Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Report: France to send 1,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 11:39 PM EST 23/03/08

British newspaper says Sarkozy will make announcement in London this week ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Stephen McPherson from bradford, Canada writes: Let's hope that France sees fit to send a brigade or two of Legionaires to the south of Afghanistan, if for no other reason than to increase the moral of NATO troops already in the area, and to send a message to the insurgents - 'No more Mr. Nice Guy.' It's time to get serious and end this thing one way or another.
  2. Boy Tigas from Mississauga, ON, Canada writes: Welcome back to the fold, France. It's about time, I missed French wine.
  3. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: It will take a lot more than a brigade or 2 to 'end this thing', Mr. McPherson. The people who live there are the only ones who can do that.
  4. No Left or Right Just Neutral from Canada writes: It is not going to make any difference and Sarkozy might get in trouble with the socialist crowd if anything happen to their soldiers.
  5. david ferguson from halifax, Canada writes: France already has troops in Afghanistan. The issue is not numbers or even location but their rules of engagement.

    France has placed such restrictives roe that essentially they are to take the role of armed observers. They have the logisitic support for their numbers that Canada does not have, nor will they permit use of that support including available helicopter support in an environment where that asset may be lost.

    I am surpised that the foreign legion regiment has not been more utilized to a greater extent. Even those troops actions however are dictated by the internal political situation in France and currently, it is highly unstable. Casualties, even among the armies foreign nationals always considered expendable, would not reflect positively on the government.

    France is and will remain only a 'grey' member of Nato. France has (and always has) other aspirations and they are not within the confines of Nato. The Establishment of a seperate European force, and one in which France can more easily flex it's political muscle and leadership role to which they feel they are entitled, has always been their ultimate goal.

    It is sad, but the comedian Al Murray generally includes in his shows, the commentary to which the audience enthusiastically respond...'If we were a country with no rules where would we be?' France! 'If we were a country with too many rules where would we be?' Germany!

    Isn't that a reflection of the internal situation within Nato now? Nato was designed to manage the cold war. That's done, and so is probably Nato.
  6. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: France or not, let the Canadian people vote directly on this important matter: it is time for a national referendum.

    Let France deal with it's own matters.
  7. Boomer AB from Canada writes: The whole family should be stripped of citizenship and sent back to Egypt. If the Liberals under Jean Chretian hadn't been so gung-ho to get the father out of jail after his involvement in blowing up embassies chances are his kids wouldn't be in wheelchairs and in jail. The fact they are still here, living on welfare no less, spits in the face of all people who come to this country looking for a better life. There is a place where their views are welcome; it's where they came from-GO THERE.
  8. Boomer AB from Canada writes: Sorry-wrong thread
  9. Chris Lalonde from Singapore writes: France is in danger of becoming a dependable ally. What a concept! How about Germany?

    That said, Canada shouldn't have to depend so much on the U.S. and EU for military equipment. Time to buy the Chinooks, attack helicopters, nuclear subs, etc. Canada only spends around 1.1% of it's GDP on the military compared to over 4% for the U.S., 2-3% for the average EU country, 2.8% for Australia. If we spend as much as the Aussies we can double the defense budget. Canada has a strong and large enough economy to do so. Time to act...
  10. P. Restivo from Toronto, Canada writes: Most of us have very short memories or were never truly aware of the reasons countries use their military overseas. We are told we are in Afghanistan to render humanitarian aid, to help children to transition the country to democracy, to get women out of burkas, and restore peace. If so, why were these important issues not on Canadian radar 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago? Little has changed over this period. Russia was condemmed, and properly so, when it invaded and occupied Afghanistan in the 1980s with a loss of nearly 50,000 Russians over 11 years. Canada is in Afghanistan because the U.S. carpet-bombed and invaded Afghanistan. We were arm-twisted because of trade threats (as usual) and the NATO-guilt trip. In a recent trip to Washington, I heard a caller on NPR, the U.S. public radio network, suggest that if the U.S. and its allies want to change Afghanistan, they should drop houses with clean water supplies instead of bombs. A flippant remark for certain, but in its way, it's quite to the point. A cruise missile's price tag is $1 milllion. How many houses and water wells can be bought for a milllion loonies. I know things are never that simple, but they do get far less complex when politics and other countries' priorities don't dictate foreign policy and miliary action.
  11. Rain Couver from Canada writes: Just wait, this is a non-story until Sarkozy makes an announcement.
  12. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: We already have 3,200 newly arrived Marines on the base. It's ludicrous to believe that 1,000 French soldiers will fix the problems.... Actually, it's ludicrous to think that any number of western soldiers could fix the problems. The Taliban consider all non Muslims the enemy and will fight endlessly until the last western soldier is gone. That's not going to change, ever.... The presence of western soldiers there is not the solution to the problem... it is the cause.
  13. Anti Fascist from Canada writes:
    Now that someone is talking to the Taliban (anybody remember Jack Layton? This is what he proposed ages ago much to the derision of the pundit buffoons) The French should keep their people at home and Canada should bring Canadian troops home too. Too many good people have been slaughtered on the altar of USA Imperialism already. Military presence in that country does nothing but harm. Bring them home and task them with the defense of Canada at the 49th parallel.
  14. Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: I have only had time to see the first two segments of the excellent video report 'Talking to the Taliban', but already a few things leap out for me, in particular the fact that very few of the fighters speak of global jihad, and instead cite personal reasons (a family member killed in an air attack) and cultural/religious reasons. They want a Muslim government, no alcohol or cinemas, Sharia law.

    If the insurgents are fighting to be left alone and decide how they want to live, why exactly are we fighting them? The rationale for going into Afghanistan was to deny shelter to, and pursue, the Al Qaeda leadership because they masterminded the attacks on 9-11. But we are not fighting Al Qaeda, and we don't seem to be fighting people who respond to Al Qaeda. They are driven by their own vision of their country. We might not like that vision, and we might feel concern for the Afghans who do not share that vision either, but is this why we are fighting the Taliban? To defend other Afghans? If that's the case, then we are clearly inserting our troops into another country's civil war, and this needs to be made clear, and Canadians need to be asked if this is what we want. Because that was not the original objective of the war at all. What our government seems to be doing is to sell the war to the public based on one strategic goal, but actually fight the war with a completely different goal. This is not being honest with the public, and it is not democratic. Consequently, it is not compatible with my vision of what I want my country to be like.
  15. Al B from Toronto, Canada writes: France should play smart and stay out of Nato's overseas adventures.
  16. NWT Knifer from Yellowknife, Canada writes: Wow french troops going to Afganistan that is nice Lets hope their vehicles have a foward rather than just reverse! They are so known for their ability to retreat from combat!
  17. Chris Lalonde from Singapore writes: Boomer AB from Canada ... Wrong thread but great post!
  18. Douglas Freestone from Canada writes: France bloody well better answer Canada's call and send troops! Two wars and tens of thousands of Canadian casualties (including members of my own family) to free France. If they don't help now they had better hope that they don't need help in the future! It shouldn't have even been debated. Canada asked, France should have sent.
  19. Al B from Toronto, Canada writes: The French owe Canada nothing. They founded the European society that became Canada.
  20. Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: Douglas Freestone from Canada writes: France bloody well better answer Canada's call and send troops! Two wars and tens of thousands of Canadian casualties (including members of my own family) to free France.

    Douglas, I just checked and here where I live at least, there is no sign of foreign occupation troops. The only person in uniform I've seen all day is the postman, and I'm pretty sure he's with us. Who exactly do you want France to free us from?
  21. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ....Freedom fries can now be called French fries....a culinary coup....nice goin'.....the troops will be deployed as soon as Sarko figures out a nice safe place for their deployment....something similar to handing out parking tickets in downtown Kabul....
  22. Sam Patel from Canada writes: Awesome. Sarkozy bring France back to the fold. First 3,200 marines, now another 1,000 french troops. Since every one western combat solidier is worth 20 Taliban (thats the kill ratio) given the increased firepower, mobility, and tracking abilities this ought to help matters in the South quite a bit.

    At a minimum this must dishearten the Taliban quite a bit. They can't be too happy with the way things have gone for themselves, given that they have accomplished almost nothing in 7 years of resisting the West and Karzai.

    If NATO follows this up with bribing away some of the tribes supporting the Taliban (lets not be to sactimonious about this, the Taliban is paying them for their suppport as well) we can deliver a knock out blow. The only way to seal the border is to bring some of the lawless tribal pirates on side. This should not be impossible. Its not like these tribes actually care about Al Quaeda's philosophy or anything eles beyond plundering and raiding their neighbours.
  23. Allan Eizinas from Simcoe, Canada writes: .
    Oh good !!!!!

    Does that mean that we will soon win this war and the troops will be home before the next election?
  24. Douglas Freestone from Canada writes: Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada - You question the motives of your own government and what the government is telling you. That is very wise. It is also a right and a freedom that we enjoy in this country. Tell me, do you also question the motives of the Taliban and what they are telling a foreign news agency looking for a story?
  25. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: I guess the Taliban want to talk now that they've had the crap kicked out of them by NATO...particularly Canada and OUR friends....the USA.

    Maybe the French force can be led by Taliban Jack Layton??
  26. Douglas Freestone from Canada writes: Al B from Toronto, Canada (at 12:04) - I think your little gem deserves some more details don't you Al? As I just pointed out, without Canada and the other Allies there wouldn't be a France and there wouldn't be much of a Europe. European greed was the route cause of Canada's formation, nothing more.

    Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada (at 12:04) - No one. You twisted my post in an effort to forward your own argument. Very transparent.
  27. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Interesting article on the Washington Post about US pressure on various countries to support their invasion of Iraq. Although it describes the arm twisting used against Latin American countries, it no doubt also applies to Canada and likely explains how we got into Afghanistan. It would be nice to know what threats were made to Martin's government, and what current threats are keeping us there.

    You have to log in to read the article, 'Top Diplomat Says U.S. Pressured Allies on Iraq'....
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/?nav=globetop
  28. Lemmy Nothor from Exiled in Barcelona, Spain writes: I keep reading comments that imply that it's about time France stepped to the plate. They've been in Afghanistan since day one, in case some didn't know.

    Besides, it doesn't matterr how many troops you will send there. It's their territory, their land, they know it like the back of their hand, and for the past 3000 years they've beaten all invaders, last ones being the USSR.

    So sending 1000 new kids there, is no more than a public relation scam.
    Fits perfectly with Sparkosy, he's only appearance, no substance.
  29. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: The goal is to destroy the Taliban or its potential reformation...NOT kill all people in Afghanistan and take over this rocky wasteland. There are Afghanis that do support this...they're not all 7th century retards like the Taliban.
  30. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Douglas Freestone, The Taliban interviewed are just a handful of low level fighters more remarkable for their ignorance than anything else. Fairly safe to assume that they are representative of the average fighters our soldiers face. They've never heard of Stephen Harper, don't know where Canada is, aren't sure what NATO is, or even who George Bush is. They aren't fighting for al Qaeda, or global terrorism or any of the other things we've been told. They just want non Muslims to leave Afghanistan. Most of them are only fighting because our soldiers are there.
  31. Duh Work Farce Virtually Alive from Canada writes: A hundred thousand more troops would make no difference - only make the Afghanistan quagmire a deeper quagmire.The French chiming in is mere propaganda. Former CIA chief James Wolsley said the 'War on terra' is a new Cold War and will last for decades. Like the last Cold War, it's 50% propaganda to scare the home folks and control the homeland, 50% to control the world's resoiurces. By the way, i see the top of the food chain is bloodthirsty again. Hard to tell though if it's an American eagle or a Canadian beagle.
  32. Buddy Malone from Canada writes: Looks like them Taliban people got it right. They don't believe in multiculturalism. A big lesson to learn.
  33. Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: Douglas Freestone from Canada writes: Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada - You question the motives of your own government and what the government is telling you. That is very wise. It is also a right and a freedom that we enjoy in this country. Tell me, do you also question the motives of the Taliban and what they are telling a foreign news agency looking for a story?

    Ultimately, I don't really care what the motives of the Taliban are. I only care about what they do. And they're not attacking Canada, and they couldn't attack Canada, or any other country, even if they wanted to. You certainly have no indication that they would. So why are we fighting them? Once again, if our troops are to become embroiled in a distant civil war, then our government should say so, and let Canadians decide if that's what we want.

    The original rationale for sending troops to Afghanistan was totally different. It was to provide security for the Karzai gang to prevent the Taliban from protecting bin Laden, and for the Americans to pursue bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership. That's what Canada signed up for, and it's not happening. The Americans, who asked us there in the first place, have not held up their side of the bargain, and our soldiers are being slaughtered one by one, at the rate of one every two weeks. Al Qaeda is safely ensconced in Pakistan, which is supposedly our ally, and for all we know growing stronger.

    So if the original rationale for going into Afghanistan is moot, it stands to reason that we should question why the heck are our soldiers dying over there, and shouldn't we revisit our original goals?

    As for my right to question the motives of my government, it is not under attack in Afghanistan. If anything, it's under attack right here at home.
  34. Ross H from Muskoka, Canada writes: Douglas Freestone,

    When Mahatma Gandhi pointed out that Canada doesn't have any foreigners occupying Canada, and therefore your statement that France owe's Canada for our help in WWII is illogical...

    That isn't twisting your argument, that is shooting holes throught it.
  35. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: MoMo...the Taliban via al queda attacked the USA...remember 9/11....they provided safe training grounds for terrorists; so they are complicit in many terror events throughout the world.
  36. Dr. Doolittle from Ontario from Canada writes:

    If other countries including ours, refuse to pull their weight, then they should be excluded from the organization. Dead beat parents and dead beat countries need to fend for themselves.
  37. Buddy Malone from Mississaugastan, Canada writes: Eh France draft Dion he is a French citizen.We dont need him here.
    Wach My ke Doofy life
  38. Bill Tweezer from Canada writes: Will they help out in the south or restricted to base duty like most of the nations.
  39. Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: Dr. Doolittle from Ontario from Canada writes: If other countries including ours, refuse to pull their weight, then they should be excluded from the organization. Dead beat parents and dead beat countries need to fend for themselves.

    Well, this might happen yet, not because the Europeans are 'deadbeats', but because they don't see the point of NATO if it's simply going to be used to fight rearguard actions for American wars. Europe is certainly organizing its own defense. The Americans have so mismanaged the Afghanistan campaign that they have seriously undermined NATO in the process.
  40. The Bubble from Canada writes: Good thing he'll be out of the country when he announces it.
  41. john galt from Canada writes: isn't osama from saudi arabia? weren't the majority of those involved with 9/ll from saudi arabia? were any wmd found in iraq? don't the taliban control most of afghanistan outside kabul? were any terrorists that were involved in the 'strikes' against u.s. embassies from afghan- istan? nato was founded to counter communist russia's warsaw pact nations. not there anymore. nato is now an american alliance that pressures (coerces) other countries to assist the u.s. in their pursuit of world domination.
  42. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: dick brown, From Executive Intelligence Review, 'The Sikh terrorist groups active in Punjab, such as Babbar Khalsa, were trained abroad by SAS veterans in British Columbia, Canada, and Britain.' I've read this from a couple of sources, but can't be sure.... These would be the same guys who bombed Air India Flight 182.

    http://larouchepub.com/other/1995/2241_sas.html
  43. Albin Forone from Canada writes: The Manley recommendation of 1000 NATO troops was the ignoble compromise necessary and designed to solve Liberal Party disunity and form the necessary coalition with the Tories to extend the mission and take pressure off the faltering alliance. It's not enough troops to secure the south, probably (like Iraq) by a factor of 10 or 20. The G&M is to be commended for its big piece on Taleban Pashtun fighters and their motives, and the implicit prospect of negotiated detente with them.
  44. steve allan from Welland, Ontario, Canada writes: Psychozy is finished! He won't even last five years.

    The little hypocrite stated during last year's presidential campaign - 'NATO has no business being in Afghanistan.'
  45. Buddy Malone from Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: Good thing he'll be out of the country when he announces it.
    ----
    Oh No not you. Youre weird and bizzaro.You are scary.
  46. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Because we refused to go to Iraq we have the softwood lumber dispute. If we leave Afghanistan we'll get something much worse. We can't win no matter what we do. But at least by leaving we'd show some courage.
  47. Gerry Pankhurst from westport ontario, Canada writes: Wonderful to read the posting from Canada's airm chair generals brigade, the vast majority, if not, all of whom have never heard a shot fired in anger. A bunch of yellow cowards that would soil their underwear, at the very least, if they thought they were going to be exposed..
  48. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ....Kudos mto the G&M for en excellent piece of journalism 'Talking to the Taleban'.....
  49. john galt from Canada writes: gerry pankhurst is an unemployed illustrator for 'idiots, now dolts' comix. he was letting us know what a brave man he is. he has large baskets of white feathers he'd like to recycle. his nickname is case.
    you make a fine basket, case.
  50. Albin Forone from Canada writes: GP, We all (I'm sure) honor your service, but there's a difference between 'marching off in all directions' and getting the mission right. About a year ago Gen. Hillier responded in an online G&M Q&A to my question about committing to the mission without adequate NATO support with a bright-eyed square-jawed evasion of the sort we are now very familiar with. Anybody who thinks Canadian troops should salute, click heels and die while NATO allies hunker inside their 'caveats' is living in a video game.
  51. O The Hypocrites Calgary from calgary, Canada writes: Another coup for the persuasive Mr. Harper...he continues to recommend and implement good foreign policy........Finally we have a P.M. who is being listened to and not laughed at.....................
  52. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ....just read on the wires that the Taleban commander Jalaluddin Haqqani, believed to be have been killed by the Americans has resurfaced....we guess that now is as good a time as any for a ressurection....
  53. Buddy Malone from Canada writes: john galt from Canada The idiot Bubble changes name.Go fetcha bone!
  54. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: Zando Lee ... did you read the preamble.

    One source, untrained as a journalist, with a list of scripted questions for the lowest level fighters .... yup, that's in depth journalism.

    On balance ,we had the interview with Lt. Col. Darryl Mills serving in Iraq on an exchange with U.S. forces so ... the re-branding of the Taliban will fill this week's front pages.
  55. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: Canada's 2011 deadline is actually good for everybody.

    It's a signal to contributing nations that an exit is inevitable and work must be accomplished within a specific timeframe ... it avoids a quagmire.

    The U.S. Marines currently in and more being sent to Kandahar are on a seven month deployment. Whatever U.S. President, and all candidates have indicated the Afghan mission would be expanded, can give a timeline which has been totally lacking in Iraq.

    The mistake is to send Armed Forces into a campaign such as Iraq or Afghanistan without an exit strategy. The insurgents, Taliban or whatever, would love a bogged down force of Western troops in the ME.

    Best recruiting program ever and eventually demoralizing and divisive to the West.

    The various ME factions will fight as long as they can reproduce. No country in the West wants their troops on a vague mission until the second coming ..... of whomever.
  56. harry carnie from Northern, B.C., Canada writes: GOOD!
  57. Dr. Doolittle from Ontario from Canada writes:

    We really don't need NATO since a member state hasn't been attacked since 911. The time has come to disband the organization.
  58. Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Because we refused to go to Iraq we have the softwood lumber dispute. If we leave Afghanistan we'll get something much worse. We can't win no matter what we do. But at least by leaving we'd show some courage.

    I agree with your last statement, but the softwood lumber dispute began in the 80's and is quite independent of our refusal to go to Iraq. One of the common misconceptions about our relationship with the US is that if we do what the Americans want, we get rewarded, and if we don't, we get punished. In reality, the Americans will always seek to further their own interests as much as they can get away with, quite independently of what we do. There is no tit for tat. For example, even if we had sent troops to Iraq, the US would still have refused to abide by the numerous judgments in favour of the Canadian lumber industry. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
  59. Mister G. from Canada writes: Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: France or not, let the Canadian people vote directly on this important matter: it is time for a national referendum.

    Let France deal with it's own matters. ----------------------------
    No need for a referendum. According to a G&M poll more then 66% of the Canadian population supports our deployment in Afghanistan.

    Deal with it.
    Good to see France willingness to help.

    Vive la France.
  60. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    Chris Lalonde from Singapore wrote;
    France is in danger of becoming a dependable ally. What a concept! How about Germany ?

    Answer: ................. Germans are not as gullible.
  61. Mister G. from Canada writes: Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ....Kudos mto the G&M for en excellent piece of journalism 'Talking to the Taleban'..... -------------------------------------

    ????????????????????????

    Would you have said the same thing if the G&M had sent journalists to interview Nazi soldiers during WW2?
  62. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    Dr. Doolittle from Ontario wrote:
    We really don't need NATO since a member state hasn't been attacked since 911. The time has come to disband the organization.

    Wrong Dr. Doolittle,
    The anthrax terrorists attacked and killed after 9/11.

    They are still a threat .
    This is ignored by the timid media .
  63. Mister G. from Canada writes: Dr. Doolittle from Ontario from Canada writes:

    We really don't need NATO since a member state hasn't been attacked since 911. The time has come to disband the organization.-------------------------------------

    You've been talking to too many animals. It’s lowering your intellectual abilities.
  64. Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: Mister G. from Canada writes: According to a G&M poll more then 66% of the Canadian population supports our deployment in Afghanistan.

    Really? What poll was that? Can you supply a link? All the polls I've seen show the opposite. For example, as recently as February of this year, an Angus Reid poll showed that 58% disagreed with extending the mission beyond February of 2009 (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/29855).
  65. Lane Myers from Canada writes: I hope that these troops are not as good at waving a white flag as their fellow citizen, S. Dion, seems to be.
  66. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    Mister G. from Canada wrote:
    Would you have said the same thing if the G&M had sent journalists to interview Nazi soldiers during WW2 ?

    Answer:
    Yes ................... we may have learned about about Adolph Hitler, Precott Bush and Avril Harriman sooner.
  67. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: Polls are irrelevant except to cowards and muck-rakers because the HOC agreed to an extension to 2011.

    Vote on it?? Again??

    You obviously do not know that the Balkan mission and the extension for a total of a decade of Canadian Forces in an active war theatre was WITHOUT an House of Commons vote ..... let's see, can I remember who was in power?
  68. Mister G. from Canada writes: Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: Mister G. from Canada writes: According to a G&M poll more then 66% of the Canadian population supports our deployment in Afghanistan.

    Really? What poll was that? Can you supply a link? All the polls I've seen show the opposite. ----------------------

    Sadly the G&M removed the link to the survey. Obviously you read the G&M online regularly and you mean to tell us you did not see this survey? Ask around, I am not making this up.
  69. tulip7 R from woodbridge, Canada writes: Wow, Why France can send 1,000 more troops to Afghanistan that is not her own country. But China can not send troops to protect her own people against mobs in her own country. I guess that is called double standard.
  70. Mister G. from Canada writes: Found the survey:

    theglobeandmail.com?id=80936&pollid=80936&save=save&showvote_always=no&poll=GAMFront&hub=Front&subhub=VoteResult

    Parliament decided to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan to 2011. Do you agree with this decision?

    YES 66% 63620 responses
    NO 34% 33499 responses.

    LOL
  71. Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: Mister G.: An online poll? Are you kidding? That is completely unscientific. What on Earth makes you think that a self-selected group of people that click on an online survey by TGM could be representative of the population? The fact that the result is in complete contradiction with a poll by Angus Reid should give you a clue.

    See, this is my main problem with so-called conservatives. It's not even your ideology; it's the fact that you are so bloody clueless.
  72. Bill C. O'llector from Canada writes: Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes:

    'See, this is my main problem with so-called conservatives. It's not even your ideology; it's the fact that you are so bloody clueless.'

    Uh, yeah.

    With the likes of Mike Sty, Yvonne Wackernagel, The Centrist, The Bubble, etc among your ranks, the non-cons are such a bunch of intellects!
  73. Stephen R from Canada writes: I think the Germans had, or still have, I'm not sure, a constitutional clause that dictated that troops weren't allowed to be deployed beyond their borders. They are still reeling from WW2.
    Good for France for stepping up to the plate.
  74. Mister G. from Canada writes: Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: Mister G.: An online poll? Are you kidding? That is completely unscientific. What on Earth makes you think that a self-selected group of people that click on an online survey by TGM could be representative of the population? The fact that the result is in complete contradiction with a poll by Angus Reid should give you a clue.

    See, this is my main problem with so-called conservatives. It's not even your ideology; it's the fact that you are so bloody clueless. ----------------------

    I wonder how many time YOU voted NO on that poll?

    I voted YES once .

    And any poll results that agree with your ideology would be completely beleivable, right?
  75. Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: Mister G., it's not possible to vote more than once from a given IP address. That's not the problem. The problem is the self-selection of the people who vote. I'm not sure I even clicked on that one, I don't usually have time for online surveys.

    Give it up. Your poll is, as they say, 'for entertainment purposes only'. You keep ignoring the Angus Reid poll, and others like it, simply because you don't like what it says.
  76. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: France or not, let the Canadian people vote directly on this important matter: it is time for a national referendum
    __________________

    This should be done on a number of issues: official bilingualism, dual-citizenship, abortion, publically funding the CBC, etc. It won't happen.
  77. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: P. Jones ... do you know the cost of a referendum in time,money and social divisions?

    Democracy is built upon elected representatives presenting the agendas of their constituents.

    If the public does not vote, there is no effective representation.

    23 January 2006 64.7% Voter Turnout
    28 June 2004 60.9%
    27 Nov. 2000 61.2%
    2 June 1997 67%
    25 Oct. 1993 69.6%
    26 Oct. 1992 71.8% This was also the Charlottetown Accord referendum.

    Sixteen years since we had over 70% voter turnout. That''s not democracy and nobody is to blame except the voter.
  78. Sean L. from Canada writes: France's committment is likely to last until the home grown islamic jihad starts.
  79. Rob Aubery from Calgary, Canada writes: Excuse my cynicism, but Harper knew Sarko would pitch in when he agreed to the 1000 troop condition. Harper's on the winning side because he's got the warbucks of the world behind him. Hillier and Harper a just American lackeys who know what side their bread is butter on.
  80. Rob Aubery from Calgary, Canada writes: Chris Lalonde from Singapore writes: Canada only spends around 1.1% of it's GDP on the military compared to over 4% for the U.S., 2-3% for the average EU country, 2.8% for Australia.
    --------------
    The DND's own figures show that Canada is the sixth-highest military spender within NATO and the 16th-highest in the world. Right we should try to be no.1.... Morally speaking, it's a race to the bottom of the American cesspool.
  81. Auroran Bear from Montreal, Canada writes: Isn't this old news? I thought France implied this about a month ago. At that time they said most of the "new" troops would be stationed around Kabul. If so then this is hardly worth getting excited about.
  82. Trevor Tartaglia from Kitchener, Canada writes: I think NATO is being to soft on this issue. The only way to get radicals to respond in a way that is, for lack of a better term, compliant and peaceful is by responding in kind. If NATO is actually serious about helping the situation they need to make an all out effort. Regardless of whether we should have gone in the first place, we are there now. What kind of message do you think its sends to these extremist, the way we are treating the situation now. They must either think we do not take them seriously, or that we are completely incompitent and shouldn't be taken seriously. It is to late to pull out now, we are to entretched in the situation. What needs to be done is to find the quickest solution out, and by quickest i mean the actual quickest, not the quickest that keeps everybody happy. I am tired of politicians not taking the best solution because they are worried about offending somebody or having them disagree with them. Someone within NATO needs to commit to this situation completely. Its the only way that it will ever be resolved in a reasonable amount of time. If France does send another 1,000 soldiers it will be a start, but increasing numbers isn't the whole battle. NATO needs to show a unified front. Our inconsistancy hurts our cause more than anything else. Canada's threats of withdrawing are some of the worse. Why not send the extra soldiers ourselves to send a message. If all of these countries would stop pointing fingers at eachother and expecting others to take up slack for them nothing is going to get done. It is time to actually unify and get something done or NATO is done. In order to survive NATO must change and adapt from the cold war NATO united against the Warsaw Pact. They need to become unified against some common goal, because now it seems that there is none. Without a common goal people never work together well
  83. One Eye Open from calgary, Canada writes: I think it's a bit premature for congratualtions to France for committing troups to Afghanistan. This report states, they will be going to "Eastern" Afghanistan, not "Southern" Afghanistan, where the serious fighting is, and our Canadian troups are being killed.
  84. Bill Tweezer from Canada writes: One Eye Open from calgary, Canada writes: I think it's a bit premature for congratualtions to France for committing troups to Afghanistan. This report states, they will be going to "Eastern" Afghanistan, not "Southern" Afghanistan, where the serious fighting is, and our Canadian troups are being killed.

    If thats the case canada will continue to carry the heavy load in the south.

    http://www.nrk.no/contentfile/file/1.1946831!img1946793.jpg
  85. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:

    yes, even the French are not as gullible as the Harperites .........
  86. Jim IIII from Canada writes: Mr. Sarkozy will announce that “slightly more than 1,000 troops” are to be deployed to eastern Afghanistan.

    Sending 1000 troops to "Eastern Afghanistan" is about as useful as sending 1000 troops to NewFoundland
  87. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    Mr. Bush is so unpopular, even with America’s allies, that people in Britain and France told pollsters last spring that they had even less confidence in him to do the right thing in world affairs than they had in President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/us/politics/23mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
  88. Chris Lalonde from Singapore writes: Rob Aubery from Calgary, Canada writes "DND's own figures show that Canada is the sixth-highest military spender within NATO and the 16th-highest in the world. Right we should try to be no.1.... Morally speaking, it's a race to the bottom of the American cesspool."

    Wow, we spend more than countries like the Swedes and Finns who have only a fraction of our population and land mass. Should we also spend as much as them in sheer dollars on healtcare and education? No, because it should be based on a per capita basis. It's all relative right? It's not about being '#1' but pulling your own weight. Canada shouldn't have to rely so much on other countries to defend itself. The U.S. is too busy now and the Europeans aren't dependable allies. Also, it's not morally right and we do lose own soveriegnty because of it. The world knows it, it's time for Canada to as well...

  89. Bill Tweezer from Canada writes: 6 th in defence spending wow, just think of what we had to make up in the last decade with defence cut after cut, we are still using bandaids for crying out loud sure we getting some new equipment but come on take 10 years of cuts add billions upon that. We need a department just for equipment soon as we buy something make plans to replace it because every canadian knows it takes 15 to 20 years just to get new equipment. Even when we buy used like the subs they just sit in drydock for a decade when did we buy them from britain in the 90's? and where are our helicopters??? sikorsky delay them another couple years?
  90. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: P. Jones ... do you know the cost of a referendum in time,money and social divisions?

    Democracy is built upon elected representatives presenting the agendas of their constituents.

    If the public does not vote, there is no effective representation.
    ________________

    I have always voted, they could ask referendum questions during an election vote and elected representatives do not always represent what their constituents want. Harper and his party are Progressive Conservatives and do not truly represent conservatives. Holding a referendum during an election would undoubtedly drive up the percentage of voters. Referendums are the only sure way of finding out what the majority of Canadians want.
  91. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ....Canadian troops rush in where NATO fears to tread.....
  92. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:

    ............. and there is no exit strategy
  93. aging oldtool from BC, Canada writes: Anyone anticipating a rout of the Taliban, even if France were to commit to join Canadian troops in the south of Afghanstan, is smoking some of the green stuff that beleagured country exports by the tonne now that the Taliban no longer rules the entire country. Of course France is playing semantics and Germany is a bit more frank (no pun intended), in assessing the mess and responding to our rookie warmonger Peter MacKay's whines for help. The only nation MacKay should be pleading with (actually, he should be firing off harsh warnings), is the US which started the Afghan fight, then, in a fit of immature stupidity, opted to double its crusade against the Muslum world on little more wisdom than the myth of US invincibility. It wasn't Afghanis or the Taliban who attacked New York, rather Saudi Arabians even as many of the Saudi royal household was breaking bread with George Bush's father at this Texas ranch. If you will remember they were all given safe passage out of the US on the only non-military airplane allowed to fly over North America the day following 9/11. You'll remember George Sr. He's the guy who's own father collaborated with the Nazis during world war two. "Freedom and democracy"? Give me a break! The only improvements in Afghanistan since we joined the US invasion has been economic, as in a massive increase in the amount of marijuana and poppies, for the production of opium, that is now grown. It's not a little ironic we spend hundreds of millions annually chasing down pot growers, burning their crops, throwing them in jail and confiscating anything they own in Canada, yet Canadian soldiers are dying near marijuana fields where they don't dare uproot one plant. The rest of the world, including Europe, is not blind to that contradiction, but apparently our Conservatives and Liberals are, or simply don't care. And can anyone explain what happened to the US "War On Drugs"?
  94. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    Zando Lee from Vancouver wrote:
    Canadian troops rush in where NATO fears to tread.....

    ............. and there is no exit strategy

Comments are closed

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

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

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

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