[SprCForr]

This partisan sniping is getting tiring.

The CF was hurting with the cuts in '94. We had just flushed a number of troops in the '92 Force Reduction Program and weren't replacing them. The government was looking for that peace divend in a big way. Normal troop attrition increased a bit due to the burn out from the high operational tempo. The budget relief the government was looking for with the closure of CFE didn't happen. We lost the dollars yes, but not the operational commitment. That shifted to the two Battle Groups and a National support element in FRY. Those operations were not properly funded.

The 90's were a tough time and it should not be pinned to a particular party because they both had their hands in it.

FWIW, IMO to describe Hillier as "deluded" is over the top.

[sasquatch2]

All I know is that the army ran out of boots while the LIBRANO$ were lining their pockets with the atmosphere of entitlement and the sponsorship programme.

[ridenrain]

DerbyX DerbyX:

You sir are dishonest beyond all measure. You hold no such sharp criticism for your beloved Mulroney who did more financial damage to the country then all the rest of the PMs combined and that set the stage for the neccessay actions back in '93.
N'uff said.

Please show me where I defended Mulroney? The last bit I wrote of him called him a liberal in blue. The only time I can think of defending him is when it pisses you libs off, expecially because he's accepted to be the greenist PM.

[Arctic_Menace]

$1:

What.. you don't want a war tacked on to Chretiens legacy? There's more than enough room after the corruption, abuse of power and arrogance that set him apart from other PMs.

You are so full of crap and creampuffs it's unbelievable.

Chretien's war? Sounds to me like someone has issues with the whole thing. And I hope you're not insinuating that this is a hopeless war where we need to leave; because if that were true, that would make you no better than the "cut n' runners" whom from my observations in your discourse, are a topic of discontent.

In case you've fucking forgotten what happened all those years ago, America was attacked, and the entire free world opened their arms and hearts to America.

There was a UN/NATO Sanctioned mission/invasion of Afghanistan. Not for revenge, but because that was were Osama Bin Laden(yeah, remember him?) was rumoured to be hiding. The world joined in and kicked some Taliban ass while looking for Osama.

Chretien didn't do it for himself; grow up.

Chretien kept Canadian troops in the fairly safe North. Pretty much in Kabul and surrounding areas. We were there with just about every other country on the face of the earth that had democracy and a standing army.

Now we all know that Chretien didn't get along with Bush, but regardless, Canada as a country helped America as a country when she needed help.

So please stop with your partisan, biased, snot-nosed, holier-than-thou bullshit.

[ridenrain]

lol.
I'm on record, allong with Iggy and a number of other Liberals, as supporting the NATO action in Afghanistan. I don't think my enthusiasm for the mission could be confused but somehow you managed..
I'm also on record being pissed at the total lack of media or opposition interest on this subject. The Cons were a disorganized mess at the time but the NDP was bribed and the media was in the Libs back pocket. The fact that Chretien committed us into a battle, simply under command of the PMO's office shouls worry anybody, but that fact never gets out. Instead we get some dodge that it was enough that he didn't put us into Iraq also.

Sorry. Afghanistan is now Chretiens war.

[Arctic_Menace]

$1:

The fact that Chretien committed us into a battle, simply under command of the PMO's office shouls worry anybody, but that fact never gets out. Instead we get some dodge that it was enough that he didn't put us into Iraq also.

Who said anything about Iraq? I just told you what happened. Iraq doesn't fit into the equation.

$1:

Sorry. Afghanistan is now Chretiens war.

Uh, no.

[ridenrain]

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

Who said anything about Iraq? I just told you what happened. Iraq doesn't fit into the equation.

$1:

Sorry. Afghanistan is now Chretiens war.

Uh, no.

I just got through reading Derby's post on why we shouldn't be in Afghanistan and it's laced with endless comparisons and straw men. It's a very common diversion and, although to you're credit, you didn't use it, enough do.

I'm afraid it's definately more Chretiens war than Harpers.

[dgthe3]

the war in Afghanistan cannot be attributed to any PM, or any world leader to be honest. It is part of the war on terror. It is NATO's war, not Chretiens, not Harpers, not Bushs, not Blairs, and not any of the other PM's or Presidents in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

From the sounds of things you are upset with the fact that it is was Liberal that sent the troops over there and not a conservative. And did you consider the fact that the lack of opposition could be due to the fact that nearly everybody thought the mission was just?

[bootlegga]

dgthe3 dgthe3:

the war in Afghanistan cannot be attributed to any PM, or any world leader to be honest. It is part of the war on terror. It is NATO's war, not Chretiens, not Harpers, not Bushs, not Blairs, and not any of the other PM's or Presidents in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

From the sounds of things you are upset with the fact that it is was Liberal that sent the troops over there and not a conservative. And did you consider the fact that the lack of opposition could be due to the fact that nearly everybody thought the mission was just?

[Arctic_Menace]

dgthe3 dgthe3:

the war in Afghanistan cannot be attributed to any PM, or any world leader to be honest. It is part of the war on terror. It is NATO's war, not Chretiens, not Harpers, not Bushs, not Blairs, and not any of the other PM's or Presidents in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

From the sounds of things you are upset with the fact that it is was Liberal that sent the troops over there and not a conservative. And did you consider the fact that the lack of opposition could be due to the fact that nearly everybody thought the mission was just?

Fuck dude, I was just about say that. Thanks for stealing my thunder.




j/k

[ridenrain]

No. I'm calling it Chretiens war because it bugs some of you and I'm mad that, after almost 10 years of Liberals running the war, it's now become a media spotlight topic only since the Conservatives took power. Where was Jack or the media when martin was running the war?

If we troll through so many of the Tory attack threads, we get hit for having a double standard. Many say we slag the grits but do the same thing. Let's flip that and pretend that Harper put us in Afghanistan, without a public discussion, time limits, conditions, or a firm purpose. How loud would you little piggies be screaming then?

Right now the libs are desperately trying to distance themselves from the war and dump it all in Harpers lap because that's good politics. They won't succeed because lots of their old guard people are still for it and they can't convince the public to forget that it was Chretien who put us there.

[dgthe3]

I'm for the war and so i don't care who sends our troops there. Couple things in your post I take issue with though, when did we go over to afghanistan? 2001? So thats 6 years, and Harpers been in power since 2006. So the libs ran it for little more than 5 years and the consevatives almost 2. You are close though at almost 10 years of the liberals running the war, off by around 5 years. And I do recall that the recent coverage has been about extending the mission durration. I don't remember but I thought things were supposed to be over by now. Keep the troops over there untill the job is done, sure. I have no problem with that. But facts are facts. The conservative governement has extended the duration of the Afghan mission. If anything that makes our current involvement Harpers war (which it isn't).

But do you think that anyone will want to be associated with a long war? If the positions were reversed as you suggested the politicians would be spreading the same crap. the liberals would indeed blame the conservatives for starting it, and if the liberals were in power the conservatives would blame them for staying

[Scape]

dgthe3 dgthe3:

But do you think that anyone will want to be associated with a long war? If the positions were reversed as you suggested the politicians would be spreading the same crap. the liberals would indeed blame the conservatives for starting it, and if the liberals were in power the conservatives would blame them for staying

Is it really a long war at issue here or the taboo subject of nation building? We have had long term tasks before such as Cyprus, Suez and Yugo and all were a part of the steady progression from simple peace keeping to full blown nation building. NATO is in command of this mission but it has shown itself to be a paper tiger as few nations are ready or willing to ante up to the plate as much as Canada has. It's pretty pathetic when Denmark is our best stand in and they are looking at the exits. The German government has passed overwhelmingly to support a continuation of the mission but the people do not favor this move at all so one must question how tepid that support will really be. I suspect they will end up like Italy and fold as soon as a sizable body count is mustered.

So perhaps you should ask rain, 'Do the supporters of the Harper Government really want to usher in an era of nation building?'

[ridenrain]

Personally, I don't think Canada can sustain the funds or manpower to do more than one small missiion at a time. We're tapped out with Afghanistan, in manpower and political will.
In future, I'd like us to drop much of Africa and explore closer ties with South America. We signed a trade deal with Columbia and I'd like to see us working to stablize that region.

[Chumley]

dgthe3 dgthe3:

the war in Afghanistan cannot be attributed to any PM, or any world leader to be honest. It is part of the war on terror. It is NATO's war, not Chretiens, not Harpers, not Bushs, not Blairs, and not any of the other PM's or Presidents in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

From the sounds of things you are upset with the fact that it is was Liberal that sent the troops over there and not a conservative. And did you consider the fact that the lack of opposition could be due to the fact that nearly everybody thought the mission was just?

I think the lack of opposition was due to people believing we would once again be in a the rear supporting the Americans and British with relatively little risk to our troops.
Opposition started to appear when our role got tougher.