2006 Parliamentary Debate on AFG Mission

[Old Sweat]

As we used to say about the generals in the old army when they made a stupid statement or a boneheaded decision, one never knew if they were drunk or stupid. To Mr McCallum's credit, he was able to overcome his drinking problem a few years ago.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

:rofl:

 

[vonGarvin]

McCallum is a revisionist, pure and simple.
WEEKS of pre-ISAF meetings?  With whom?  Remember how that one came out of left field, mere months after saying "we dont' have the resources to replace the 3 PPCLI battlegroup in Khandahar"?  Also remember that JC and the boys were flip flopping on Iraq, sending mixed signals to the US in the months leading up to OIF to the point that the US didn't know if we were coming or going?  Remember how rushed the deployment was to the point that vehicles were taken off BTE, shipped to Montreal for a rudimentary check prior to sending to Kabul?  Remember the RUSH RUSH RUSH to get us over there so that we could option ourselves OUT of any participation in OIF?  Remember that our "official" opposition to OIF began ONLY AFTER our commitment to ISAF was firm?  Remember our politicians BEGGING to lead ISAF?  Remember the General (I forget his name) resigning after the announcement because ISAF wasn't even on the radar prior to the sudden announcement by the government to send TWO THOUSAND soldiers, sailors and airmen to ISAF?  Don't forget, 3 PPCLI battlegroup was only a few months back on the ground after saying we couldn't replace those some 900?
The Conservative Party had supported the current mission to Khandahar when in opposition.  They are elected and SUDDENLY this is a neo-con plot to support OIF indirectly.  This stinks.  I think I'll buy a flag pole, put it in my front yard, put the Canadian Flag up there proud and strong.  Next to it, in a pile of manure (of which I have plenty: I have a hobby farm with a manure-producing young calf out there), I will put a banner of the liberal party and burn it nightly.
By the way, my flag will fly 24/7, properly illuminated in periods of darkness (which I believe is the proper protocol)

 

[McG]

The whole thing stinks of political manoeuvring by the LIBERAL senator Dallaire.  The argument *for* his beloved mission in Darfur applies equally to our current mission in Afghanistan. 

I believe that was intentional on his part.  He does say to stay the course in Afghanistan & do the Sudan.

However, his comments about the inappropriateness of the Prime Minister's actions could be just as easily applied to members of other parties.

Was this not the second Parliamentary debate on the Op ARCHER mission (a mission which is now almost one year old and was not debated until following the deployment of roto 1)?

 

[vonGarvin]

Just in case you were wondering how the respective members of the house voted on the 2 year extension, go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/025_2006-05-17/han025_2220-E.htm#Div-9

 

[Brad Sallows]

How is it these people can (or claim to) remain so profoundly ignorant of current affairs that they can't step into the House with an argument pro or con (and perhaps both) prepared in their mind, together with a provisional decision whether a motion is worth supporting or not on its own merits?  Did McCallum go in there to be persuaded, to persuade, or to simply register a vote of protest?  And why, if they are so ignorant, do we continue to grant them so much power?

 

[Edward Campbell]

How is it these people can (or claim to) remain so profoundly ignorant of current affairs that they can't step into the House with an argument pro or con (and perhaps both) prepared in their mind, together with a provisional decision whether a motion is worth supporting or not on its own merits?  Did McCallum go in there to be persuaded, to persuade, or to simply register a vote of protest?  And why, if they are so ignorant, do we continue to grant them so much power?

Too true!  As Pogo said: ”We have seen the enemy, and he is us!”

We are the problem because we elect these clowns; we bitch and moan between elections but we trudge back to the polls and vote for them again, and again, ad infinitum.

Mr. McCallum isn’t a stupid man or even a dishonest one; he’s just ‘playing the game’ according to the ‘rules’ which have been in place since, at least, I was a small boy.  These ‘rules’ were validated by Messers. Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien, Martin and Harper – one party is as bad as another – and are supported by Graham, Duceppe and Layton, too.

When I want games I can always watch the Oilers (it’s next year, again, for us Senators fans); when I watch parliament I want ideas, options and, finally, sound decisions.  I am being cheated.  Mr. McCallum and his colleagues, including Harper and O’Connor, are taking my money under false pretenses: they promised to govern (and offer alternatives) for the greater national good; they act only for their own narrow, partisan purposes.

This is an apolitical rant: Tories and Liberals, Blocistes and NDPers too are all equally blameworthy – 90% of each party are cheap, ward heeling, worthless party hacks.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

How can McCallum squall about not having enough time to prepare a debate?  ???  IT WAS HIS FRIGGIN IDEA!  If anyone should have been informed and prepared to argue, it should have been him.  This is just another shining example of how much disdain and disrespect the Lieberals have for the citizens of this country. 
"OOOO, look Canada, shiny baubles, pretty mirrors,  OOOO, ya want 'em, you need to believe us,  MMMM, really pretty!"

Can anyone Photoshop the heads of the Lieberal front runners onto the below posted photo?  Because that's what that party is:  a bunch of Jackasses in a run away cart going down hill fast.

 

[C/10]

"OOOO, look Canada, shiny baubles, pretty mirrors,  OOOO, ya want 'em, you need to believe us,  MMMM, really pretty!"

Can anyone Photoshop the heads of the Lieberal front runners onto the below posted photo?  Because that's what that party is:  a bunch of Jackasses in a run away cart going down hill fast.

ROFLMAO

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is from today’s Globe and Mail; it is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060525.wafghanistan0525/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

Afghan exit strategy involves staying put until 2009: O'Connor

CHRIS MORRIS

Canadian Press

FREDERICTON — With the casualty toll mounting in Afghanistan and public support wavering, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says the Canadian government's exit strategy from the war-torn country involves staying put until 2009 and then reviewing its options.

Mr. O'Connor was in the Fredericton area Thursday to visit nearby Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, but his goodwill visit to the training base was overshadowed by reports of a roadside blast north of Kandahar that injured five Canadian soldiers and an Afghan interpreter.

Mr. O'Connor likened Canada's commitment to Afghanistan to contract that must be honoured until it expires.

“People ask me about an exit strategy,” Mr. O'Connor said. “With NATO, we have what I would call a contract. We're about to go to NATO — based on the vote in Parliament — to say we will be in Afghanistan until February 2009. Then we'll make a judgment as to whether we continue in Afghanistan, downsize, upsize, leave or whatever.”

Canada currently has about 2,300 troops in Afghanistan. Parliament voted recently to extend the mission to 2009. The vote passed by a narrow margin.

Meanwhile, Mr. O'Connor said recruitment for the Canadian Armed Forces remains a struggle.

While Canada can maintain its commitment to Afghanistan without difficulty, it has no military might to spare if another major mission arises.

“We can maintain Afghanistan into the future as long as you can imagine at this size,” Mr. O'Connor said during his visit to the sprawling base.

“Our challenge is to undertake an equivalent-scale operation somewhere else in the world at the same time. If other crises arise on the planet we can address them, but we would be greatly challenged to have an army force the size of Afghanistan.”

Canada is already under pressure to send forces to Sudan, where the United Nations sent a team Thursday to prepare for a peacekeeping mission.

Last week, the UN Security Council resolved that a large UN force should take over peacekeeping in Darfur from the under-equipped African Union mission that has failed to end a three-year conflict. But Sudan has long resisted allowing UN peacekeepers into Darfur.

Romeo Dallaire, the former commander of the UN peacekeeping mission during the Rwandan genocide of 1994, has said Canada should send 1,500 troops into Darfur, or at least contribute 500 soldiers to a UN rapid-reaction brigade already operating in Sudan.

“Canada's role is to get off its butt and to do something and continue the effort that Prime Minister Paul Martin started when we went over and we decided to reinforce the African Union,” Mr. Dallaire said.

But Mr. O'Connor said he does not believe Canada will be called upon to help settle Sudan's civil war.

“Indications from the UN are they're not going to ask us to send large numbers of troops,” he said. “They want the Africans to do it.”

Mr. O'Connor said the Canadian military will launch an aggressive recruiting campaign this fall.

He said he wants to increase the Armed Forces by a total of 23,000 troops — 13,000 more in the regular forces and 10,000 in the reserve.

However, he said the forces lose about 5,000 people every year, so as many as 8,000 a year have to be recruited to start building the numbers.

“The biggest problem in training is we don't have enough staff to train the recruits,” he said.

“That was caused by downsizing in the 1990s. Today, we are missing many sergeants, warrant officers and junior officers who should be in the training system. It is taking effort to overcome.”

First, it is good to see that O’Connor does understand the major speed-bump on the road to rebuilding the army.

Second, I think that LGen Leslie was and still is right when he says this will be a 20 year mission.  I agree we should reassess our position in 2009; we should reassess in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and so on, too.  O’Connor should not suggest that 2009 is any kind of end date – it is, simply, the year which Parliament has agreed should be the term of the current mission.  O’Connor is correct when he says that in 2009 the government of the day will have to decide to “… continue in Afghanistan, downsize, upsize, leave or whatever.”  but I think he was being too cute by half and I think too many people will focus on a promise to withdraw in 2009.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Last week, the UN Security Council resolved that a large UN force should take over peacekeeping in Darfur from the under-equipped African Union mission that has failed to end a three-year conflict.

No it did not.  It merely voted for planning.  Why can our media not report accurately?  Do they even want to?

The resolution only says:

concrete steps should be taken to effect the transition from AMIS to a United Nations operation

accelerate transition to a United Nations operation

See this guest-post at "Daimnation!"

"Darfur: Another reason not to trust "Canada's National Newspaper"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006516.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[zipperhead_cop]

"Romeo Dallaire, the former commander of the UN peacekeeping mission during the Rwandan genocide of 1994, has said Canada should send 1,500 troops into Darfur, or at least contribute 500 soldiers to a UN rapid-reaction brigade already operating in Sudan.

“Canada's role is to get off its butt and to do something and continue the effort that Prime Minister Paul Martin started when we went over and we decided to reinforce the African Union,” Mr. Dallaire said."

When is this two faced has-been going to get a butt stroke to the grill to shut him up?  I think someone has some ghostly Rwandan faces in his nightmares, and a bit of self recrimination. 

And can someone please explain why the next UN inspired mission ABSOLUTELY HAS TO  be manned by Canada?  ???  Seems for all the anti-American rhetoric that gets thrown around, the Lieberals really want us sticking our noses into a lot of places.

 

[North Star]

Didn't he flip-flop on this issue? I remember before an election (either this last one or the one prior when the Liberals were reduced to a minority) he was fending off MPs on the government's behalf by saying The Sudan was an African problem.....

Maybe somebody should look up his comments on this, and take him to task...

 

[MarkOttawa]

Dallaire...has said Canada should send 1,500 troops into Darfur, or at least contribute 500 soldiers to a UN rapid-reaction brigade already operating in Sudan.

I have searched the web and can find no mention that UNMIS has any such thing as a "rapid-reaction brigade".

I don't think Dallaire has any idea what he is talking about.  The UN force for Southern Sudan (UNMIS) has the following strength, May 2006:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/bnote.htm#unmis

"troops 8,034; military observers 635; police 596; international civilian 671; local civilian 1,242; UN volunteer 99"

This is from the UNMIS site:
http://www.unmis.org/english/military.htm

"Of the 10,000 peacekeepers, there will be 750 UN Military Observers (UNMOs), who will carry out monitoring and verification activities in their respective areas of responsibility.

Of the 10,000, approximately 4,000 peacekeepers will make up a protection force, which will be responsible for protecting UN staff, equipment, and installations as well as helping Sudanese authorities to protect any civilians who come are in imminent danger.

Another 4,000 peacekeepers will be involved in administrative and logistical support activities, along with demining and reconstruction work."

If the protection force's main duty in protecting UN assets it can hardly be a rapid-reaction force.  Helping Sudanese in only a secondary function. 

The reporter, Chris Morris of CP, should do a little more work before taking Sen. Dallaire's statements at face value.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Hot Lips]

How can McCallum squall about not having enough time to prepare a debate?   ???  IT WAS HIS FRIGGIN IDEA!  If anyone should have been informed and prepared to argue, it should have been him.  This is just another shining example of how much disdain and disrespect the Lieberals have for the citizens of this country. 
"OOOO, look Canada, shiny baubles, pretty mirrors,  OOOO, ya want 'em, you need to believe us,  MMMM, really pretty!"

Can anyone Photoshop the heads of the Lieberal front runners onto the below posted photo?  Because that's what that party is:  a bunch of Jackasses in a run away cart going down hill fast.

You nailed it on the head with your last comments Zipperhead_cop...LMAO ROTFL
:rofl:
HL

 

[North Star]

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2006/05/09/1571083-sun.html

Unlike Peter Worthington, I think Dallaire's opinion on Darfur changes to fit the political bill rather than anything else. When he wasn't a Senator, he advocated intervention. When he was appointed to the Red Chamber, he seemed to back off. Now he's back, convenient considering his party is in opposition.

Nothing would please me more than to intervene and carve a separate state out of the Sudan a la Kosovo. But hey, like paracowboy I know the resources situation all to well..