Canada must pull its troops out by 2011, says Ignatieff


Francis2004
#1
So Ignatieff wants us to leave Afghanistan in 2011. It was the original date set for us to leave but it seems we might be asked to stay longer.

Should Canada stay longer, regardless of other NATO country contributions just because the US askes us to ?

Quote:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says Canada should not prolong its military mission in Afghanistan even if U.S. President Barack Obama wants it to do so.

Ignatieff says he intends to press that point to Obama when he meets him in Ottawa on Thursday.



There have been indications Obama will ask Prime Minister Stephen Harper to maintain the Canadian military presence in the wartorn country.



Ignatieff, who was in Quebec City on Tuesday to meet with Mayor Regis Labeaume, said there must be a revision in the strategy in Afghanistan where Taliban and other insurgents have battled NATO forces for six years.

CTV.ca | Canada must pull its troops out by 2011, says Ignatieff
 
talloola
#2
He has no say as to 'when' we pull out of afghanistan, just a statement to buy popularity and later it will bring him votes, it's all politics as usual.
 
Bartleby
#3
Seems he is only reiterating the recommendations of the Manley Report. Is there something wrong with that?

Do you think we should keep our troops there indefinitely? What is your position?
 
Francis2004
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by BartlebyView Post

Seems he is only reiterating the recommendations of the Manley Report. Is there something wrong with that?

Do you think we should keep our troops there indefinitely? What is your position?

Another transplant from Canada.com...

Well let us review the situation.. Nothing wrong with reiterating the Manley report. It however can be amended if all agree.

However IMO no other country has supported much of this effort ( other then the US ) since Canada moved into Kabul. If we are to agree to stay it should be in a totally different role. But at this point I agree Canada cannot handle the cost of being in Afghanistan any further.

Quote:

Afghanistan Compact Benchmarks and Timelines

On 31 January 2006, representatives from 51 countries and 10 organizations 1
helped launch the Afghanistan Compact in London, at a meeting co-chaired by
the United Nations and the Government of Afghanistan. The Compact sets out a
series of critical goals and timelines for Afghanistan in the areas of security,
governance and human rights, and social and economic development for the
2006-2011 period.

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collectio...20-1-2008E.pdf
 
talloola
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by BartlebyView Post

Seems he is only reiterating the recommendations of the Manley Report. Is there something wrong with that?

Do you think we should keep our troops there indefinitely? What is your position?

My position isn't the issue, the issue is he has no power when making that
statement, it is only political and his opinion, and obvious as he is
opposition, if government was against the afghanistan position from the getgo
he then would have taken opposite stance, it's really boring listening to these
politicians, they just posture for popularity but not on honesty.
 
Bartleby
#6
But what is your position on Canadian troops in Afghanistan? You suggest that the leader of the Liberal Party has no right to make a comment, then you criticize his comment and then suggest it is all boring to you

So do you have a position on this at all?
 
shadowshiv
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by SirFrancis2004View Post

Another transplant from Canada.com...



Actually, Bartleby and ParsonManning are one and the same. They are both gone now.
 
darkbeaver
#8
We will need those troops to put down domestic rioting well before 2011.
 
Unforgiven
#9
Yeah politicians posturing, how ordinary.
We should stay until the fight is done. When Afganistan has a government that can provide it's own security and keep the state from slipping back into the terrorist hosting, backward collection of goofs then we're done.

It won't happen until we get off our asses and make it happen. Lord knows the Taliban aren't interested in changing their views on the subject.
 
Nuggler
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

We will need those troops to put down domestic rioting well before 2011.


Gotta go with the Beve on this one.

I'm a tad more concerned about the pay equity law which was in the budget which Iggy supported. Never heard a whole bunch from slick Jack on this, either. Gonna be illegal to protest for pay equity. Big fine. And, of course, pay equity is in the crapper, or will be shortly.

Also, what the Harperites are planning for our water:: Going to allow construction along waterways without any "costly" environmental studies. OK building dams, and so on. No need to clean up after. Ooooooooh, such lovely tailing ponds we're gonna have.

This would apply to the tar sands, BTW.

Where's my links, you ask?? Do some goddam readin and findem. S'all been in the news.

 
Spade
#11
Some additional perspective on Afghanistan, from the NY Times.
Quote:

"The death toll — 2,118 civilians killed in 2008, compared with 1,523 in 2007 — is the highest since the Taliban government was ousted in November 2001, at the outset of a war with no quick end in sight.

Civilian deaths have become a political flash point in Afghanistan, eroding public support for the war and inflaming tensions with President Hamid Karzai, who has bitterly condemned the American-led coalition for the rising toll. President Obama’s decision to deploy more troops to Afghanistan raises the prospect of even more casualties.

The United Nations report found that the Taliban and other insurgents caused the majority of the civilian deaths, primarily through suicide bombers and roadside bombs, many aimed at killing as many civilians as possible.

Taliban fighters routinely attacked American and other pro-government forces in densely populated areas, the report said, apparently in the hope of provoking a response that would kill even more civilians.

But the report also found that Afghan government forces and those of the American-led coalition killed 828 people last year, up sharply from the previous year. Most of those were killed in airstrikes and raids on villages, which are often conducted at night."
 
EagleSmack
#12
I can't say I disagree with Canadian frustrations on this one. I think it is misdirected when pointing solely at the US. I think that other NATO nations sitting on the sidelines as Canadian, US, and British troops do all the fighting is embarrassing. Germany's army is (I am making an assumption here) probably close to double the size of Canada's army and it is far better equipped. They enjoyed NATO's protection throughout the Cold War. I said in another post that the nations US, Canada, and Britain were willing to die by the tens of thousands in Germany if there ever was a war but now the Germans have decided to take a support role.

If things break out in Europe one day perhaps the US and Canada can set up a supply tent in Belgium and support things from there.
 
lone wolf
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

We will need those troops to put down domestic rioting well before 2011.

True.... You don't get much of a fight when you're pooping on seniors and the disabled. When you start breaking unions, you start catching heat.
 
Blackleaf
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by SirFrancis2004View Post


However IMO no other country has supported much of this effort ( other then the US ) since Canada moved into Kabul.

Three countries have more troops in Afghanistan than Canada. The US has 19,950 troops there, Britain has 8,745, Germany has 3,600 and Canada has 2,830.

But, per head of population (with the US population 5 times that of Britain's and the British population twice that of Canada's), Britain has more troops in Afghanistan than both Canada AND the United States (and Germany, but the Germans spend most of their time playing table football and gettind drunk).
 
Blackleaf
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Germany's army is (I am making an assumption here) probably close to double the size of Canada's army and it is far better equipped.

If you include reserve soldiers, then the Canadian Army numbers 35,500 soldiers and the German Army numbers 136,689.

That makes the German Army four times the size of the Canadian Army.

In fact, the German Army, though, is actually slightly smaller than the British Army, which numbers 147,380 troops if you also include the 3,640 Gurkhas.
 
Nuggler
#16
Let me have the Gurkhas. You may have the rest.

Now, you want all the "terrrists" kilt in what, a week. Should be possible.
 
EagleSmack
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Three countries have more troops in Afghanistan than Canada. The US has 19,950 troops there, Britain has 8,745, Germany has 3,600 and Canada has 2,830.

But, per head of population (with the US population 5 times that of Britain's and the British population twice that of Canada's), Britain has more troops in Afghanistan than both Canada AND the United States

No... according to your post the British have 8,745 and the US has 19,950. The British have 11,205 less than the US.

Cut the silly s*** Blackleaf. You can still be proud of what you are doing without cutting others down.

I also don't care if the Germans have more in Afghanistan... they are way up north and out of danger. Three countries are doing all the fighting and the rest are staying out of it.
 
lone wolf
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

No... according to your post the British have 8,745 and the US has 19,950. The British have 11,205 less than the US.

Cut the silly s*** Blackleaf. You can still be proud of what you are doing without cutting others down.

I also don't care if the Germans have more in Afghanistan... they are way up north and out of danger. Three countries are doing all the fighting and the rest are staying out of it.

Stiff upper lip equate to nose out of joint....

Pip pip, tally ho and oll that other rot....
 
Spade
#19
The majority of Canadians ( Approximately 60% Public support for Afghan mission lowest ever: poll) disapprove of the Afghan Mission. Now, we have made a commitment until mid 2011; we must honour that commitment. Nevertheless, if we buy into the myth we're there to support "democracy," we'd better support it at home first. Unless things charge markedly, 2011 is it. Pure and simple!
 
darkbeaver
#20
We haven't made a commitment at all, our lying worthless political class has made it for us without even any discussion of the purpose for the combat in the first place unless you count building schools and fostering democracy, which no one in thier right mind believes anyway. We should cut and run tomorrow and save the weapons and men to fight the capitalist pigs which we will be doing before to long wheather we like it or not. There is absolutely no win in Afghanistan for Canadians just hundreds more dead Canadians and millions of dead civilians if we stay for the big show Obama is setting up the stage for right now.
 
Spade
#21
Blackleaf's Canadian Forces numbers are nonsense. We're at 80 000. There are 60 000 regulars and 20 000 reservists.

CBC News In Depth: Canada's Military
 
Spade
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

We haven't made a commitment at all, our lying worthless political class has made it for us without even any discussion of the purpose for the combat in the first place unless you count building schools and fostering democracy, which no one in thier right mind believes anyway.

There is absolutely no win in Afghanistan for Canadians

Well, yes! That is true!
 
darkbeaver
#23
Does anyone know why we are in Afghanistan? I don't.
 
Spade
#24
But, darkbeaver, our Parliament made that commitment in our name. So, it is a matter of honour. But no tinkering with the date; and no respite for our politicians!
 
Spade
#25
We are there, pure and simple, because Cretien thought it was a way out of a commitment to Iraq. The history is well known. See Janice Stein's book The Unexpected War.
TheStar.com | News | Our role in Afghanistan really about ties with U.S.
 
Tyr
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Blackleaf's Canadian Forces numbers are nonsense. We're at 80 000. There are 60 000 regulars and 20 000 reservists.

CBC News In Depth: Canada's Military


We've increased somewhat in the last couple of yrs. Regular forces are up over 70,000 and the reservists are near 25,000 - must be the economic hardships. The military has always been a "safe" place for employment in tough times
 
Spade
#27
Thanks, Tyr.
 
talloola
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by BartlebyView Post

But what is your position on Canadian troops in Afghanistan? You suggest that the leader of the Liberal Party has no right to make a comment, then you criticize his comment and then suggest it is all boring to you

So do you have a position on this at all?

I did not say he has no 'right' I said he has no power to make a statement like
that, it means nothing, he isn't government, it has no sincerity, just sucking up to voters.
We are not talking our own positions, the topic is 'his' statement.
It doesn't matter what I think, don't want to argue that point, it's off topic.
 
CanadianLove
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Does anyone know why we are in Afghanistan? I don't.

We are there to get control of the drug trade again, or at least get the control out of the Taliban hands. This will deplete their funding.
 
Tyr
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by CanadianLoveView Post

We are there to get control of the drug trade again, or at least get the control out of the Taliban hands. This will deplete their funding.

Huh???? The Soviets couldn't do it, the American's have failed at it and NATO won't touch it. Do we have some untra, super secret weapon or plan that nobody else knows about?
 

Similar Threads

11
US combat troops could leave Iraq by 2011
by dancing-loon | Sep 4th, 2008
no new posts