Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 July
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 March
2007 February
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
My Links
Canadawide
Juan Cole
TPM
Daily Dish
CanucksCathie
E-Group
vanramblings
peace order and good government
Calgary Grit
True North
Gwynn Dyer
Public eye
declan
Sean
Progressive Blogs
Voice in the Wilderness
Tilting at windmills
sec 15
tyee
one damn thing after another
Antonia Zerbisias
Buckets of Grewal
Blank out Times
Accidental Deliberations
Heartlands
Rick Mercer
buckets too
Amazing wonderdog
The Maple Three
The Hive
Cindy Silver 7
Cindy Silver 6
Cindy Silver 5
Cindy Silver 4
Cindy Silver 3
Cindy Silver 2
Cindy Silver
Cindy Silver Sum
Cindy Silver 9
Cindy Silver PR
Cindy Silver (blogs Canada)
Cindy Silver (Blogs Canada 2)
Liberal Blogs
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Liberals roll out substantive Afghan Talking points |
| 10.15.07 (12:59 pm) [edit] |
|
"I think we can't succeed in Afghanistan if NATO is not working," he said. "It can't be the burden of a few countries if you have a coalition of 27 countries," he said. Dion said that every month Canada delays is a mistake that makes it more difficult for NATO to find a replacement for the Canadian mission. Extending the mission indefinitely also threatens the future of NATO because other members will hestitate to participate in missions if they see that a country accepts a two-year mission and ends up staying forever, he said." http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=e7815bd0-e5ac-475 5-874c-d7467897e079&" title="http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=e7815bd0-e5ac-475 5-874c-d7467897e079&" target="_blank"http://www.canada.com/topics/...;k=8910 Wow at long last substantive talking points. The childish and silly “its their turn” has morphed into something much more weighty. It has become the following: If other NATO countries are unwilling to share the economic, political, and military costs of deploying in the South, the mission is doomed. Either way, Canada will leave the south under a Liberal government in 2009. Either because someone else has assumed the burden or no one has and the mission is doomed to fail. |
posted by: Barnabus1 (reply)
post date: 10.15.07 (6:37 pm)
Maybe they think we need one world government...to help make decisions?
posted by: kursk (reply)
post date: 10.15.07 (10:11 pm)
Canada will not be gone from the south in 2009...which brings me to my question..why is it so important for liberals and the left in general to stick to arbitrary timelines when talking about Afghanistan? or any mission?
If there is more work to be done, you would have us leave for ..what?.. what possible good would your statement hold that we are either replaced or we are gone..fait accomplis...?
Just because we have a tough job to do, and are doing it better than anyone else at the moment, should we just leave because it inflames the delicate sensibilities of the weak left in Canada?
The left in Canada would have us in Darfur, where are all your talking points on that issue, what would be our exit strategy there, if we started to take casulties? (and we would..)would you have us bail there as well?
I think i already know the answer..
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 10.16.07 (2:33 am)
>>>> ...which brings me to my question..why is it so important for liberals and the left in general to stick to arbitrary timelines when talking about Afghanistan?
Look the mission was always scheduled to run out in February 2009. So stop trying to impose Republican Iraq war talking points here. They simply do not apply. Moreover, you might as well stop talking about opposition parties in general terms. The Bloc and Liberals want to end in the mission in February 2009. The NDP want to leave ASAP.
>>>>> If there is more work to be done, you would have us leave for ..what?.. what possible good would your statement hold that we are either replaced or we are gone..fait accomplis...?
It is still very much an open question as to just what can be accomplished. So stop blindly assuming that mission is bound to succeed just because you want it to. Indeed all the evidence points in the other direction. Attacks, causalities, abductions and heroin production have gone up every year since 2002. As to your other assertion, are you so lacking in imagination that you could not think of what might be gained by Canada leaving? Let me start you off? Canada is pouring a good deal of treasure and manpower into Afghanistan. At a bare minimum, leaving in 2009 was stop the bleeding. However, there are larger concerns. For one, as the Ontario 18 and various Al Qaeda warnings suggest, our being in Afghanistan makes it more likely that Canada will be attacked. If that is not enough, if Canada should stay on after 2009 and Quebec was attacked after that date, Canada could be torn apart. A huge majority of Quebecers want Canada to leave in February 2009 and if Quebec was attacked after that date, claims that independence is the only means of keeping Quebec from suffering the consequences of Canadian foreign entanglements would quickly find acceptance.
>>>> The left in Canada would have us in Darfur, where are all your talking points on that issue, what would be our exit strategy there, if we started to take casulties? (and we would..)would you have us bail there as well?
Speaking as a political realist I hope Canada would have the good sense to avoid going into Sudan. Canadian interests are not served by our going there.
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 10.16.07 (2:37 am)
Reply to: Barnabus1
Maybe the only way you will comment on something is if some conservative talk radio PT Barnum has told you what to think. Go drink some more Kool Aid.