Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Harper dampens expectations ahead of NATO summit

MURRAY BREWSTER

The Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 1:40 PM EST 31/03/08

Prime Minister still confident military alliance will eventually come through with reinforcements, extra equipment ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Stan L from Canada writes: Dampened expectations?....they SO have a pre-deal in place with France. As to the dis-invitations issued to the opposition parties.....using NATO as a way to lie your way inot disinviting the opposition...classy.
  2. spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes:

    Stan L--

    Dion, Iggy, and Rae should be invited and attend. The LPC amendments were a key step forward, and the LPC deserves representation at NATO.

    Coderre, the NDP, and Bloc should stay home; we know their opinion.

    Any suggestions on how to pull this off?
  3. Bill Tweezer from Canada writes: Hope we can step in line for new CH-47-D copters, we did for the c-17. Spring offensive means more ied's, just think if we had some copters, how many of our men we could of saved. 99% of attacks are ied's. As for france they are going to the east. Means the Americans have to step up once again.
  4. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    The LPC wouldn't go anyways.

    There'll be Americans there.
  5. William Ross from Victoria BC, Canada writes: Excellent news : I for one am looking forward to the extra battle group and increasing the amount of bad guys we can take down!
  6. Simon Croswell from Toronto, Canada writes: Canada's foreign policy in Afghanistan will not change no matter what happens at the NATO summit. Harpo will keep putting our soldiers into GWB's meat grinder as long as he is in power. The only solution is for Dion to resign, for a new Lib leader to bring down the Harpo government, and for the 70% of Canadians who aren't retarded to vote strategically to put in place a non-Con government.
  7. siren call from Canada writes: The Defence Department has already put in requests for unmanned reconnaissance drones.
    ................................

    They say this as though CF haven't been provided with aerial drones throughout this deployment.

    What happened to the ones already provided? Crashed in the deserts of Afghanistan or eaten to death by Afghanistan's fine particulate dust?

    Aerial drones can't spot IEDs although they can spot people planting them.

    My greatest concern is that CF is asking for armed aerial drones.
  8. Stan L from Canada writes: spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes: Stan L-- Dion, Iggy, and Rae should be invited and attend. The LPC amendments were a key step forward, and the LPC deserves representation at NATO. Coderre, the NDP, and Bloc should stay home; we know their opinion. Any suggestions on how to pull this off? Spicy......they actually were invited, received itineraries and travel information...but the next day McKay's chief of staff recinded the invitations and told them that NATO was limiting the numbers......a call to NATO by all three opposition parties confimed that it was a lie and that NATO had put no such restrictions on attendance. On CBC last night the comment was that they would not go and simply pay their own way as they have been doing becuase the consensus was that it sets a dangerous precident for the government and that they had already paid out of pocket to attend international meetings/conferences that were previously open to all My guess, Harper wants to put ou tto the international community that he did this all by himself, wants to take the glory when he gets the international support he knows he is going to get......pretty simple really. AND pretty sad.....who cares what the international community thinks Canadians know the truth.
  9. The Happy Nudist from Canada writes: Siren call. Why would that be a concern? If they were armed, and saw a contingent of the enemy setting up an ambush, they could be used to take out the enemy. Help save the lives of our troops..
  10. Dan Radu from Calgary, Canada writes: Good God, what are you people talking about? Dion and the LPC shouldn't go anywhere near the international stage. They shouldn't even go near the House of Commons.
  11. Stan L from Canada writes: Dan Radu from Calgary, Canada writes: Good God, what are you people talking about? Dion and the LPC shouldn't go anywhere near the international stage. They shouldn't even go near the House of Commons.

    Dan don't be ridiculous....they were invited as Harper was invited when he was in opposiiton as have every opposition members been invited.....if they are so irrelevant who cares if they are there? It's not like they get any press coverage when they do attend......so why is Harper being all control freak about this.....even to the extent that he blantently LIED about the invites?.........Simple, the Dear Leader, wants to spin a story that doesn't include anyone else....in the personae that Harper has carved out for himself compromise and cooperation are not an option to go on the international stage and admit that you have done both is considered weak in his eyes.....weird but true
  12. siren call from Canada writes: The Happy Nudist -- the scenario you provide is exactly what the USA has been stating.

    Problem is that on the ground, Afghans report that the drones often misidentify "Taliban". This results in the death of civilians, stokes resentment and decreases the safety of the troops.

    It also seems more than a little immoral to be spending billions on this kind of high tech war fare while Afghans literally starved to death last winter.
  13. Albin Forone from Canada writes: The Manley Report cynically solved the internal Liberal political split with a compromise that, thereby, permitted a convenient Liberal/Tory policy detente: 1000 NATO troops, easy enough. The deal now seems to be 1000 French baguetteers go with non-violent "caveats" to free up 1000 actual US combat troops, who will indeed fight in the South. Very nice, except 10 or 20 times that many troops will be needed to do the job against the resurgent Taliban (unless a local agreement is negotiated.) Who will be the General Shinseki to tell us all that the Emperor is posing naked in Afghanistan. It won't be the Opposition.
  14. R L from Canada writes: Harper's foreign policy is disgusting. We need to get anyone's voice in there other than the HarperCons.

    Cons are anti-peace and pro-aggression. The world is a much more hostile and dangerous place with Cons in power.
  15. mike sty - from Canada writes:

    Troops Out Feb 09
  16. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: The mission is now one of "The Coalition of the Willing" in all but name. This deal was made a long time ago--some say before the Manley report was even published calling for a paltry 1,000 more troops in Kandahar. In other words, the Manley Report's stated troop requirement was determined by how many troops the French said they were willing to send.

    It boils down to the French sending 1,000 more troops to Afghanistan to play the same non-combat role as the 2,500 troops it already has there, thereby relieving a further 1,000 U.S. combat troops to go to Kandahar, along with their helicopters and drones.

    The deeper messge is that NATO hasn't budged; Sarkozy is playing his own political game and is taking no political risks. The combat mission in Kandahar is now a Coalition mission, not a NATO one, and we are firmly allied with the U.S., as the British are in Iraq.

    It may not mean that much (the politics are beyond "cynical" and well into "desperate"; quagmires do that to governments); however, I think Canadians should be concerned that this heightened identification with the U.S. makes us more of a target to those who see the U.S. and its Coalition allies as fighting a war against Islam.
  17. siren call from Canada writes: Nick Wright from Halifax -- I'm more concerned about the American troops "helping" than the French in a potentially non-combat role.

    CBC did a bit on the Marines sent to southern Afghanistan. They looked uniformly young, 18 or so. Their commander and they were cocky almost beyond bearing.

    Notions like, get in and get out, "before the applause stops". Not going to be much help for stabilizing Afghanistan but it sure looks like the marines will help kick up the blood count.
  18. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Still have yet to see any justification for disallowing opposition party representatives at this summit.

    Poor leadership.
  19. Hairy Wrangellian from Saltspring, Canada writes: Harper knows trying to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan by military means is completely futile, but he really doesn't care - our forces aren't there to defeat the Taliban, they're there to appease the Americans, so Harper is just trying to find a way to do it with as few casualties as possible because Canadians coming home in bags looks very bad at election time. That explains the tanks and helicopters, which we could have purchased for far less than we have from the Russians, but the Cons want to patronize our allies.
  20. K St-Pierre from toronto, Canada writes: Wish we had more coverage about the UAE troops in Afghanistan. A good precedent, we could start phasing out western troops for ME by the time our current commitement is done. We shouldn't be there past '11 (if even 09) unless we are start making tangible successes on all fronts. Harper's lies and increasing paranoia no longer surprise me anymore. Why does the media (with the help of the LPC) want to keep him in power?
  21. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Harper is handling this situation extremely well. He is showing his skills as a strong leader in Canada and abroad. Keep it up Stephen. You are doing Canada proud.
  22. Compos Mentis from in the Mild 'n Wild West..., Canada writes: Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: "Harper is handling this situation extremely well. He is showing his skills as a strong leader in Canada and abroad. Keep it up Stephen. You are doing Canada proud."

    Hendrick, from now on please quote the script number when cutting & pasteing comments from the Conservatives web site.

    Eventually all Conservative posters will have to do is post the script number, thus saving us bandwidth.
  23. siren call from Canada writes: I don't think Hendrick Larose is pasting from the manual for little Cons. The postings are just too incredible.

    Harper has fallen all over and continues to stumble on the Afghanistan file.
  24. Hairy Wrangellian from Saltspring, Canada writes: Yes, and it also has to be remembered that it was Gordon O'Connor that spent $189 million of our money to send 17 of our old tanks to Afghanistan, which, it turns out, can't be used in the summertime.

    Let's hear some more about fiscal responsibility...
  25. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: I was a Trudeau supporter in the 70s and am a Harper supporter now. I like strong leaders and Stephen has the traits of a great leader. He will only get better. We have not had a leader of this capability since Trudeau but the partisan posters constantly knock him because they can't think for themselves (must follow liberal party bible).

    I support Harper because he has shown time and time again that he delivers results. He handled the Quebec situation masterfully. I know many pensioners are extremely please with the income splitting. He reduced the GST. He has brokered a cooperative approach with Ontario just yesterday to deal with some of their economic challenges. Results matter to me more than ideology which the liberals cannot seem to let go of.

    In anticipation of some of the obvious next posts...Yes I know...he has a hidden agenda.. what a bunch of boobs.
  26. aging oldtool from Canada writes: Why is it Stephan Harper has to play semantics, distort his public comments to fit the moment rather than the truth and can't, for the life of him, get beyond the high school student government type of cheap political shenanigans most of us leave behind with our teenage years?

    Tweezer Bill, stepping on an ied is not an attack. It certainly is an ambush and very deadly, but there is no enemy actively firing away.

    Given that, your comment that 99 percent of Canadian deaths in Afghistan are attacks by ieds is quite overplayed.

    I think you missed quite a few Canadians who unfortunately got in the way of US fighter pilots, so stoned on drugs handed to them by military medics to calm their nerves, they were dropping 500 pounders on anyone who moved.

    And they have the gall to call it friendly fire.

    Then, of course, there are the increasing incidents of sad and demoralizing cases of suicide and other questionable deaths occuring in the security of their home base.

    I agree ieds are the big problem.

    I think our troops need all the help we can provide and the sooner we bring them home the sooner they'll stop being collateral damage in someone else's war.
  27. Brent Raby from The City State of Toronto, writes: The insatiable hunger of the dogs of war will be whetted by these thousand French morsels. The main course, which will have a more substantial international flavour, will follow in due course.
  28. Bill C. O'llector from Canada writes: Compos Mentis from in the Mild 'n Wild West..., Canada writes: "Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: "Harper is handling this situation extremely well. He is showing his skills as a strong leader in Canada and abroad. Keep it up Stephen. You are doing Canada proud." Hendrick, from now on please quote the script number when cutting & pasteing comments from the Conservatives web site. Eventually all Conservative posters will have to do is post the script number, thus saving us bandwidth." ---------------------------------- siren call from Canada writes: "I don't think Hendrick Larose is pasting from the manual for little Cons. The postings are just too incredible. Harper has fallen all over and continues to stumble on the Afghanistan file." ****************************************************** You Liberal hypocrites have the gall to talk about Con talking points while there are still blinder wearing, red kool-aid swilling hacks walking amongst you: Hairy Wrangellian from Saltspring, Canada writes: "Harper knows trying to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan by military means is completely futile, but he really doesn't care - our forces aren't there to defeat the Taliban, they're there to appease the Americans, so Harper is just trying to find a way to do it with as few casualties as possible because Canadians coming home in bags looks very bad at election time. That explains the tanks and helicopters, which we could have purchased for far less than we have from the Russians, but the Cons want to patronize our allies." ---------------------------------- Yup, after Jan 24, 2006 it was just Harper appeasing Bush, but before that it was another stellar example of Canada's image on the world stage.
  29. Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: Aging oldtool you misrepresent the facts. The majority of casualties have been from IED's, not direct fire and certainly not from friendly fire.
  30. Hairy Wrangellian from Saltspring, Canada writes: Yes, Canada's image on the world stage would have been vastly improved had Harper been PM in 2003, back when he called the Liberals 'idiots' for not supporting the US in Iraq. Under Steve's leadership we would've been there too... and even you blue kool-aid swilling hacks would regret that.
  31. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    To:Prime Minister Harper:

    Perhaps I only speak for myself, maybe for a few other concerned Canadian citizens, yet when will Canadians be informed of the goals and objectives of this mission? The Manley report only provided fluff responses and requirements to move forward, but skirted the end game plan.

    The Canadian media in general has been MIIA and a very poor source of addressing the situation and one must rely on foreign ( American-British) news services to connect the dotts-and those connected dotts are not promising!

    There is tremendous confusion of how we got where we are, but more importantly, how we move forward.

    This is an incredibly important issue to Canadians in terms of lives lost, lives destroyed, the psychological state of those who return, along with the $$ cost of this mission, and the reputation and standing in the international arena!

    A recommendation: A town hall meeting televised in Prime Time. You arrrive with your Ministers and advisors and Hillier. You make your statements, then allow a cross-section of the media to ask mission questions ONLY. Then open it up to Canadians in attendance.

    Is there a problem with that approach?
    .
  32. Bill C. O'llector from Canada writes: Hairy Wrangellian from Saltspring, Canada writes:

    "Yes, Canada's image on the world stage would have been vastly improved had Harper been PM in 2003, back when he called the Liberals 'idiots' for not supporting the US in Iraq. Under Steve's leadership we would've been there too... and even you blue kool-aid swilling hacks would regret that."

    *****************************************

    Paul Martin supported the Iraq invasion as well. Body bags would've been coming home either way.

    Wake up ya dumb sheep!
  33. Stan L from Canada writes: Bill C. O'llector from Canada writes:.........Paul Martin supported the Iraq invasion as well. Body bags would've been coming home either way.
    Wake up ya dumb sheep!

    Bill C. O'llector.........October 14th, 2004......."Prime Minister Paul Martin reaffirmed Ottawa's stance that it will not commit troops to Iraq, saying Canada should instead play a role where it can "make a substantial difference."
    Martin, who made the comments after meeting with French President Jacques Chirac in Paris on Thursday, said Canada's primary contribution to Iraq's reconstruction will be $300 million in humanitarian aid."

    Dumb sheep thy name is Bill
  34. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ....your credibility Stevie is non existant...you and your gang of bullies and liars will never be elected to a majority government....
  35. Bob from Montreal from Montreal, Canada writes: CTV NewsNet is saying that Russia has offered help in Stan.
  36. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: Bill C. O'llector from Canada....obviously a resident of that parallel universe inhabited ny Bush and Chaney....
  37. Bill C. O'llector from Canada writes: Stan L from Canada writes: Bill C. O'llector from Canada writes:.........Paul Martin supported the Iraq invasion as well. Body bags would've been coming home either way.
    Wake up ya dumb sheep!

    Bill C. O'llector.........October 14th, 2004......."Prime Minister Paul Martin reaffirmed Ottawa's stance that it will not commit troops to Iraq, saying Canada should instead play a role where it can "make a substantial difference."
    Martin, who made the comments after meeting with French President Jacques Chirac in Paris on Thursday, said Canada's primary contribution to Iraq's reconstruction will be $300 million in humanitarian aid."

    Dumb sheep thy name is Bill

    ***************************************************

    Nice spin Stan.

    Harper supported the conflict and all you Libbies can do is drone about "if Harper were PM..."

    Martin supports the invasion at the time of it and it's "what your point"....

    But we forget, whenever a Liberal changes his mind it's always because they have seen the errors of their ways or for the good of the nation - never about scoring political points or anything like that.
  38. Stan L from Canada writes: Bill.......what the F are you talking about. I never ask for proof....but now I do.....you give me credible reference (and I don't mean a talking point from the conservative website) to anything that says Paul Martin Supported troops going to Iraq.....I know this is besides the point of the discussion but really name calling with SUCH and ergregious lie....come on now.
  39. Bill C. O'llector from Canada writes: ...and for the Libs who crow about Chretien keeping Canada "out of Iraq", like hell:

    http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/militaryafghanistan/insidethemission.html
  40. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ...here is something new....the Brits will apologize for mistreating Iraqi detainees including murder...lots more regrets to come.....isn't war fun?.....
  41. R L from Canada writes: What will be accomplished by our continued aggression in Afghanistan? 100% of the Taliban can't locate Canada on a map (and they don't care), and the majority can't even locate USA on a map. They have never attacked us. They only want the foreigners out of Afghanistan, and they want to kick out Hamid Karzai who they know is a puppet of the Americans; Karzai wouldn't last 1 hour in Afghanistan without on-going US security forces protecting him. The more we attack and the more "boots on the ground" we send to Afghanistan, the more they hate us, and the more chaos and violence and bloodshed we will see in Afghanistan (which in time may spread to other countries).

    The HarperCons better not be in power when McCain (or Clinton) bombs Iran, or it will be a very bad time for Canada.
  42. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ....Canadians, especially members of our military owe Jean Cretien for having the guts to say no to the Idiot in Chief as he was lying his way into a disasterous quagmire that is costing American lives and treasure with no end in sight.....merci Jean....
  43. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: siren call wrote: "I'm more concerned about the American troops "helping" than the French in a potentially non-combat role."

    I share your concern, as probably does President Karzai, who is on record as deploring the seriously counterproductive hunter-killer strategy followedto date by Canada, the U.S.A. and Britain.

    However, we should give the American troops the benefit of the doubt until we see how they are deployed. If they follow General Petraeus's strategy of public works and cooperation with locals, we could see a switch from the stupid "hunter-killer" to "secure, protect, train, and develop." This would be a good thing, and it would be in line with the Liberal-supported motion recently passed in the House of Commons.

    There are a lot of intelligent, dedicated people in our government and military who have read the huge preponderance of studies and media reporting--like the brilliant work of Graeme Smith of the Globe & Mail--that unmistakably outlines the need for a strategy change in Afghanistan. So far, they have been eclipsed by the ambitions of politicians and, sadly, their own CDS Hillier, with his own overriding agenda of building up a blooded fighting force [Halifax recruiting poster headline: "Fight (kill) with the Canadian Armed Forces"].

    The politicians are dancing as fast as they can and The General is pissed; let's see what actually happens on the ground with a possibly new strategy. We'll find out soon enough.
  44. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Liberals have no foreign policy.
    But for this.

    Whatever the Americans do, Liberals don't.
    That's still no foreign policy.

    It is one of the Liberal's greatest failings.
    Amongst many other things.

    I'm serious, the Liberals have NO foreign policy.
  45. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ...the neo Conservatives do indeed have a foreigh policy, silmply to do whatever George Bush wants.....
  46. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Not to worry Harper, I didn't have very high expectations for the summit to begin with. What I do expect to see is this war going on and on with no end in sight, if the future turns out to be anything like the past 6 years have been.
  47. Stan L from Canada writes: Michael Sharp.....give it up, so boring so trite.....are you going to tell us that Martin supported the Iraqi's too......or maybe you should start one about how Dion is secretly giving France coded messages abotu whether or not to give us troops.........how about Harper has a secret alliance with George Bush who emails his foreign policy to Stephen so that Stephen can just rewrite the poilicy and put his name on it.......shall we go there? already? sigh
  48. Stan L from Canada writes: Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Not to worry Harper, I didn't have very high expectations for the summit to begin with. What I do expect to see is this war going on and on with no end in sight, if the future turns out to be anything like the past 6 years have been.

    I agree, this is far too lucrative for defense contractors and as a make work, to end it means that the othere party will blather on about a shocking lack of support for the troops and blah blah blah.....this will not end any time soon.....
  49. Hairy Wrangellian from Saltspring, Canada writes: So Bill, are you really trying to argue that the Liberals supported the invasion of Iraq like the Conservatives in 2003? Or that Harper did then, and now understands that would have been a huge mistake? Because he definitely did then:

    http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2004/thecampaign/fightinwords.html

    Now it's not like the Conservatives to keep Harping on one point, but if Harper really did believe that we should have been supporting the US in Iraq, we have to question his judgment. But then we also know that Steve would say or do anything to get and keep power.

    But enough about Harper, what about you Bill. Did you support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and do you now?
  50. jamie yavis from Canada writes: The best idea I heard of is if we send Harper, Baird, Lunn, Flaherty,
    McKay, & Day as troops to Afghanistan then NATO only has to come up with 994 troops to get Canada to stay.

    Talk about killing two birds with one stone!

    NATO/USA gets what it wants, and Canadians get a reprieve from the travelling wing-nut show aka The Conservative Party.
  51. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    So when I point out that Liberals have no foreign policy, the response is that Conservative foreign policy is to be a Bush lapdog.

    That's completely and utterly ignorant.

    The correct response would have been to show me Liberal foreign policy, not parrot some adolescent protester complaining about globalization.

    C'mon, LPC supporters, give me policy.

    Convince me why I should vote LPC.

    Otherwise I shall continue to taunt you and your teen conspiracy theories.
  52. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    And let me be very clear on this one point.

    IF YOU DID NOT SUPPORT THE LIBERATION OF IRAQ YOU SUPPORTED THE BRUTAL, GENOCIDAL TYRANT SADDAM HUSSEIN.

    You can't have it both ways.
  53. Brent Raby from The City State of Toronto, writes: Michael:

    Foreign policy is a hangover from the age of imperialism.

    P.J. O'Rourke speaking of US foreign policy said something to the effect that "Whatever it is that government does, sensible Americans would prefer that it does it to somebody else. This is the idea behind foreign policy".
  54. aging oldtool from Canada writes: Bill C.Ollector, I doubt you will apologize, but would you at least go back and actually read my post (or read it slower), because I certainly did not say the majority of deaths were not from ieds.

    I was responding to your fellow script reader Tweezer Bill, who claimed "99%" of Canadian deaths were from ieds.
    I pointed out quite a few were from "friendly fire and some were self inflicted.

    I agreed (read my comment), "they(ieds), are certainly a big problem" and I agree with you ieds represent the majority of those deaths.

    What I said does not jibe with the CPC talking points, I fully admit, but nowhere did I "misrepresent the facts."
  55. Hairy Wrangellian from Saltspring, Canada writes: I don't know if it's LPC policy or not, but I'd like to see Canada pursue an independent foreign policy, supporting all of our allies - not just the US - and be a peace-maker and peace-keeper - not the Rambo of Hillier's delusion. Being the Canadian Robin to the American Batman just isn't it, and I'm sure even you Michael, find the thought of Harper in tights to be just too horrible to contemplate... So Michael, what's the CPC foreign policy, other than 'support our best friend and greatest ally'?
  56. R L from Canada writes: Michael Sharp, your hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

    If someone pointed out humanitarian aid, diplomacy, etc. as a desirable foreign policy, you would not accept that. It's not our fault the Americans see military power, aggression, and war as the key to their foreign policy, but anything that differs from this Washington-worldview is just viewed by you (and others like you) as being anti-American and not a real foreign policy.

    I personally want Canada to have an independent policy, one that promotes reasonable discourse, maturity, diplomacy, and non-violence. War must be a last resort, not the first resort as the war-mongers would have it.
  57. aging oldtool from Canada writes: Oops. I will apoligise to you Bill C."ollector for mistakening blaming you for the dumb accusation that I misrepresented the facts.

    It is, in fact, Bill G, from Calgary who needs the remedial reading classes.

    Hey, are you both in the same CPC script dispersal group? I only ask because both of you seem bent on the same task, trying to discredit
    all the accurate posts.
  58. Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: There truely is only one course to follow here. Should our sworn NATO allies not uphold their portion of the bargain (Combat Troops not makee nicey guys) then we have no business with them.
    We should send their ambassadors home. Persona non grata.
  59. Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: Perhaps we should just call (as in poker) our NATO allies.
    We need to be compassionate, remonisce (sp) a little.
    We should tell them that we understand that they are accustomed to following Canadian Combat Troops all over the place, starting in Europe at Normandy. Then we need to give them a map to Kandahar.
    If that doesn't get the support, we just pull out of NATO.
    Obviously a deal is only a deal to us.
  60. James C from Chaozhou, Guangdong, China writes: "Hairy Wrangellian from Saltspring, Canada writes: Harper is just trying to find a way to do it with as few casualties as possible because Canadians coming home in bags looks very bad at election time. That explains the tanks and helicopters, which we could have purchased for far less than we have from the Russians, but the Cons want to patronize our allies."

    ----------

    these statements show how little people like you really know of anything on these issues. you dont buy military equipment from unreliable sources such as russia or china. i dont think the reasons why need to be stated here.
  61. William Doyle from Prince George, Canada writes: Since Tony Blair stepped down as Prime Minister Steve Harper has became the main puppy dog of bush. Sad Eh!
  62. Compos Mentis from in the Cold 'n Wintery West..., Canada writes: Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes: "And let me be very clear on this one point.

    IF YOU DID NOT SUPPORT THE LIBERATION OF IRAQ YOU SUPPORTED THE BRUTAL, GENOCIDAL TYRANT SADDAM HUSSEIN.

    You can't have it both ways. "

    So Michael, where is your indignation over Darfur? Somalia? Kenya? Sierra Leone? Zimbabwe?

    Why are you not advocating the liberation of those countries? Or do you support the brutal and violent governments in those countries?
  63. garlick toast from Canada writes: yeah,why buy when we can rent.
  64. James C from Chaozhou, Guangdong, China writes: "garlick toast from Canada writes: yeah,why buy when we can rent."

    ----------

    renting/leasing is an even worse option. in 1999 there was a contracted container ship (owned by a ukrainian) shipping military equipment from yugoslavia to montreal. a contract dispute arose between the federal govt and the owner of the ship. the owner ordered the captain to NOT return to montreal until the dispute was resolved. at that point, the navy sent a frigate out, a naval team boarded the ship and guided it back to montreal.

    "Compos Mentis from in the Cold 'n Wintery West..., Canada writes: Michael Sharp from Victoria where is your indignation over Darfur? Somalia? Zimbabwe? Why are you not advocating liberation of those countries? do you support the brutal and violent governments in those countries?"

    ---------

    the answer is simple. we cant be everywhere.
  65. Hairy Wrangellian from Saltspring, Canada writes: James C: What, the Russians and Chinese can't build good military equipment? We're only buying tanks and transport planes and helicopters; it's not like we're buying the latest fighter jets. The Russians, at least, seem to be fairly good at that... but what do you mean by 'unreliable' - not part of NATO? I think our buying decision had more to do with who we wanted to grease... but maybe you know more about this - do tell.
  66. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: Bill Tweezer .... I totally agree, we need helicopters now. Bad enough we're using borrowed tanks and our new ones won't be ready until 2011.

    How can CHC Helicopter, a private Canadian company, become a world leader in supplying helicopters for oil platforms and the Canadian Armed Forces gets nada in the same time period. They are not just war toys but necessary for rescue, civil tragedies, patrolling and movement of government and Forces personnel.

    Says a lot for social democratic efficiency and the priorities and effectiveness of our "leaders" for the last few decades.
  67. spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes:

    Place underscores before and after the word "the" to make it work:

    http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/militaryafghanistan/insidethemission.html

    Then Defense minister MacCallum CONFIRMS:

    1) Canada was never asked to send troops to Iraq

    2) Canada was asked to send people to Afstan instead (Chretien did)

    3) Chretiens big "stand" against the US was refusing to VERBALLY endorse the US invasion, and to refuse to let a couple of our ships float around the Persian Gulf.

    The "Chretien Kept Canadians out of Iraq Body bags" is one of the biggest lies of the decade. Funny how the LPC droids still spout it as gospel.
  68. Hairy Wrangellian from Saltspring, Canada writes: Well, I don't think anybody really believes we had the capability to support a serious presence in Iraq, but maintaining some independence from US foreign policy - which had clearly gone off the rails - was the right thing to do.

    And in Afghanistan, under Harper, we are pursuing American goals and American strategies in a futile war. Six years on, and we have made very little progress in actually defeating the enemy, and aren't likely to given the way we are going about it. We know pathetically little about who we are fighting. A year and a half ago I called DND to find out how many people we had who speak the local language in Kandahar, Canadians, not local-hire translators - I had to press and when I finally got answer, it was allegedly 15 (exact number not revealed for 'security reasons' - probably less). Then I asked WHAT the local language was in Kandahar (Pashto), and the press secretary didn't know... staggering... certainly the people in the field do, but that DND Ottawa didn't was shocking.

    Canada has the potential to do good in Afghanistan, but charging around the mountains of Kandahar province in tanks, and calling in American airstrikes, is worse than useless - unless your main goal is keeping the US administration happy.
  69. white wolf from Canada writes: Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: I was a Trudeau supporter in the 70s and am a Harper supporter now. I like strong leaders and Stephen has the traits of a great leader. He will only get better. We have not had a leader of this capability since Trudeau but the partisan posters constantly knock him because they can't think for themselves (must follow liberal party bible).

    I support Harper because he has shown time and time again that he delivers results. He handled the Quebec situation masterfully. I know many pensioners are extremely please with the income splitting. He reduced the GST. He has brokered a cooperative approach with Ontario just yesterday to deal with some of their economic challenges. Results matter to me more than ideology which the liberals cannot seem to let go of.

    In anticipation of some of the obvious next posts...Yes I know...he has a hidden agenda.. what a bunch of boobs.

    ************************************

    need an update? do you like semi-dictatorships? what do you prefer for this country?

    heres another opinion maybe have a look see if any of it applies

    http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6092
  70. PO-D With Politicians from Canada writes: A lot of apparently well informed arm chair generals here today.
    Regardless of drones (armed or unarmed), helicopters, more troops from any NATO nation, the premise of the mission in Afghanistan is seriously flawed.
    This war cannot be won militarily.
    It is genuinely a war about the economic survival of this region of the world, the religious ideology of a culture we do not understand or appreciate and an engrained distrust of many things Western.
    It is not a war about crazy militants and terrorists, though we all agree they do exist here.
    Only strong trade and economic development inititatives undertaken in tightly controlled regions with fully protected perimeters can begin to reverse the psychology of the majority of these people.
    Trade and economic development in return for human rights and tolerance.
    This is one war the better military force cannot win.
  71. PO-D With Politicians from Canada writes: P.S. to my earlier comment that the premise of the mission to Afghanistan is flawed. ...Yes, I absolutely believe the war cannot be won militarily. That doesn't alter the fact I agree fully with those who have stated it is good that we finally have a national leader who provides genuine,responsible direction.
    No,.. he isn't a Bush clone or any other derogatory term some choose to attach to him.
    Stephen Harper and the Conservatives didn't sign Canada up for this war. Now that we are in it, he appears to be following the best possible route for our soldiers. The problem is:"How do we (and all of NATO) get out?"
    The entire military premise must be replaced by one of containment until trade and economic development initiatives can work to replace the broad regional psyche of violence and distrust.
    A Pro-active, aggressive military approach is simply not economically or practically sustainable for Canada. ..We don't have the resources. Attempts to sustain the current approach will only drain our national reserves much the same as has happened in the U.S... In the end there will be little progress on the ground and no progress to change the hearts and minds of most citizens in Afghanistan/Pakistan
  72. Hans Lisowicz from Lethbridge, Canada writes: Harper couldn't dampen my expectations with this announcement as my expectations were dampened with his election. My expectations were further dampened with Halloween Flaherty's income trust trick. This is a leader and a Party that will continue to dampen until we are wet enough to hang them on a clothes line. With this group, which includes Peter MacKay, Canadians now need to read each and every word of what they say very carefully because they are experts of spin. stretch, and illusion. It's a carry over from the Canadian Alliance and Reform heritage from out here in the West that they bring with them, hopefully a bit of the real Progressive Conservative DNA can come to surface and they can be straight forward some day during their rehabilitation period.
  73. Manley or Iggy for leadership of Conservatives get the SPP show going from Canada writes:

    A YEAR LATE AND A DOLLAR SHORT ?

    "As a party, we gave this House the opportunity to support this position last April in an Opposition Day motion.

    Unfortunately, the government and the NDP rejected this proposal at that time and our motion was defeated. "

    " In drafting our proposed motion, we were guided by three simple principles that we thought were lacking from the government’s original motion:

    o The mission must change – we must change the mission so that it is a mission dedicated to training, security and reconstruction;
    o The mission must end – we must have a clear end date to the mission, not a further review date that will lead us down the path of a never-ending mission; and
    o The mission must be about more than the military – there is no exclusively military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan so our efforts must be balanced between defence, diplomacy and development.

    Working with these three principles and a belief in the fact that Canadians deserve greater transparency and accountability when it comes to Afghanistan, we produced our amended motion. "
  74. Manley or Iggy for leadership of Conservatives get the SPP show going from Canada writes:
    Mike Blanchfield , CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen
    Published: Friday, February 16, 2007

    Part of the problem, the report says, is 81 per cent of CIDA staff is based in the Ottawa area -
    The report states CIDA is "essentially established by a paragraph in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act" despite having an annual budget in excess of $3 billion.

    "CIDA has no well-defined and clear mandate with objectives that can be monitored by parliamentarians," the report states.

    Since 1968, CIDA has spent $12.4 billion in Sub-Sahran Africa, but has little to show for it.

    IN 3 YEARS THIS FRICKEN NEO CON REPUBLICANS HAVE ONLY TRIED TO DIG UP PARTISAN DIRT RATHER THAN FIX OR AUDIT REAL TIME EVENTS ! CHEER ON THE TROOPS MCKENZIE ?
  75. Manley or Iggy for leadership of Conservatives get the SPP show going from Canada writes:
    http://www.thestar.com/News/article/296601

    The foreign affairs department, CIDA, the RCMP and corrections officials are represented by a scant 47 civilians spread among the Canadian embassy in Kabul; at Kandahar Airfield, where the soldiers are based; and at a smaller outpost in Kandahar city known as the Provincial Reconstruction Team.

    This is in contrast to the 2,500 Canadian soldiers deployed in Afghanistan.

    CIDA spends about $100 million each year in the country, but controls only 15 per cent of that amount to be spent on projects that are clearly Canadian. The rest is funnelled to organizations such as the World Bank, or to programs run by the Afghan government.

    The report recommends that aid spending should go more toward "direct, bilateral" assistance that addresses the immediate needs of local people, particularly in Kandahar province.
  76. matthew parsons from Canada writes: I just want to know how many anti war posters here made tha same type of comments when the CF was operating in Kabul? How many of the Lib supporters were quiet when we had soldiers killed in Kabul? Why do they want to abandon Afghanistasn after 6 years, but were willing to spend 15 in Bosnia and 20 in Cyprus? And did they make the same defeatest comments when soldiers were killed peacekeeping? Seems very hypocritical, doesn't it?
  77. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: What's hypocritical about supporting peacekeeping but opposing war?
  78. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is a policy created in Washington, D.C. by men such as Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Negroponte. Exactly the same men brought you the war in Iraq.

    It's time Canada created its own policy regarding Afghanistan.

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.