This should be interesting

[Mogz]

Vote could extend Canada's commitment to Afghanistan by 2 years
Last Updated Mon, 15 May 2006 21:47:46 EDT
CBC News

The Conservative government is planning to move what has been described as a "substantial" motion in the House of Commons, extending Canada's troop commitment in Afghanistan by two years.

* INDEPTH: Afganistan

The current mission is scheduled to end in February 2007, but since coming to power, the Conservatives have told Canadians that they believe the military should stay for the long haul.

The issue has been discussed in the backrooms on Parliament Hill for the past few days. But pressure from the Harper government came to a head on Monday afternoon, resulting in an agreement from all parties for a debate on Afghanistan, beginning Wednesday at 3 p.m. ET.

* INDEPTH: Canada's Military

The debate will last for six hours, and there will be a vote at 9:15 p.m. on extending the mission.

If the vote passes, the mission would be extended to February 2009.

Canada faces pressure

CBC correspondent Paul Hunter reported Monday night that there's "pressure on Canada to make up it's mind shortly.

"If it's going to continue in Afghanistan, the coalition would need to know, so that it doesn't have to line up troops from other countries."

In political terms, the motion could also wipe Afghanistan off the table for the Harper government as a problem in the House of Commons. If he loses the vote, opposition parties could face accusations of being soft on support for Canada's troops; if Harper wins, it effectively removes the issue as something for which the new prime minister could be criticized, since he would have won support in Parliament.

Canada has about 2,300 members of the military stationed in Afghanistan. Most are in Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan, where they are part of a NATO-led mission.

In total, 15 members of the Canadian military have been killed in Afghanistan.

Most recently, four soldiers were killed near Gumbad, north of Kandahar, on April 22, when their vehicle was blown up by a roadside bomb.

 

[bluealberta]

Excellent move. Until Harper is able to increase both the number of soldiers and improve the equipment, we simply cannot be everywhere. As we already have 100 soldiers in Darfur that is enough for now.

As another note, I read another article today that asked why we would be willing to pull our troops out of Afghanistan, where they are preventing Muslims from killing Muslims, to go to Darfur, where they would be preventing Muslims from killing Muslims. Are the Darfur Muslims more important than the Afghan Muslims?

 

[Mogz]

RE: This should be intere

Are the Darfur Muslims more important than the Afghan Muslims?

No. Is Canadian society blind to the facts of the mission in Afghanistan? Yes. Do Canadians instantly place higher stock in a U.N. mission than a NATO mission? Yes. There inlies your answer blue.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Re: RE: This should be intere

Are the Darfur Muslims more important than the Afghan Muslims?

No. Is Canadian society blind to the facts of the mission in Afghanistan? Yes. Do Canadians instantly place higher stock in a U.N. mission than a NATO mission? Yes. There inlies your answer blue.

True, for some reason a UN Mission is somehow more justified, respected then NATO Mission. It was NATO who kept North America safe from the USSR during the Cold War not the UN..

 

[Mogz]

Don't even get me started Johnny....dont...

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: This should be intere

Are the Darfur Muslims more important than the Afghan Muslims?

No. Is Canadian society blind to the facts of the mission in Afghanistan? Yes. Do Canadians instantly place higher stock in a U.N. mission than a NATO mission? Yes. There inlies your answer blue.

Actually, I do place higher stock in a U.N. mission than a NATO mission. But for you to say ALL Canadians do is still a little presumptiuous. Why do I value a UN mission over a NATO one? Because it has the blessing of nearly all the World's nations. A NATO mission could potentially run into more international opposition. A UN mission has international backing on our side. Thus it's more likely to succeed.

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: This should be intere

Are the Darfur Muslims more important than the Afghan Muslims?

No. Is Canadian society blind to the facts of the mission in Afghanistan? Yes. Do Canadians instantly place higher stock in a U.N. mission than a NATO mission? Yes. There inlies your answer blue.

True, for some reason a UN Mission is somehow more justified, respected then NATO Mission. It was NATO who kept North America safe from the USSR during the Cold War not the UN..

Assuming the USSR even had a desire to invade in the first place.

 

[Mogz]

Actually, I do place higher stock in a U.N. mission than a NATO mission. But for you to say ALL Canadians do is still a little presumptiuous. Why do I value a UN mission over a NATO one? Because it has the blessing of nearly all the World's nations. A NATO mission could potentially run into more international opposition. A UN mission has international backing on our side. Thus it's more likely to succeed

Ever hear of the War in the Balkans? Started out as U.N., failed, miserably, NATO took over, mission accomplished. Need I really say more?

 

[Lineman]

Thus it's more likely to succeed.

Rwanda? Success? I'd hate to know your definition of failure.