Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Afghan mission most important debate facing nation: MacKay

BRODIE FENLON

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 12:35 PM EST 25/02/08

Liberals support revised Conservative motion as debate begins on extension of Canada's military mission to 2011 ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Love my Country Expect More From My GOVERNMENT from to, Canada writes: BRING THEM HOME NOW !
  2. mike sty - from Canada writes:

    Troops Out Feb 09
  3. Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: I'll sum up the next 400 comments right here.

    The US is bad.
    Harper is Bush's buddy.
    We are losing in A-stan.
    MacKay is a fool.
    Most Canadians want out of A-stan.
    We are killing innocent civilians.
    The right are war mongers.

    That about does it.

    The part I like the best is when after reading these types of posts and your natural tendency is to accuse the left of supporting the Taliban and back-stabbing CDN troops...we inevitably here the statement......'Why does the right always accuse anyone 'critical of the mission' as being a Taliban supporter'?

    Close the comments now. Cpt. Obvious has spoken.
  4. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Ditto on the above -- Throw the neocons out of government in America!

    The $3 Trillion spent on these two wars and the unnecessary loss of life needs to stop now!
  5. Alberto Bayo from Canada writes: Afghanistan's important, but the economy and sovereignty in the North is more important.
    Get out of Afghanistan ASAP...it's a waste of time, money, men, and material. Why support an incompetent, corrupt, Afghan government run by Karzai and his drug-dealing clan.
  6. Wayne Young from Victoria BC, Canada writes: I am a 100% supporter of the extension to the mission and am proud that both the main political parties have met halfway for a compromise position on this issue. I am looking forward to getting the extra battlegroup and a NATO partner in the south. Well Done ... a good day for Canada.
  7. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Bob from Montreal from Montreal, Canada:

    Do you know why that is, Bob?

    Because you would have to be a fool to believe one word that he says...
  8. Just a Lucky So-and-So from Tirana, Canada writes:
    Every day Canadian soldiers remain in Afghanistan is another day of national shame and dishonour staining our fine name.

    This has nothing to do with 'right' or 'left', 'Liberals' or 'Conservatives' etc.

    It is a fundamental question of human dignity.

    Bring them home NOW!
  9. George Smith from Canada writes: This war either needs a FULL commitment from NATO to win or a plan to get out. Half-baked measures will only lead to needless losses while we dither. Get enough troops and equipment over there and win this now.

    The other alternative is a long drawn out and eventual defeat.
  10. North North from Toronto, Canada writes: Afghanistan's important, but Canadian are more important...

    Support our troops and bring them home now.
  11. No Left or Right Just Neutral from Canada writes: Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: I'll sum up the next 400 comments right here.

    Joe Canada, I am with you hundred percent. I want to 'SUPPORT OUR TROOPS'.

    But HOW??!!
  12. Nancy Wilson from N.Ontario, Canada writes: We started the mission,let's finish it.
  13. Brent Williams from United Kingdom writes: Most important debate, eh?

    I guess that health care crisis, Aboriginal issues, increasing poverty, homelessness and child care were solved over the holidays.
  14. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: HOW many children and grandchildren of MPs are now serving in Afghanistan ?

    Oh, wait . . . .
  15. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Nancy Wilson from N. Ontario, Canada:

    Canada didn't actually start this mission...

    The USA did... before they largely abandoned it to go hunting for oil in Iraq....

    Troops out now!

    PS. Brent Williams -- Karl Rove style wedge politics, of course, requires the sheeple to choose only one single issue!
  16. Hugo Z. Hackenbush from Fredonia, Canada writes: DEBATE? WHAT DEBATE! THERE IS NO DEBATE. THE WORD DEBATE DOES NOT EXIST IN CANADIAN POLITICS! THE CONLIBERALS OF THE UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA HAVE ALREADY DECIDED!
  17. Bob from Montreal from Montreal, Canada writes: Peter MacKay is still young enough. He can enlist in the forces and go to A-stan to fight if he thinks it is so important.
  18. Czar Nicholas from Ottawa, Canada writes: Here is what we are protecting in Afghanistan... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7263361.stm
  19. F H from Canada writes: Admiral William Fallon should be addressing President Bush about withdrawal, not Canada, as it's the President who decided to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and go on a wild goose chace in Iraq, leaving Afghanistan to be run by a political party consisting of war lords who have no qualms about torture, extrajudicial killings and rape of their captives.
  20. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes:

    According to the spinelss liberals, we need them home now to get ready for a career in shoveling snow in Toronto next winter.

    Isn't this why they joined the army, not to fight, but to shovel snow.
  21. john chuckman from Canada writes: If Peter MacKay says something, it must be true, right? Maybe not, now that I recall the man's being an embarrassing public liar on several occasions. But it just so happens that he is right this time, right about the importance of debating Afghanistan. His interpretation of the importance I am sure is the polar opposite to mine. He really means that it is important to look good for George Bush. As for the rest of the world, we can perfectly see what they think of this 'mission.' They send token numbers of troops to areas where they don't have to fight, despite endless efforts by the U.S. to bribe or push them. There's simply no getting around this reality in a fact-based argument. Of course, a guy the ethical and intellectual caliber of MacKay likely thinks Bush knows something the rest of the world doesn't or at least has a special kind of wisdom. I wonder how many Canadians share such a foolish belief? What is really important for Canadians to understand is what a pointless waste this effort is, a delusional crusade to change the attitudes and customs of millions leading hardscrabble lives in a 14th century society. We should finish our existing commitment and leave. I wouldn't think of voting for anyone who extends this mission because it would be a vote for political stupidity, subservience, and death.
  22. Comments are Closed from Toronto, Canada writes: Good catch Czar Nicholas - but I thought we were there to provide security for their ever-popular dogfights.
  23. Brian W from Burlington, Canada writes: Brent Williams from United Kingdom writes: Most important debate, eh?

    I guess that health care crisis, Aboriginal issues, increasing poverty, homelessness and child care were solved over the holidays.

    ----------

    The Afghanistan issue is very polarizing to the general public, so from that perspective yes, it is the most important debate facing the country. I don't think the issues you mentioned above require much debate. I'll solve the child care one right now. Don't have kids if you can't afford them. The government can't be your doctor, your employer, your babysitter and your provider all at once.
  24. M Nolz from Toronto, Canada writes: I wonder if the Liberals will support their amendment or not?
  25. Uncle Fester from Buttown, Canada writes: The most important issue facing Canadians?..................I though that was supposed to be the Mulroney-Schrieber affair. Followed by the Income Trust betrayl............ MacKay is just following Harper's script.
  26. W.A. Darnell from Canada writes: Is it the most important debate because Peter McStray says it is? Based on his past performance when he makes statements, McStray no credibility unless it serves him.
  27. john chuckman from Canada writes: Very intelligent comment, Mr. Stein.

    They're paid to fight, no matter what?

    Someone says there's a fight somewhere, much like a passerby near a bar brawl, and Canadians should be sent to enjoy the mayhem?
  28. M Nolz from Toronto, Canada writes: Bring them home to send them to Darfur...isn't that what Layton wants?
  29. Paul F. from Toronto, Canada writes: I agree with Mackay that it is an important issue. Put it to the Canadian people and let them decide, instead of doing a deal behind the scenes. This is the second time the parliament is considering an extension without the Canadian electorate having a say.

    Of course, that would be a disaster for the supporters of the deployment because they will be forced to defend and explain the mission to the electorate. Like, what exactly are the goals of the mission? How are we going to accomplish it? Defending it on the basis that we are there and we can't leave until 'we complete the (undefined) mission' are beyond dumb. Besides which, we should keep a score card of how many times the current government has lied to the Canadian public about the mission.
  30. Fred Forest from London, Ontario, Canada writes: If all the fear mongering is true and Canada's withdrawal would send shockwaves across all secular democracies(of which the U-S is not one), then let's not understate it. This is the most important debate on the planet. It is not possible to have a worse government at such an important time. Peter MacKay? Where have all the politicians gone?
  31. W ho from Canada writes: I oppose Canadian military involvement in Foreign Civil Wars (from Afghanistan to Zambia) Better to be on speaking terms with all parties and indigenous people, for eventual negotiation and diplomatic relations.
  32. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes: Bob from Montreal from Montreal, Canada writes: Who dresses MacKay???

    He utilizes fish skins.
  33. Craig Scott from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: If McKay and the Government beleive so much in this mission, as I do, then they should just go ahead and extend the mission as they see fit, why waste time with this debate.

    I don't mind having a debate but it should be about how we can provide our troops with the equipment we need. There is no debate required about the role of our soldiers because Parliment has NO control over it. That is the sole responsibility of the PM and cabinet.

    We should debate what our soldiers are doing and where they are doing it, but the final decision is the PM's and if he truly beleives in this he should do what he thinks is right regardless of what the parlimetary vote says.
  34. Lester Pearson from Canada writes: I am disgusted with the spineless Liberals reneging on their position to get our soldiers (not 'troops' - are we turning into Americans?) out of combat in 2009.

    This colonial mission will tarnish Canada's reputation for decades to come.

    Let's put this to a national referrendum.
  35. Antoinette Dupuis from Sworn to Secrecy, Canada writes: Bob from Montreal from Montreal, Canada writes: .... I do not believe one word he says.

    -------------------------

    Goes without saying, really.

    The man is a known and proven liar.
  36. Antoinette Dupuis from Sworn to Secrecy, Canada writes: Wayne Young from Victoria BC, Canada writes: ... I am looking forward to getting the extra battlegroup and a NATO partner in the south.

    -------------------------------

    Oh, yes? Then it must trouble you to see no such partner on the horizon.

  37. Robin Adams from Ottawa, Canada writes: So we need a thousand more troops from NATO to do what? Reconstruction and training? Just what are they going to use those unmanned drones for during 'training'... ? Target practice???

    Yeah right. Its to engage in more combat. Pretty easy to see through all this...

    lies, lies, lies....
  38. Ian Gunn from Minneapolis, United States writes: Paul F. from Toronto, Canada writes:

    'I agree with Mackay that it is an important issue. Put it to the Canadian people and let them decide, instead of doing a deal behind the scenes. This is the second time the parliament is considering an extension without the Canadian electorate having a say.'

    Paul, if the LPC support this extension, you've only got 2 places to park your vote: 1) NDP; 2) Stay at home in TO during the next election. Wait these two options sound the same... hmmm

    Second, you had your chance to voice your opinion, you voted in the last election in 2006. If you voted for the CPC, you knew there would be an extension, if you voted for the LPC - depending on the day - you got to extend the first mission and you now get to extend the second extension. If you voted for the NDP, well here's hoping age will help you see your error... :)
  39. Steve D from St. John's, Canada writes: I'm glad this is almost settled and the fuzzy-eyed, Taliban-supporting pollyannas are losing the argument. Will they stop undermining the mission, encouraging the enemy and endangering our troops? No. They only believe in democracy when their side wins. Like Hillary and Barack regarding Florida and Michigan delegates.
  40. Paul F. from Toronto, Canada writes: Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: According to the spinelss liberals, we need them home now to get ready for a career in shoveling snow in Toronto next winter. ---- See, here is part of the problem with the debate. The supporter of this mission seem to think that somehow the people we are fighting are going to be the people who carried out 9/11. That is, for the most part, misleading. The taliban are a movement local to Afghanistan. It is based in the Pushtun tribe/nation, that straddles the Pakistan/Afghanistan frontier and numbers some 25-30 million people. Their interests, greviences and loyalties are inherently local. The taliban espose a very conservative form of islam, and are a drag on Afghanistan's development. But they became an influencial force largely because of the continuous civil war that has faced that country for over 30 years. So how are we making things WORSE. For starters, the government in Afghanistan is merely the proxy army we used to defeat the Taliban, namely the Northern Alliance. Yes, we have put in a western educated karzai as a figurehead and a human face to it, but it doesn't change the fact that current government of afganistan is a rotten bloc of corrupt government officials, drug running warlords, reactionary ideologues whose religious ideas largely resemble the taliban. The government is so corrupt we have to pay the soldiers and police in kandahar directly. We CAN'T TRUST the government even to pay their troops. The police THAT ARE ON OUR SIDE regularly abuse the population, shaking them down for bribes or terrorizing those who don't conform to a particular view of islam. Any development work is completely undermined by the very government we are defending in a counter insurgency war. How does this even begin to make sense? Add to this that the new Pakistani government will likely end the counter insurgency war on the pakistan side of the border, allowing the taliban further freedom of movement.
  41. Peter Mak from Toronto, Canada writes: Canadian forces are to protect the Canadian territory not fighting
    'big business' wars.

    Bring the CF home now.

    Send Harper, McKay and their children to Afganistan if they
    want to 'fight the war on terror'.
  42. Bob from Montreal from Montreal, Canada writes: Antoinette Dupuis - I guess that Harper has made A-stan a new province of Canada.

    Too bad that he had not let anyone know.
  43. Bob from Montreal from Montreal, Canada writes: Peter Mak - 100% right.
  44. Brad S from Vancouver, Canada writes: The Taliban forced women to be baby making machines. Their purpose in life was to fill the ranks for more terrorists. Those children are getting into their early teens now, and are looking for direction in life. David Foot, the demographer, did a presentation on this. It is chilling.

    By not stopping that Taliban, by not giving these kids some hope for the future, they will all be strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up people around the world.

    Women were suppressed. They were not allowed to go to school, they were baby factories. Do that in Canada, people go to jail. Is that what the NDP wants for Afghani women?

    Fight them there, now, or leave and we'll be fighting them here at home. Don't get all your information from politicians and the newspapers, do a little research and get an informed opinion. Blaming politicians is a cowards way out.

    This is not Iraq. This action was not done for the same reasons.

    I agree, war sucks. I don't like seeing people killed either. But the Taliban are not rational people - they want to kill us all, not because we fight them, but because they believe they have to. This isn't aggressive action, this is proactive defense.

    I support the mission, I support the troops, I support the very difficult decisions that our governments (both Martin and Harper) have had to make.
  45. Ian Gunn from Minneapolis, United States writes: Oh forgot to mention. I support this mission as long as:

    1) The Afghan people want us there. This means: they're actively volunteering for the military and police forces to clean up their own country; they're working on removing corruption from their own government and most importantly they want us to help them.

    2) There are definite and clear measurements on what and how we're doing. Adjust the plan as needed to ensure we're successful.

    3) We put enough resources behind this effort to be successful. If this means reactivating some of us 'old timers' then so be it.

    4) Lastly, we define milestones to test whether or not we've met the goals of no. 2 above.
  46. Rain Couver from Canada writes: What's the deal with the G & M keeping the same story, but changing the headline? This happens at least once a day.
  47. Antoinette Dupuis from Sworn to Secrecy, Canada writes: Meanwhile, what ever happened to the Manley recommendations????

    The parties are discussing an extension when we still don't have:

    -the helicopters Manley recommended,
    -the mere 1000 troops Manley recommended, or
    -the clarified mission parameters and benchmarks Manley recommended.

    I mean Manley is no genius, but it still seems like this debate is happening in a fictional world of ASSUMING the report will be followed.

    But that's dreaming. There are no 1000 troops coming. Which is why Steve-o is having the debate now, before it's obvious. Seriously, who would be crazy enough to send their troops into a pointless meatgrinder like Afghanistan?
  48. Virginia Troy from Calgary, Canada writes: 1) The reasoning that if Canadians want to bring their troops back home, this will encourage the Taliban, means that we should let the Taliban dictate to us our military and foreign policy. I oppose this fervently.

    2) The US commander has the gall to tell Canadians what to do. I suggest Admiral Fallon talk to Defense Secretary Gates and ask him why he has 160,000 troops in Iraq.
  49. Monkey Spanker from Canada writes: The faithful online anti-war protesters are never far off when a story on Afghanistan is posted.

    Bob from Montreal...could you be any more of a drama queen?
  50. William Ross from Victoria BC, Canada writes: All I can say is that I am sure glad that we have Harper sitting in the PM's chair. Can anyone seriously believe that Dion or layton would have able to make the serious calls that have been needed of late. Thank god we have a gov;t that can manage it's left wing nuts and make the right decisions for the country. I was a liberal but am now a conservative.
  51. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Steve D from St. John's, Canada:

    You might want to google the Times for an article last Saturday by Joseph Stiglitz, former Chief Economist of the World Bank and Noble Prize Winner for the view of yet another 'fuzzy eyed Taliban- supporting polyanna...'

    In this article, Stiglitz essentially lays blame for these fiascos squarely at the feet of a small group of American neocons (naming George Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, etc.) who seemed to be playing paranoid little Napoleon games with the world...

    So after all the deaths of the last seven years and $3 Trillion dollars being spent, what has been accomplished to date?

    A corrupt government is still in Afghanistan and the opium trade is booming...

    Do you think that the many other NATO partners NOT volunteering any more troops for these conflicts isn't sending a message to someone other than the Taleban?

    This insanity must end sooner rather than later...

    Troops out now!
  52. Brian Sexsmith from Toronto, Canada writes: Naturally Condi's 'biggest fan' wouldn't want to disappoint his American betters.
  53. Norman Petit from Calgary, Canada writes: Christine Blatchford has a particularly odious piece in today's Globe. Classically, she undercuts her credibility by categorizing open debate as 'weakness', an unoriginal twist on the tired 'coward - cut and run' name calling game. We'd all better shut up and tow the (now voluntarily watered down) Conservative party line lest we endanger Canadians with our free speech. Once your hand is in the meat grinder, the logic goes, it's more (patriotic, courageous, sensible) to avoid treatment and throw the rest of yourself in as well.

    By categorizing our participation in Afghanistan as the most important debate facing the nation, the Conservatives are unnecessarily polarizing an issue that needs some pretty solemn debate. As well, they are purposely putting themselves in the minority in two categories: Canadians are not a people who enjoy being told what to think, and our patriotism is tempered with reason. If this is posturing (and what isn't posturing in politics, really), I consider this another in a series of missteps by the Conservatives.
  54. Barry Johnstone from Canada writes: Just finished watching our local Mafia don give his speech in parliament. Who decides what he wears? First, the man is already a convicted liar from when he promised he wouldn't allow the Reform party to take over the Progressive Conservatives and then proceeded to do exactly that. Secondly, no matter what is said by any member of the new Conservatives we know that it is really only the words of Stevie Harper being parroted so I really can't understand why he doesn't just give all of the speeches. No one really knows what any member of the new Conservative party really thinks because they're not allowed to tell us.
  55. George Hall from Canada writes: McKay and Harper have not had any experience whatsoever in foreign affairs. they don't know what they are talking about...these guys are only following the leader of the western world George W Bush
  56. Alyssa Watson from Canada writes: Nancy Wilson from N.Ontario, Canada writes: We started the mission,let's finish it.

    How about the Liberal's started this mission the Conservatives will finish it. Bless our troops.
  57. end game from This is not America, Canada writes: Chasing insurgent ghosts in afghanistan is an adventurous and fun pastime as long as the money keeps flowing, the military needs to get in shape for the big one coming soon, in Iran. Once america ties up loose ends and brings true democracy to Iraq then afghanistan is just around the corner. The alternative is for the situation to remain mostly the same in both these countries for decades. what are you gonna do?
  58. Toby Maloney from Canada writes: 'Waffling' by the U.S. is the reason we're there. Taliban were willing to hand over OBL but the U.S. preferred to use the Afghanistan sheltering of El Quaeda as a pretext for attacking and invading. Then instead of finishing what they started they decided to invade Iraq as well. In order to sit out that travesty and not suffer the wrath of Wolfowitz et al, Canada agreed to pick up some of the slack in Afghanistan.

    I might favour Canadian involvement, especially in humanitarian assistance, if the reason for participating wasn't so cynical. Under these conditions, and the likelihood that this intervention will not only fail, but make things worse, I can't see why Canadians should suffer the limited imaginations of both the Liberal and Conservative defenders of this policy.

    By the way, Canada had more influence on the world by staying home from Iraq than it did by going to Afghanistan.

    I also absolutely reject the notion that it's more responsible for the parties to reach an agreement rather than debate the issue vigorously. Even moreso, a question this important should be submitted to the electorate not left to the machinations of the power hungry, who make and then break their own backroom deals.
  59. Alyssa Watson from Canada writes: William Ross from Victoria BC, Canada writes: All I can say is that I am sure glad that we have Harper sitting in the PM's chair. Can anyone seriously believe that Dion or layton would have able to make the serious calls that have been needed of late. Thank god we have a gov;t that can manage it's left wing nuts and make the right decisions for the country. I was a liberal but am now a conservative.

    imagine if he was the Leader of a platoon. Put away the guns!! Men put away the guns! Layton would even be worse, fall back i say fall back!!!!
  60. Allan Eizinas from Simcoe, Canada writes: .
    By 2011, Canada will have been at war in Afghanistan for longer than the TOTAL of World War I and World War II - and we were on the winning side of those wars!

    Madness!!
  61. Matthew McGarvey from Ottawa, Canada writes: First we went to Afghanistan to find Bin Laden and bring him to justice. We failed. Then we said it was to bring true democracy and stability to the region. We've been there almost as long as we were in WWII, and we have again failed. Now it appears that the reason for the mission is to support the mission.

    We are failing our troops, and sending more won't help.
  62. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Alyssa Watson from Canada:

    Playing partisan politics with Canadian troops' lives.... Sounds like something that the 'New Government of Canada' might do...

    Consider reading a little history on the Anglo-Afghan Wars or the Soviet experience in Afghanistan when they had over 300,000 troops in Afghanistan in 1986 and withdrew a beaten and defeated country/economy in 1989...

    What are the goals of this mission, Alyssa?
  63. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: This is an important issue for Cdns. What sort of country do you want to be seen as ? It seems everyone wants to be on the world stage but not if it involves any risk or taking a firm stance on an issue. The tide may flow in & out, but our resolve should not. Again ask yourselves where you want to see Canada in the world - at the front row or seated 3 rows back behind a 3rd world country?
  64. helena Jin from Canada writes: Very good.
  65. Alyssa Watson from Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Alyssa Watson from Canada:

    Playing partisan politics with Canadian troops' lives.... Sounds like something that the 'New Government of Canada' might do...

    Consider reading a little history on the Anglo-Afghan Wars or the Soviet experience in Afghanistan when they had over 300,000 troops in Afghanistan in 1986 and withdrew a beaten and defeated country/economy in 1989...

    What are the goals of this mission, Alyssa?

    Partisan politics??? who are the ones that demand the motion to be rewritten. This goverment had to bend over backwards just to get 'support' A very rare thing in politics indeed. No wonder the Conservatives are up in the polls.
  66. W. Mayne from Canada writes: If you haven't watched the PBS interview of Sarah Hayes by Bill Moyers, you owe it to yourself to become more informed on Afghanistan!

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02222008/watch2.html
  67. Winter of Discontent from Ottawa, Canada writes: The disparaging comments by posters such as Matthew McGarvey are pathetic, ill-informed and completly non-sensical.

    Comparing a world wide war with an evolving combat mission is ludicris. Canada has not failed in anyway by the mission guidelines for which it sent it's troops to Afghanistan. It has accomplished bringing peace, education, democracy (fragile as it is) and development to a country which has 21st century weapons and a population which has ancient traditions/customs which rule it. Canada has won the peoples respect and has battled the Taliban elements it went to subdue.. and still is.

    Matthew would have us simply say 'oh well too bad so sad' and run home. Pathetic. The mission has evolved and no one could have foreseen that and we are adjusting to meet the challenge.
  68. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: A question isn't really a question when you know the answer too. In the same line: a debate isn't really a debate when everyone knows the result.
    I think the Liberals conceded too much.
  69. J Howard from Canada writes: It is probably good that we could be saved from an unnecessary election now that the Liberals and Conservatives have found common ground on Afghanistan. In my view that doesn't alter the fact Canada has no right or role in Afghanistan at this time. Our values and aspirations are not accepted or respected. This is not a nation or a people who believe in Western values with respect to human rights, human life or rule of law and decency. We are not dealing with a society, such as was the case in the 1st and 2nd World Wars, that have been invaded or subjugated by oppressive regimes that denied broad rights and beliefs we shared with their citizens. We apparently deem ourselves capable and responsible to choose between corrupt leadership or oppressive religious/cultural standards with which we disagree. We do not understand or accept the culture that has been evolving there for centuries and should not be attempting to change it without a deep understanding of how and why it exists. Our battle against terrorism is best fought through economic and trade initiatives that encourage and are tied to respect for modern civility and human life. The major difference between the 'elected' government of President Karzai and the warlords Taliban appears to be primarily tied to where they gain their financial and military support. It is definitely not related to respect for the moral, ethical, economic and social standards we believe in. None of them from Karzai to the most significant Taliban leaders would be permitted to function as they do in Canada. What makes us think we can decide who is the 'Least Bad?' We can't make that decision and we don't belong there. Get out.
  70. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Dear Robert Miller - funny how everyone trots out the 'Soviet experience in Afghanistan when they had over 300,000 troops in Afghanistan in 1986 and withdrew a beaten and defeated country/economy in 1989...' While there are too many differences to count, how is it that so few NATO troops can hold the ground the way the Soviets could not? Why is it that NATO can defeat the taliban on the battlefield? The Soviet conscript never had a chance because conscripts have no heart in the matter.
  71. Eric Yc from Calgary, Canada writes: Don't forget why the NATO troopers invaded Afghanistan.

    The people of Afghanistan do NOT need any foreign forces in their country. Having much longer history than both US and Canada, Afghanistan people have been doing their own business with their own way and still can do it without any invaders.

    Regardless what kind of beautiful words are used, there is no difference between NATO invading Afghanistan and those invading Vietnam, North Korea, as well as Japan invading China and South-East Asia, there is NO way that NATO can win this war.

    We should have our soldiers out of foreign countries and let them come home today.
  72. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: It would be nice to think that we are in Afghanistan to protect our way of life.

    But I wonder how many supporters of the war would actually agree that we are in Afghanistan to protect our way of life. I am sure that, according to many of them, our own way of life is in a shambles and needs some big fixing-up. I think this war will do the trick.
  73. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Dear Bob from Montreal - you ask the question/make the statement 'Are our troops so so much better. I hardly think so.' Bob - the NATO soldier is 100 times better than his Soviet conscript predecessor. The Cdn soldier is 1000 times better trained, motivated, experienced, and skilled at managing violence. He/she can transition from aid delivery to discussions about reconstruction to getting up close and personal with Joe Taliban and sticking a bayonet in his gut. Be proud. Your tax dollars are well spent.
  74. Skeptical Realist from Canada writes: The libs are coming out of the wood work today. Quite a feat, and they managed to keep their rose coloured glasses on at the same time. What does Canada stand for? What is it to be a Canadian? Do we run away from a bunch of fantatics whose objective is to indiscriminently kill men, women and children? If that is your belief, then shame on you. Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world, has asked for the UN to help it rid itself of foreign terrorists. The UN asked NATO to lead a force from over 30 different nations. This is an honourable objective and this is supported by an overwhelming majority of the people who have been there. If you have not... BTW, does the G&M have their conservative filiter on today?
  75. I R from Canada writes: ...and why is this the 'most important debate facing the nation'?

    What of health care? National unity? The budget? Education? Nuclear industry? Aboriginal issues? Environment?

    Why is the fate of 2500 Canadians and the fate of a couple of more career officers at NDHQ and in the CPC the most important matter of concern for the nation? I remind Mr. MacKay, there are 35 million Canadians and only 2500 CF personnel on the ground in Afghanistan.
  76. Brad Fgroupthinkn from Canada writes: 1) What Mackay did not say is that the 'hard date' for withdrwal is actually 3011, not 2011. OOPs
    2) The price of raw opium will rise as a result; so too will theft/robberies to support dramatically higher cost of the dangerous habit= more police=more fear=more war on crime/drugs=tough on crime= electionerring= perfect PC majority conditions
    3)Appoint Manley for govenor of Afganistan
    4)Too bad CDN troops are the only ones the Afgan people trust, the rest of the 'coalition' are either DEA and/or hated by the very people we are sent there to help.
    have a nice day Mr. Mackay.
  77. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Too bad the Tories don't support the concept of 'Defend CANADA'.

    Too bad the Libbies don't, either.

    Too bad the NDippers don't support the concept of 'Canadian Forces'.

    Too bad the BQers don't support the concept of 'Canada'.
  78. Bill C. O'llector from Canada writes: 'Liberals support revised Conservative motion on Afghanistan as debate begins in House of Commons on extension of Canada's military mission to 2011.'

    The Libs support the motion and yet we have Lib hacks slagging the CPC only.

    Once a Lib sheep always a Lib sheep!
  79. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Dear Skep Realist - well said.
  80. Nancy Wilson from N.Ontario, Canada writes: Eric Yc,
    The Afghan people don't want us to leave.
    The 'invaders' of the rights of the people ,are the Taliban,not us.
    We are there to help their people.
  81. Ted Andrews from Canada writes:
    TROOPS OUT NOW!
  82. Jamie Scott from Calgary, Canada writes: You anti-war people make me sick. Just because you are cowards and ignorant about what the soldiers are doing over there you say bring them home. Are you members of the Canadian forces? DO NOT speak for the soldiers! Why dont you ask the soldiers what they want? They volunteered caused they believe in what they are doing! It would be a shame to see all what they have fought for just because some suburban yuppies. So to all you Nay sayers, go back to drinking your starbucks in your total ignorance
  83. A READER from TORONTO, Canada writes: This is a little late for the Conservative government to bring this up to a vote.

    If they had been smarter by requesting a rotation commitment from NATO before extending the mission in 2006, we would not be in this situation now. Instead, they fast-tracked the vote for an extension in 2006 with little debate and consideration, calling all of the opposition parties 'Taliban lovers'.

    What a bunch of short sighted numb-nuts.
  84. KSW livin'in from Canada writes: The Liberals might as well fold up the tent and join the CPC for all the 'opposition' they have been providing lately.
  85. Craig Scott from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: A READER from TORONTO, Canada writes: This is a little late for the Conservative government to bring this up to a vote........

    Thruth is they don't need to have a vote. In fact they should just go ahead and extend the mission if they think it is the right thing to do. Why give the dippers in the NDP and Bloc the forum to disrespect our country and our military.

    Go ahead and have a vote if they want to but it is really meaningless and carries absolutly no weight. Since when did we start voting on military missions, it is the PM's and cabinets sole responsibility to decide where and when our troops go.
  86. D Chiu from Victoria, Canada writes: I would very much like to see Canadian troops being withdrawn now.
  87. Jamie Scott from Calgary, Canada writes: This is not a matter of Parliment. The Prime Minister has absolute authority over the armed forces. Parliment has no control except for funding the military(which is at budget time), and I doubt parliment would ever deny funding to the troops abroad.
  88. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Jamie Scott/Craig Scott:-- So, why doesn't Mr. Harper? Would you care to offer an explanation?
  89. L.B. MURRAY from Canada L.B. MURRAY from Canada from Canada writes: Before debating further, perhaps our Prime Minister and the duly elected Members of Parliament should be made aware of the following:

    The top U.S. General in Afghanistan said last week that he
    NEEDS 400,000 troops to WIN IN AFGHANISTAN.

    Where are they coming from.

    Thank you and good afternoon.

    -
  90. L.B. MURRAY from Canada L.B. MURRAY from Canada from Canada writes: Some people conveniently ''forget'' that our Prime Minister Harper repeated again and again, that any extension would be ''DEBATED IN PARLIAMENT''.

    Will he keep his word or what??

    - Good day.
  91. Jamie Scott from Calgary, Canada writes: And you look down on people who are willing to risk there lives for a good cause? You think those kind of people are just brainwashed grunts because they want to do something good? I guess according to your reasoning firefighters are brainwashed too, seeing as they risk their lives for someone else. Are you a member of the forces, a family member, or enlisting? If not, DO NOT SPEAK FOR THEM!

    By the way I am in the process of enlisting if you care to know
  92. Eric Yc from Canada writes: Nancy Wilson: The Afghan people don't want us to leave.

    We should agree with Matthew McGarvey from Ottawa why NATO went there at the starting point. Afghanistan people have had and will still have their own way to deal with Taliban without having weapons involved.
  93. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Oh c'mon Bob from Mtl - our troops are doing their part in sending these murderers to meet their 72 virgins in heaven. As James Cagney said...Give them a belly full of lead ...in the head.
  94. Jamie Scott from Calgary, Canada writes: My above comment was directed at Bob from Montreal
  95. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: The debate is over, Cretien sent them there. The time for debate was before that, Cretien of course would never allow debate, and would wip his party on any vote. Now that we are there, it time to set serious goals, objectives and finally exit strategy. That is the only debate left...
  96. Simply Red from Canada writes: McKay looks like a 20s gangster in that suit.
    Probably appropriate.
  97. Mike M from Shenacadie NS, Canada writes: Nancy Wilson from N.Ontario, Canada writes: We started the mission,let's finish it.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    See you in 100 years
  98. end game from this is not america, Canada writes: The USA broke afghanistan, you break it, you bought it, america should fix it, not Canada.
  99. Jamie Scott from Calgary, Canada writes: diane marie from calgary... I only am expressing my anger on this forum because I am angry at how people try to speak for the soldiers. I am not trying to speak for them, as I am not a member yet. I am trying to just get people to stop speaking on their behalf, you to must agree no one but the soldiers can speak for them?
    You are correct soldiers dont make forein policy, the PM does, which he made clear already
  100. R L from Canada writes: Peter MacKay is a shameful embarrassment to the people of Nova Scotia. MacKay will be gone from the House of Commons at the next election.

    Bring on Elizabeth May.
  101. Duane Freemantle from writes: 'Afghan mission most important debate facing nation?' No it is not. The Canadian people are being distracted from the real debates facing the nation (Canada).
    • Po