Earlier this week, the Canadian military was reluctant to reveal how many bullets it has used in Afghanistan because it knows the Taliban reads the Canadian press. An election that centred on this issue would re-energize the Taliban's fanatical zeal, if they figured out that with a rush and push they could help elect a Liberal Party that is campaigning to exchange swords for ploughshares.
Well, for one thing, Mr. Ivison, I doubt they read the National Post, because nobody reads the National Post. You can't wrap dead fish in the National Post--the dead fish complain to much! You can't use it to line a bird cage--parrots refuse to crap on it!
And for another thing, thanks for the free advice, fellas, but no thanks. We learn this morning that France is "hinting" at providing a few handfuls of troops, but not enough and in any case no final decision will be made until after the March HOC vote on the mission extension. These will probably melt away like a french pastry on your tongue the day after that vote is taken.
So lets have an election over Afghanistan and see what shakes out. I would suggest that the collective weight of Canada's Conservative punditocracy will have the same ability to move the public on this issue that it has had for the past couple of years...zero!
Because, remember, if it had been up to this bunch our guys would be dying in Iraq. They like quagmires! The Canadian people know that, and ignore them accordingly.
28 comments:
I agree, Lets get the election going, If the LPC wants to fight an election on a alternative that any person with military training knows is just plain dumb and are going to be more then willing to make public( see the CDS), then lets do it. As much as it pains me to say this, there are only two options here, the CPC with combat and training and the NDP where we leave.
Or the Lib position, which I will type slow for you Kingston: Non combat mission after 2009, either in the same part of the country (if possible) or some other part.
Or go home.
Dion's position is the european position, let others do the fighting while we pick our noses and pretend we're carrying out the UN and NATO mandate.
Dion does come by this naturally I suppose since, let's not forget, he holds french citizenship.
Once upon a time the Liberal Party of Canada could be counted on to take responsible mainstream positions on matters that mattered. Lately, and especially since the ascension of Dion to the head of the party, that is no longer the case. If the Liberals were doing this for short term political gain, that is to say mere posturing, that would be one thing, but Dion clearly means what he says.
Say what you will about the Conservative position but Harper has run circles around Dion on this. The more I see of Dion, the more he reminds me of the hapless Joe Clark.
I would suggest that the collective weight of Canada's Conservative punditocracy will have the same ability to move the public on this issue that it has had for the past couple of years...zero!
And I'm astonished at how desperate they've been....no sophistry, no falsehood, no rationalisation was too hair-brained for them to trot out in service of their manly-man fantasy of glorious wars for the liberation of brown peoples everywhere.
You ever meet any of these conservatives pundits? It's astonishing to note what pasty little sawed-off dweebs most of them are.
Neither party (Libs or PC's) have flushed out a policy that creates a win/win scenario for anyone. The Liberals got us into this mess and the Tories can't get us out (because they don't wish to). What's missing from the debate is an actual DEBATE! If that means we have an election to flush out the parties positions and more importantly, the parties plan for Canadian troops, then I'm all for an election. There is no happy medium on the Afghanistan question. Liberals have to take a stand on it and the reality of the situation on the ground there is that should Canada withdraw to a safe part of the country, who will replace Canada? Thus far, the Liberals haven't answered that question and as an ex Canadian infantry soldier, I'd be very interested in learning who the Liberals expect will replace us.
Dion does come by this naturally I suppose since, let's not forget, he holds french citizenship.
You're the anonymous questionning my heritage on the other thread, aren't you? The one who thinks "french" isn't spelled with a capital "f?"
BCL...the sock-puppeting by Biff is ridiculous. Two comments in this thread alone.
Liberals have to take a stand on it and the reality of the situation on the ground there is that should Canada withdraw to a safe part of the country, who will replace Canada?
The entire premise is flawed. It's in the interests of the regional powers...Iran, Pakistan, India, Russia and China to ensure stability in Afghanistan. NATO should pull out altogether and let them take care of it.
...Well, maybe not the US, since it helped fuck it up in the first place, when it left a power vacuum after the Soviet invasion.
Frances - you make a good point about reminding everyone that this is a UN approved mission.
If this were 1939 BCL would be protesting Canada's participation in WWII. That war took a while but Canada's participation against the forces of evil, Nazi Germany, was the right thing to do. Because of it, we enjoy basic civil liberties like freedom of expression which the Nazis and the Taliban abhor and which Canadians, BCL, Kinsella, and a few others excepted, enjoy.
Because of it, we enjoy basic civil liberties like freedom of expression which the Nazis and the Taliban abhor and which Canadians, BCL, Kinsella, and a few others excepted, enjoy.
The Nazis sock-pupetted a lot, Biff.
My questions are:
1. After 7+ years, why isn't the Afghanistan government, army, police, controlling Kandahar?
2. The Manley Report and Harper are proposing that we police Kandahar until when?
3. Are 1,000 additional troops going to really be enough? 600,000 Russian troops over 10 years were not enough.
According to the U.N., Afghanistan produced 185 metric tons in 2001. Last year, Afghanistan produced 8,200 metric tons. THAT IS A 4400% INCREASE. I guess that is why the report concludes:
"in 2007 Afghanistan produced an extraordinary 8,200 tons of opium (34% more than in 2006), becoming practically the exclusive supplier of the world's deadliest drug (93% of the global opiates market). Leaving aside 19th century China, that had a population at that time 15 times larger than today's Afghanistan, no other country in the world has ever produced narcotics on such a deadly scale."
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/AFG07_ExSum_web.pdf
An election focused on Afghanistan is welcomed by this Liberal.
Well, for one thing, Mr. Ivison, I doubt they read the National Post, because nobody reads the National Post.
except of course, BCL.
Actually, the Taliban read the Toronto Star as it's so friendly to them.
"becoming practically the exclusive supplier of the world's deadliest drug "
Heroin isn't even close to being the "world's deadliest drug".
A good quote from J. Laxer
"The ultimatum is a phony. NATO has 35,000 troops in Afghanistan. Units are arriving and leaving all the time. Shifting a few more troops to the south in time for Harper’s deadline is no big deal, and it won’t be necessary to convince the French, the Germans, the Spaniards or the Italians to send the troops. It will be easy enough to do it with U.S. and British units.
All this posturing is intended to convince Canadians that Harper is standing up to the Big Guys and not simply pandering to the Bush White House." http://www.jameslaxer.com/blog.html
"according to Canwest and Canoe columnists,"
Whats your opinion on National Newswatch?
To me it seem they give prominence to the above mentioned pack and high-lite minor headlines so as to try to damage the Liberals
anyone agree?
"just cause I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me"
NN has a Conservative bias, but its still the best aggregator.
If there's good juicy anti-conservative stuff going on, though, he'll report it.
As ever, the extreme left-leaning media in this country REFUSE to publish or report any news from Af'stan other than who got killed.
Defund the CBC, let it die. Or better yet, load it with correct-wing journalists in order to finally provide BALANCE in the Canadian media. THAT would be worthwhile and arguably better serve Canadians than the filtered left-wing slop we're constantly having shoved down our throats.
lenny,
You said:
"Heroin isn't even close to being the "world's deadliest drug"."
Can you please enlighten the UN and the rest of us...with facts.
"The ultimatum is a phony."
It's all been phony - right from the selection of LieberManley to do his cut & paste job.
MJ,
Strictly speaking he's right. Its probably cigarettes (or alcohol).
ti-guy wrote:
>>It's in the interests of the regional powers...Iran, Pakistan, India, Russia and China to ensure stability in Afghanistan.<<
You know, because two nuclear armed mortal enemies (Pakistan and India) one fundamentalist Islamic nation wanting to join the nuclear club (Iran) one country that invaded Afghanistan and started this mess in the first place (Russia) and one country with no vested interest in middle eastern affairs (China) are totally gonna solve this. I especially like the part about Pakistan and India, you know, because we just know how well those two countries play in the same sandbox.
Are you quite certain you're not on crack?
BCJ,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drugs
reveals more clearly what was ment by the Executive Director of the United Nation Office on Drugs and Crime.
He (Antonio Maria Costa) also wrote in the conclusion of the official aforementioned U.N. report:
"Once again, the yearly Afghan opium harvest may kill, directly and not, over 100 thousand people."
Heroin isn't even in the same league as tobacco and alcohol for causing death. What's more, heroin kills by overdose, and overdoses are mainly the result of it's being illicit and unregulated.
You know, because two nuclear armed mortal enemies (Pakistan and India) one fundamentalist Islamic nation wanting to join the nuclear club (Iran) one country that invaded Afghanistan and started this mess in the first place (Russia) and one country with no vested interest in middle eastern affairs (China) are totally gonna solve this.
Why didn't you just call all of them "wogs" and save yourself the time?
There's nothing that promotes clarity in thinking and urgency of action more than real threats in a neighbouring country and the imperative to protect one's own civilian population and economy, knowing that no one else can help you.
It's certainly more compelling than the opinion of some overfed, poorly-educated and hysterical North American blathering on about existential threats that do not intersect with his or her life in any real sense at all.
Like the Balkans, Afghanistan's instability is due to the convergence of peoples/interests there, which are supported by and played-off against each other among its neighbours. No degree of assuming the "white man's burden" is going to change that...it never has in the past. The British couldn't do it, the Russians couldn't do it, and I doubt it'll work this time either. So far, the only success seems to be the establishment of a narco-state.
Are you quite certain you're not on crack?
Quite certain. Now, lay off the talk radio and opinion passing as history and go read a book, or something. You'd probably be less grumpy if you weren't historically illiterate.
Well said ti-guy
Grumpy, check out
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Game-Struggle-Central-Kodansha/dp/1568360223
or
http://www.amazon.com/Tournament-Shadows-Great-Empire-Central/dp/B000WCTR2S/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202492318&sr=1-1
Warning: many words with multiple syllables
Sorry if the links truncate - but you can go to amazon and search on the titles
The Great Game
Tournament of Shadows
>>Quite certain. Now, lay off the talk radio and opinion passing as history and go read a book, or something. You'd probably be less grumpy if you weren't historically illiterate.<<
As opposed to a spandex wearing wine cooler drinking student of middle eastern affairs who pontificates on the validity of a commentator's observations whilst looking up questionable *facts* from Wikipedia to bolster his pseudo intellectualism.
I'm not making an intellectual argument, I am simply stating facts and am *oh so amused* that you truly believe political instability/civil strife/war on Pakistan and India's doorstep is going to somehow motivate these two countries to defeat the Taliban (you know, cuz there's just like totally no political upheaval in Pakistan that might possibly occupy their time more than neighboring Afghanistan these days) and bring order to Afghanistan. I stand corrected, you're not on crack - more likely crystal meth.
Now where did I put my transistor radio and my white ear plug? Can't make it through the day without ma feeux uf Rutherferd errr John Gorrrrmley, hyuck, radio shoooows! Oopsie, I just PLUM fell outta my ternip truk! Sheeit! Where's maaaa rifle woman????
Just watch the teevee, drink the high balls, play golf, think about your next new car and let the grown ups worry about teh politics.
By the way, Grumpy...I lived in the 3rd World for almost a decade.
Post a Comment