Extending the Afghan Mission Without Parliamentary Approval?

[wulfie68]

I suppose your faith in parliamentary procedures would be laudable if it had any validity, but I hate to break it to you but we do not live in a free and democratic country any more than Afghanistan does.

Please provide some type of evidence to substantiate your claim. Yes, we essentially elect a form of dictator every 4 or so years (less in a minority) but the reality is most citizens are not interested enough to wade through the minutiae of parliamentary procedures, never mind become truly informed on the issues that are facing the country, that would be required for an Athenian democracy to function. Now couple the fact that we are free to choose our dictator (whichever one the most Canadians want), and there are procedural limitations in place to curb the power of our elected dictators, as FiveParadox states, and that they DO function pretty much as intended (although not always as the opposition parties want).

Now add in that our civil rights (not to mention womens rights), our standards of living, education and general life expectancies are and the above statement about Afghans being on par with Canadians, Americans, Brits or any other western nation becomes laughable.

The whole world is under a corporate dictatorship and democracy is an illusion they allow us while they go about doing whatever the hell they please. But fairy tales are much easier to digest.

Again, is there any evidence to suggest this is any more than paranoia? I'll grant you corporate lobbies are powerful (and even more so in some countries than there are in Canada) but I want proof of the governments being subject to their whim and not that of the electorate.

 

[Praxius]

Related News:

Put Afghan mission extension to vote: Layton
CBC News - Canada - Put Afghan mission extension to vote: Layton

NDP Leader Jack Layton wants a parliamentary debate on extending the mission in Afghanistan to allow MPs and Canadians to "debate the stark choices."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff broke promises on the length of the Afghan mission, Layton said Monday in Ottawa.

There was a vote in Parliament in 2006 and another in 2008 on the Afghan mission and there should be one now, the NDP is arguing.

Layton suggested the government has not acted with honour in the past week as news of the extension surfaced.

"The soldiers have done their fair share with honour," said Layton, adding Canada should be focusing on improving living conditions in Afghanistan.

Canadians will weigh in strongly against the mission extension if it is put before a parliamentary debate, said Layton.

The NDP argues that the extension would be a combat training mission, so it's a military mission in a war zone that is being extended.

Canada's role in Afghanistan will be high on the agenda in Monday's question period, even though NATO has yet to announce firm plans on troop levels and what exactly it wants from Canadian forces.

The Conservative government has been facing international pressure to leave behind military trainers to help address a shortfall in the NATO-led mission.

Reported plans have Canada reducing its current deployment of about 2,700 troops in Afghanistan to roughly 750 military "trainers" and another 250 military support staff. The government has not offered exact numbers.

Layton's right.... as hard as some here may find it to agree with, the last two extensions were put to a vote in the government and for the longest time, Harper preached about how this last extension was set in stone and that this extension was it...... and of course as I've been saying all along, Harper and Iggy back peddle and two-face the whole thing saying that this is somehow different and it doesn't need to be put to another vote.

They won't put this to a vote because they know damn well how much this will expose their lies and they'll hear even more from those the represent then they're hearing right now over this debacle.

It's time the stop using the lame ass excuses of meeting other nation's expectations of us and start to open their damn eyes to what us Canadians think and want..... us Canadians who voted these wankers into the fancy paying jobs they have now.

Our troops already did what was promised they would do..... their mission was extended and our troops did what was promised they would do...... then the mission was extended again and our troops did what was promised they would do........ and here our idiot PM and Iggy are extending it yet again and making our troops do yet even more then what was originally asked of them.

And it's one thing fighting a war that truly needs extension due to meeting an objective almost met..... but since there hasn't been a clear objective in this war since the day it began..... we're only extending our troops presence there and extending the risk of injury and death to our troops with the hopes that sometime down the road, some type of objective will surface that will justify all the sacrifices our troops have made..... but until then, we're just extending their presence there because our NATO allies, whom don't have any better clue in what they're doing over there, continually ask us to stay there.

That's all fine and dandy, but at what time do our politicians actually listen and do what's needed to meet the demands of us Citizens and do what's needed for the best interests of our people, our nation and our troops??

And before anybody comes along and spouts off that all our troops support this mission and wouldn't want to leave knowing their mission was for nothing..... many know their contributions over there, many know they have the support and pride of the majority of Canadians and many families of those who lost loved ones over there are even beginning to speak out against the war and claiming their sons and daughters are fighting a pointless battle.

The other aspect is that most troops won't openly voice concerns against the war they're fighting in, because they're supposed to carry out the orders our government gives them...... they have to do their jobs..... and in turn, we should be doing our jobs of keeping our politicians in check so they don't squander our troops in pointless and aimless wars that only benefit other nations and their greedy agendas.

 

[FiveParadox]

We need to draw, here, a clear distinction between the executive and legislative branches of government.

Granted, this can be a more complicated exercise in a parliamentary democracy, where the executive and legislative branches can sometimes be seen to overlap, but in this particular instance it is worth the discussion to come to a proper understanding. Any contemporary political scientist would define one of the roles of the executive as the supervision of a state's armed forces. In our Canadian context, the executive would be the prime minister and Cabinet (acting through "advice" to the Crown), and the legislative would be the Parliament of Canada.

So, given the broadly-understood role of the executive in political systems, it is the prime minister and Cabinet, exclusively, who may make decisions in regards to Canadian Forces deployments abroad. Let us be equally clear here, though--this does not derail Canada's status as a democracy. The Cabinet can only govern for as long as it has the support of the elected representatives in the House of Commons; our representatives may at any time choose to reject the Government's agenda, or to express non-confidence, in which case the Government would be defeated and other representatives would have the opportunity to change the nature of our intervention in Afghanistan.

The confused statements by the current prime minister have made these clear facts somewhat murky, and he should be very much condemned for the disservice that he has done to the preservation of executive prerogatives; before there is any more confusion, it should be acknowledged by all sides that the executive, solely and exclusively, may decide on deployments, and it is the role of legislators to oversee, but not dictate to, the executive (except in cases where the executive breaches the privileges or supremacy of Parliament).

 

[Praxius]

We need to draw, here, a clear distinction between the executive and legislative branches of government.

Granted, this can be a more complicated exercise in a parliamentary democracy, where the executive and legislative branches can sometimes be seen to overlap, but in this particular instance it is worth the discussion to come to a proper understanding. Any contemporary political scientist would define one of the roles of the executive as the supervision of a state's armed forces. In our Canadian context, the executive would be the prime minister and Cabinet (acting through "advice" to the Crown), and the legislative would be the Parliament of Canada.

So what if it's the government who put to a vote or just the Prime Minister making the decision?

Last I check he and the government are supposed to represent our interests, not the interests of self righteous nations hell bent to fight wars they'll never win..... whom never seem to want to fight a tangible target, but fight an ideal and way of life.

If 50%+ or a far greater majority of the population want our troops to come home and end this crap in Afghanistan, Harper by Obligation to our system of government representation should abide by our demands..... otherwise he's not doing his job and therefore should be replaced.

Making decisions all on his own, regardless of what the country wants isn't democracy, that's a dictatorship..... we don't just vote someone into office just for them to forget all their election promises and the fact that they're supposed to do what we want/need them to do..... they're not elected to have a 4+ year run to do whatever they damn well please.

That sort of BS might work in the US, but it sure as hell shouldn't be happening here.

So, given the broadly-understood role of the executive in political systems, it is the prime minister and Cabinet, exclusively, who may make decisions in regards to Canadian Forces deployments abroad. Let us be equally clear here, though--this does not derail Canada's status as a democracy. The Cabinet can only govern for as long as it has the support of the elected representatives in the House of Commons; our representatives may at any time choose to reject the Government's agenda, or to express non-confidence, in which case the Government would be defeated and other representatives would have the opportunity to change the nature of our intervention in Afghanistan.

That would be all well and good if our Prime Minister wouldn't Prorogue Parliament any time he thinks he's facing a non-confidence vote...... delay in democracy is no democracy at all...... so don't preach to me what Democracy is or isn't.

You use the word "Representative" a lot up there..... yet you seem to explain the above as though these representatives are still separate from the rest of us, in that they still make up decisions they like or are whipped into making...... rather then actually getting feedback from those who voted them into power and actually representing our best interests.

But we all know that's not happening.... instead of our MP's we elect representing our interests, they're in turn forced by their party leaders to vote as they dictate in order to show some stupid image of a "Unified" party...... but a unified party is useless if they're not representing the interests of the public, but just representing the interests of their leader.

The way you explain it, Democracy begins and ends at elections and after the elections are done..... everything else is up to these politicians to make things up and determine what they think is best for us, rather then doing what we want or say is best as a collective.

..... That just sounds like a democratic mockery to me.

The confused statements by the current prime minister have made these clear facts somewhat murky, and he should be very much condemned for the disservice that he has done to the preservation of executive prerogatives; before there is any more confusion, it should be acknowledged by all sides that the executive, solely and exclusively, may decide on deployments, and it is the role of legislators to oversee, but not dictate to, the executive (except in cases where the executive breaches the privileges or supremacy of Parliament).

Funny, I thought the Governor General was the Chief and Commander of our military, not Harper..... and therefore it's the Gov.General who has the final say on what our military does...... regardless of all that, not one single leader of ours, be that the Prime Minister, the Governor General, or the damn Queen herself should be able to just send off our men and women to fight in some pointless war without the overwhelming support of the population.... since it is the population of this country that makes up the military they're sending off to fight in the first place.

 

[Goober]

So what if it's the government who put to a vote or just the Prime Minister making the decision?

Last I check he and the government are supposed to represent our interests, not the interests of self righteous nations hell bent to fight wars they'll never win..... whom never seem to want to fight a tangible target, but fight an ideal and way of life.

If 50%+ or a far greater majority of the population want our troops to come home and end this crap in Afghanistan, Harper by Obligation to our system of government representation should abide by our demands..... otherwise he's not doing his job and therefore should be replaced.

Making decisions all on his own, regardless of what the country wants isn't democracy, that's a dictatorship..... we don't just vote someone into office just for them to forget all their election promises and the fact that they're supposed to do what we want/need them to do..... they're not elected to have a 4+ year run to do whatever they damn well please.

That sort of BS might work in the US, but it sure as hell shouldn't be happening here.

That would be all well and good if our Prime Minister wouldn't Prorogue Parliament any time he thinks he's facing a non-confidence vote...... delay in democracy is no democracy at all...... so don't preach to me what Democracy is or isn't.

You use the word "Representative" a lot up there..... yet you seem to explain the above as though these representatives are still separate from the rest of us, in that they still make up decisions they like or are whipped into making...... rather then actually getting feedback from those who voted them into power and actually representing our best interests.

But we all know that's not happening.... instead of our MP's we elect representing our interests, they're in turn forced by their party leaders to vote as they dictate in order to show some stupid image of a "Unified" party...... but a unified party is useless if they're not representing the interests of the public, but just representing the interests of their leader.

The way you explain it, Democracy begins and ends at elections and after the elections are done..... everything else is up to these politicians to make things up and determine what they think is best for us, rather then doing what we want or say is best as a collective.

..... That just sounds like a democratic mockery to me.

Funny, I thought the Governor General was the Chief and Commander of our military, not Harper..... and therefore it's the Gov.General who has the final say on what our military does...... regardless of all that, not one single leader of ours, be that the Prime Minister, the Governor General, or the damn Queen herself should be able to just send off our men and women to fight in some pointless war without the overwhelming support of the population.... since it is the population of this country that makes up the military they're sending off to fight in the first place.

Chretien ran the country the same way - as a dictatorship - Putin was more than correct when he stated how much power the Prime Minister - at any given time - has immense power.

Our MP's - Lapdogs - Trained in much the same way Pavlov did with dogs - Except PM use the I will not sign your nomination papers etc - Not muck difference.

At least a Congressional or Senate Committee has the power to subpoena and you can bet your bottom dollar - people do not ignore it - Also the power to punish for contempt, lying etc.

Pity that we do not have that. So the US system does have some finer points that when used properly function quite well. Aside from the complete adversarial system that has been in place in Canada and the US on many issues.

 

[Spade]

The mantra for America's (and increasingly, Canada's) wars is "For freedom and democracy" Nice to have that here, Goober!

 

[Colpy]

Five Paradox is batting 1000 on this thread.......

 

[Spade]

CBC News - Politics - Give Afghan mission details: Ignatieff

 

[Colpy]

CBC News - Politics - Give Afghan mission details: Ignatieff

Which is, of course, simply Idiot Iggy trying to get a sound bite by looking tough and demanding answers on a policy.......which he and Rae both have long supported.

There are no details yet, Moron! (I speak of Iggy)

How could there be? We have only just agreed.........now the negotiation and investigation of where, when, how begin...........

Damn, how politicians (of all stripes) disgust me.

 

[Spade]

Five Paradox is batting 1000 on this thread.......

Forum decorum obviates a reply.

 

[Goober]

The mantra for America's (and increasingly, Canada's) wars is "For freedom and democracy" Nice to have that here, Goober!

WE did not have it under each PM from Trudeau forward - Yes it would be nice.

Now Brother you know as well as i do the the Liberals had this as part of their platform - Now they are indignant.

One reason as mentioned by a Senior Liberal would have been to not have announced this policy so they could box Harpers ears politically, with nice sound bites.


Would you disagree with that synopsis of the present BS flying around?


I still prefer my idea of electrified collars, same as for when a dog barks - Internet voting - so when any one of the 308 goes off and spouts dumbs ass remarks - why the whole country could vote - To Shock or not to Shock - That my Dear Watson is critical to the reformation of Canadian Politics.

An Electrifying Idea I would say. I am sure more people would tune into watching the Parliament in session. Waiting ever so patiently - Do he /she get shocked or does he/she not.

Never mind rules of decorum that are not adhered to. Put the ability for the Public to express themselves in the Internet hands. One vote per customer. And along with a minor fee. Funds to pay down the debt.

 

[Cliffy]

Goober that is a shocking idea. I like it.

 

[Risus]

I agree but it doesn't change the fact that Harper is a dictator with small dick syndrome, but ya, we don't have much to choose from.

You IQ is only surpassed by your shoe size.

There WAS an election, you know, and the public gave him a minority government. Your liberal buddies could turf him, you know...

 

[Cliffy]

You IQ is only surpassed by your shoe size.

There WAS an election, you know, and the public gave him a minority government. Your liberal buddies could turf him, you know...

The Liberals are not my buddies, neither are the NDP. What does IQ have to do with calling a dictator a dictator. He is confident that no one will call an election or challenge him because, like you, he knows that whoever forces the next election will lose big time.

We have nobody to vote for to lead this country. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that the ruling elite want it that way? How come nobody of any integrity or moral fiber ever runs for office in this country? Could it be that they are discouraged?

 

[Goober]

You IQ is only surpassed by your shoe size.

There WAS an election, you know, and the public gave him a minority government. Your liberal buddies could turf him, you know...

How did you guess that he has abnormally large feet - Size 120 is what i had heard.

 

[petros]

Size 22 Canoe?

 

[Goober]

Size 22 Canoe?

It was elementary My Dear Friend Petros

Cliify resides in BC and has so for quite some time

Lived in the Bush for a very extended time.

Now the first thing that gets sets aside are some personal grooming habits many of us have - Shaving. That was the Holy Grail.

During the time that Cliffy was in the Bush i went and researched and there was a dramatic increase in sightings of Bigfoot

Now those do not equal the correct foot print as Cliffy was walking on his tip toes so as to confuse those that try to track him

As I mentioned. Elementary My Dear Friend Petros

 

[petros]

I bet ya Bigfoot carries a Bic lighter.

 

[Goober]

I bet ya Bigfoot carries a Bic lighter.

Well if he needs a light do you think anyone would say No????

 

[Cliffy]

How did you guess that he has abnormally large feet - Size 120 is what i had heard.

When did they start using millimeters to measure feet? Although I did not meet any Sasquatches, I did run into a few Gnomes and dragons, but I guess they don't count.