PDA

View Full Version : Liberal Party wants to extend Afghan mission?



moahunter
05-06-2010, 08:27 PM
Well it would if Bob Rae, the shadow foreign affairs minister, had the final say:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/819009--stephen-harper-rebuffs-talk-of-afghan-role-after-2011?bn=1


PARIS—Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Friday closed the door on suggestions from opposition MPs that Canada should continue to have a military presence in Afghanistan past the pullout date of July 2011.

The Liberal party started the Afghan mission, so is this why they want to stop Harper from ending it? Perhaps an appeal from Obama (just like they consented to original appeal from Bush)?

Sort of odd that our Liberal party is more hawkish on the war than our Conservative party. Or is this just Rae sabotaging Ignatieff?

jagators63
05-06-2010, 08:36 PM
past august 2011 is a waste of money that we cannot win the war there. Russia have warned Canada and usa and even Europe that we can't defeat taliban there because too many of them from Iran, syria, and many arabs countries willing to fight on and won't give up till americans is out of the country.

bobinedmonton
06-06-2010, 09:08 AM
Another reason not to elect Bob Rae. His government destroyed the Ontario economy when it was in power, now he has national aspirations.

JasonR
07-06-2010, 08:42 AM
First they bring us in, then they demand that we get out....now they want us to say. The Liberals can't get it straight. No surprise considering their leadership.

Marcel Petrin
07-06-2010, 01:08 PM
Canada really does need to clarify it's position in Afghanistan after 2011. Are we staying behind to train but keeping out of combat roles? How many soldiers does that entail? Or is it civilian police only?

Harper diffused the issue by picking the 2011 end date, but I think that when he chose that strategy he was pretty sure he'd have a majority government before then and could have changed tack or at least fleshed it out better. As it stands there's very little advantage to him to even acknowledge Afghanistan as an issue, because it's fairly unpopular with most Canadians.

I think we should stay at the very least in a fairly beefy training role. It would seem a colossal waste to have fought there for nearly 10 years only to pull out when progress is FINALLY being made now that the US has it's eye on the ball.

abaka
07-06-2010, 01:40 PM
The war will not end until you people get tired of crying over your heroes' corpses.

moahunter
07-06-2010, 02:27 PM
Harper diffused the issue by picking the 2011 end date, but I think that when he chose that strategy he was pretty sure he'd have a majority government before then and could have changed tack or at least fleshed it out better. As it stands there's very little advantage to him to even acknowledge Afghanistan as an issue, because it's fairly unpopular with most Canadians.
I don't think the Afghan situation is that popular with the Conservatives. They don't take the credit for it (as wasn't their decision to go). The big issue though is the impact on the military, it is a drain that is hard to sustain. The military needs new capital equipment (especailly the Navy) and better arctic capabilities, ending Afghanistan will free funds and personnel for more focus on that. Many of the goals the conservatives had, especailly re the North, have been virtually impossible with so many solidiers and top minds tied up in Afghanistan, or training for the next deployment.

JasonR
07-06-2010, 02:30 PM
Harper diffused the issue by picking the 2011 end date, but I think that when he chose that strategy he was pretty sure he'd have a majority government before then and could have changed tack or at least fleshed it out better. As it stands there's very little advantage to him to even acknowledge Afghanistan as an issue, because it's fairly unpopular with most Canadians.
I don't think the Afghan situation is that popular with the Conservatives. They don't take the credit for it (as wasn't their decision to go). The big issue though is the impact on the military, it is a drain that is hard to sustain. The military needs new capital equipment (especailly the Navy) and better arctic capabilities, ending Afghanistan will free funds and personnel for more focus on that. Many of the goals the conservatives had, especailly re the North, have been virtually impossible with so many solidiers and top minds tied up in Afghanistan, or training for the next deployment.

I think that the arctic has a lot to do with this. Canadian military power is going to be reallocated to address that issue. And quite frankly, it's a more important issue, IMO.

abaka
07-06-2010, 02:55 PM
The CPC's attempts not to wear a "mission" they extended twice are laughable and show them up for the dregs they are.

moahunter
07-06-2010, 03:24 PM
The CPC's attempts not to wear a "mission" .
Almost as laughable as Bob Rae's attemts to have the Liberal party "wear it", and "extend it" :-) lol!

I think the Afghan mission has been useful for the military, they have learned and modernized a lot, but the learning isn't so great now. Just tired of it. Time to call it a day, which is what the Conservatives have said they will do.

yellowracer
04-07-2010, 01:29 PM
so does are economic future have anything to do with being overseas
I think the army being there brings in more money to Canada than it uses
I think the trade agreement we have made in the last 10 years has been because we are overseas