterized the Iraq mission was in play in Afghanistan. The ANA retention problems won't be solved until wages are significantly raised, another fact pointed out to the military in 2002. This is before the police are sorted which a larger and probably more pressing problem is. Afghanistan may not be lost but NATO has certainly wasted a lot of time and money in finally getting its priorities straight.
  72. Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: Dennis sinneD replies: 'Mahatma, my [middle finger] salute was to those who don't seem to care for the Afghani people, the reason our country was invited to help, the reason for the NATO led mission, the reason our troops are there.'

    Dennis, NATO was asked to help the United States, who had been attacked by Al Qaeda on 9-11, to stamp out Al Qaeda, whose leadership was protected by the Taliban regime. After carpet-bombing the country for two months in what was called 'Operation Enduring Freedom', ISAF was created.

    This had absolutely nothing to do with helping the Afghan people. If the goal of the Canadian Forces is to participate in occupying countries where there are kids who can't go to school, let me tell you all of Canada would have to sign up, and there still wouldn't be enough people. Besides, the military are trained to kill people, not to help them. If it's a matter of building schools and teaching kids to read and write, there are much more highly qualified NGO's for that job.

    This crap about helping the Afghans is mere propaganda, to disguise the fact that the real mission, to destroy Al Qaeda, has failed inexorably, but our soldiers continue to die by bombs buried under the roads. Just like George Bush's attempt to justify the failed invasion of Iraq by claiming that the purpose was to bring democracy to that country. Nobody believes Bush's rubbish for one moment, and nobody believes yours either.
  73. Brent Raby from Toronto, writes: If this were a just war with a real enemy, the allies would be fighting shoulder to shoulder---instead of back to back.

    This is an undefined war against an ephemeral enemy in a place in which we have no business. No wonder the allies are falling all over themselves to get out of there.
  74. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: Mary Hines,that's pretty funny.Did you forget that it was the G&M who promoted Harper during the last election?

    When the PM must have reporters hand picked,they are no longer reporters of free press.They become government advertisers.Scripted questions and answers is called convient truth. Not the real truth.

    Harper expected this while campaigning,yet he professed an open and honest government. He obviously knew the truth would hurt and that the press would report all his doings. Not something Mr. Secretive likes. So he shunned the press and later complains for negative reporting. Perhaps this would be different if they had better access to him, but he cannot operate without a script. So when he and his flunkies stumble,lie and decieve it obviously doesn't look good.Their own fault not the press.Even the Western Standard has been publishing non complimenting stories about the CPC.This is a very pro-CPC paper.Get used to it.It ain't gonna get much better for Harper and the gang.

    BTW, Harpy isn't as smart as you think he is. Lokk to how many Liberal ideas he cancelled and later renamed and brought into effect. this can be found in many of his 'green' policies for example.
  75. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes: Freddy Fender, for decades now the Canadian public, rightly or wrongly, has chosen to place a lower financial priority on the Canadian military than on some other national programs. There was nothing inherently wrong with that prioritization, nor was it unpatriotic, misguided, nor unrealistic. As long as Canadians don't demand that the CF be all things in all conflicts, we can afford other things that are important on a day to day basis.

    I'm STILL not hearing the Canadian public clamouring for heavy military expenditures. On the contrary, the Canadian public appears to be having serious misgivings about the major military expenditures that are currently in existence, and being promoted. Were you to throw the matter out into the Canadian public and say to them, 'We can buy Leopard tanks, C-17's and continue our war in Afghanistan. Or, you can have greater expenditures on [other government] programs. Or you can have a tax cut.' I'm not sure which of those choices would come first, but I believe that buying Leopard tanks and C-17's would come last.

    Like it or not, the Canadian public views the CF as a bit of a sink-hole for public funds. They view it that way not because of lack of patriotism or respect for CF members but, I believe, because the CF lacks focus and direction. That lack of focus and direction is not the fault of the CF, but rather the fault of the Canadian public and the governments we elect.

    As a first and vital step to getting the CF back into 'fighting trim', I recommend a wide-ranging debate in Parliament about what we want the CF to be.
  76. Rick in Redneckland from Canada writes:
    O'Connor is trolling for better polling results.

    Period.
  77. Peter Kells from Ottawa, Canada writes: There is a famous speech by Winston Churchill where he talked about 'blood, toil, sweat and tears...' It seems that the current government cannot be so frank. Is that because they don't really believe in the mission and are afraid of the reality, or is it because they believe in the mission and are afraid to tell the truth?
  78. Proud Canadian from Metropolis, Canada writes: How does Coderre have any right to make any comments. He helped create this mess.
  79. Proud Canadian from Metropolis, Canada writes: Richard Roskell - you correspond with all 30 million on a regular basis so you know what the Canadian public thinks. I the only thing you know is what you think and you are entitled to whatever that is, nothing more!!!
  80. Steven Koning from Bloomfield, ON, Canada writes: Dwayne Allen, Bosnia is a Muslim country and the women there are the equals of the men. No sharia there. Check your facts before you spread falsehoods.
  81. Vancouver-Kingsway Antics-Shy Voter from Canada writes: Please let these be true words O'Connor speaks.
  82. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Freddy:-- You quoted Mr. Drapeau and then accused everyone of believing him. If you introduce his name, you can take the time to dispute what he said. Assuming that my or anyone else's views come from the statements of one person, about which you have no proof, is ignorant (to use your word).

    Steven Koning:-- Oh, dear, stereotypes. Would those be of the type usually employed by the pro-war crowd? I note with interest your last statement, which I repeat here: 'That's like convicting a person for possible future crimes because of what their neighbour did in the past. And that is totally wrong'. Would that be like pre-emptive war? As for the 'toys' comment, I repeated one that was on a Globe thread yesterday. I assumed that it was stated by a serving person. Why else would he or she have said, 'us' when thanking everyone for new 'toys', which was the word used.

    This my opinion and only mine:-- I wouldn't trust anything Mr. O'Connor says about anything, and that isn't based on anything his neighbour said, but what he and his leader have said in the past. Polls, and only polls, are dictating what comes out of the mouths of CPC babes these days.
  83. Khalid Rahim from scarborough, Canada writes: Terrorism will continue to flourish with the inept policies of Western governments and their proteges in Kabul. With the myopic view that exists in the west about Islam, the twain shall never meet.
  84. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: Steve Konig,check the laws of A-stan.They are far different than Bosnia. In fact they still enforce the laws inacted by the Taliban. So what falsehoods?

    Hey wanna kill your wife? Go to A-stan and say she broke the law.The most time in jail you'll recieve is 2 years.If you say she broke certain laws you might not even see jail time. This is todays law in A-stan.So save your 'liberating' BS for the sheep. This is allowed and the Taliban are not the government of the day.
  85. Vancouver-Kingsway Antics-Shy Voter from Canada writes: Canadians were sent to Afghanistan to secure the country for democratic reform. Right? Canadians were sent to help Afghanistan find its feet, stand up for itself. Within 6 hours it turned into armed aggression. It's time Canadians, and the countries which depend on our word, get a clear story about what Canada will and will not risk lives and limbs of our very best to accomplish. In the land of 1,001 Arabian Nights, can this be too much to ask?
  86. Mikey from the GWN ___ from Canada writes: Stude Ham,

    'GET OUR TROOPS OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW!'

    'Three die in spate of Toronto shootings'

    Why not troops out of Ontario now? On average it seems to be a far more dangerous place!

    CHeers

    Mikey
  87. Jasper the Black Lab from Vancouver, Canada writes: O'Connor predicts a swift Afghan exit

    As country's own army is trained for heavier fighting, Canadians will likely start moving to a reserve role, Defence Minister says ...

    Ahh...a plan straight from the Bush-Iraq playbook. We should expect different from the Harperite Bush-wannabees?
  88. Vancouver-Kingsway Antics-Shy Voter from Canada writes: For the record, I take serious umbrage on anyone who says that Canadian soldier's lives were lost for nothing.
    As a Canadian, as person who loves this country beyond belief, it is a very high degree of ignorance and detachment that is employed for someone to say that Canada cared nothing about soldiers who fought/fight/fall in service to their country. It is one thing to say a mission was flawed. It is entirely another to say that the people, the boots on the ground, failed.
    Canada's troops have not failed.
    Will not EVER fail.
  89. Freddie Fender from Canada writes: Richard Roskell from Naramata: Bingo! You remember Cemenceau's comment that war is too important to be left to the generals. Well in Canada, it's too important to be left to uninformed politicians, let alone the general public. Of course, the public will want its health care, if it is presented as the typical 'guns versus butter' debate. I agree that there is a desperate need for a debate. However, I also believe that most Canadians would support the refurbishment of the armed forces if clearly explained to them. Previous attempts at public debate have had mixed results - one example resulted in the 1971 Defence White Paper, unfortunately, the right policy for Canada at the wrong time. Before there can be a debate, there is first a need for education - much of what passes for commentary on the G&M exemplies the ignorance and distortion. Most defence policy should be non-partisan. After all, just like everyone 'supports the troops,' everyone should equally be interested in defending their country. However, it is only in Canada that we still seem to think in a very immature fashion about whether or not we actually need armed forces at all (there is no such debate in countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway that seem to have better collective memories than Canada of what happens when you are disarmed). We still have the extreme element, including some posters on the G&M site, who exhort unsubstantiated comments that Canada is preparing for 'pre-emptive war' and other such nonsense. There can be no debate until people of all stripes start getting educated, and I don't mean either the 'soldier of fortune' magazine adherents or the typical leftist tripe. Senator Colin Kenny and his Senate Committee, SCONDVA, have undertaken some good work in the past few years in trying to educate the Canadian public and his fellow parliamentarians. Unfortunately, the G&M site is not the optimal forum for the beginnings of a real debate.
  90. Vancouver-Kingsway Antics-Shy Voter from Canada writes: Also for the record, between Harper's psychic hairdressser/makeup artist/valet, and O'Connor 'predicting' , I for one am not confident in either of their's prognostications.

    Can we get a little logic here? Where is the vaunted 'chess while others are playing checkers' rebuttal?
  91. Fred Johnson from Canada writes: Most Canadians could care less if the Taliban resume their occupation of Afghanistan in collaboration with Al Qaeda or not. Our isolationist sentiment, led by Quebec, will not change. In this we are in lock step with most Americans, the British and all European nations. And right now, I bet there isn't a consquence Canadians could think of to reverse that isolationism - - Canadians dont really care about the human rights of Afghan women or children, and the moral ambiguity of taking military action will keep us paralysed long after the next attack by Al Qaeda and its supporters, no matter where it happens in the world or how large the casualities and damage. So what difference does it make to argue the details of what we are doing now when we - - and the Taliban know - - we are leaving and they are returning?
  92. Joel Canada from Canada writes: Can't trust O'Connor (lies to parliament and all that...) so I don't believe anything he says.
    Why doesn't Harper throw this minister 'Down the stairs' as Charles Adler put it so nicely?
  93. Vancouver-Kingsway Antics-Shy Voter from Canada writes: Freddie Fender, I was with you until you said this: 'There can be no debate until people of all stripes start getting educated, and I don't mean either the 'soldier of fortune' magazine adherents or the typical leftist tripe. Senator Colin Kenny and his Senate Committee, SCONDVA, have undertaken some good work in the past few years in trying to educate the Canadian public and his fellow parliamentarians. Unfortunately, the G&M site is not the optimal forum for the beginnings of a real debate.'

    Yes, there can and will and is debate. Warts and all, people are debating. Canada stands for that, right?
    Debate, eh? Not war. Not aggress