• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Dion's opinions/garble.

midget-boyd91

Sr. Member
Inactive
Reaction score
1
Points
230
Courtesy of Ctv.ca
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080108/libs_afghan_080108/20080108?hub=Politics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political solution necessary in Afghanistan: Dion

Updated Tue. Jan. 8 2008 2:47 PM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Liberal Leader Stephane Dion says Canada must "remain engaged'' in Afghanistan but at the same time give its military the flexibility to deploy elsewhere.

In his party's submission to a panel studying Canada's role in the war on terror, Dion says a decision to withdraw from combat "does not represent an abandonment of Afghanistan.''

He repeated his position that Canada should notify NATO immediately that it will end its counter-insurgency operations out of Kandahar as scheduled in February next year.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has appointed a former Liberal cabinet minister, the hawkish John Manley, to head a blue-ribbon panel to study the issue and recommend a way forward in Afghanistan.

The panel is to report by month's end; Harper has said he will bring the issue to a Commons vote by spring.

Dion says any military role to which Canada commits must allow Afghans themselves to achieve a political solution to their problems.

He says Canada's efforts in Afghanistan should include diplomatic and development efforts and a "potential continued military presence.''

He says his Liberals are open to other possible military roles in Afghanistan, including training the Afghan National Army and police, protecting Afghan civilians or spearheading reconstruction efforts.

But Dion says the party "will not accept the simple re-branding of the current combat mission as a training mission.''

"Any new military role must be crafted in such a way as to ensure that other significant Canadian Forces deployments in other parts of the world are possible,'' he wrote.

Canada must also call for "an immediate, NATO-wide solution that ensures that detainees are not transferred into a situation where they could face torture,'' the submission says.

"This may require the construction and maintenance of NATO holding facilities completely under the control and supervision of NATO personnel.''

He said the Conservative government must show greater commitment to accountability and transparency with regard to the mission.

"They must abandon the practice of abusing the excuse of national security to withhold from the public politically embarrassing information,'' he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In his party's submission to a panel studying Canada's role in the war on terror, Dion says a decision to withdraw from combat "does not represent an abandonment of Afghanistan.''
Really? Maybe he should try telling that to the Afghans who will be slaughtered by the Taliban should Canada leave Kandahar.

Dion says any military role to which Canada commits must allow Afghans themselves to achieve a political solution to their problems.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there already assets in place to help with the political situation? Oh yes, thats right, the ones who write speeches for the Afghan government to deliver in parliment.

He says his Liberals are open to other possible military roles in Afghanistan, including training the Afghan National Army and police, protecting Afghan civilians or spearheading reconstruction efforts.

But Dion says the party "will not accept the simple re-branding of the current combat mission as a training mission.''
Methinks he just contradicted himself a wee bit there. I also wonder if he knows about the OMLTs?[I think that's the correct acronym] or operations like Operation Causeway?

Canada must also call for "an immediate, NATO-wide solution that ensures that detainees are not transferred into a situation where they could face torture,'' the submission says.
.... oh, come on. Torture can happen ANYWHERES on that side of the globe, not just in a cell. Stopping the detention of anyone because there is the possibility that torture could take place makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't it?
I wonder what he would define as "torture" anyways? Does slapping someone around a bit count? If it does then there's a lot of torture happening all over Canada. Maybe he should call for the government to pass a bill guaranteeing that youth will not be subject to torture on school grounds by bigger people demanding lunch money.

"They must abandon the practice of abusing the excuse of national security to withhold from the public politically embarrassing information,'' he said.
Translation: "To hell with national security, we need stuff we can milk to gain some votes."

National security isn't a joke. If something is being withheld due to threats to our national security.... keep it away from the publics eyes and ears.

midget
 
Well if he wants the flexibility to deploy elsewhere he should(if comes to power) give the military some more money so that it can expand.
 
Future_Soldier said:
Well if he wants the flexibility to deploy elsewhere he should(if comes to power) give the military some more money so that it can expand.

Expansion is an issue that cant be fixed with money alone. Money doesnt buy experienced NCOs and Officers to teach new recruits. You can build all the classrooms you want with money but if you dont have anyone to teach its all for not.
 
Well, Darfur sure looks out:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/64763/post-659474.html#msg659474

Mark
Ottawa
 
I would not simply discount Dion's policies, he has a very qualified advisor on the matter, someone who works for DND and has tought CF Officers, his wife, Janine Krieber.   
 
stegner said:
I would not simply discount Dion's policies, he has a very qualified advisor on the matter, someone who works for DND and has tought CF Officers, his wife, Janine Krieber.   

I work for DND and i have taught CF officers. Does that make me qualified to advise on policy ?
 
Most assuredly CDNAVIATOR you are qualified to discuss certain military matters, including strategies on Afghanistan, which have merit, though perhaps not as much as your vast knowledge of flight and being super cool.  What I meant to emphasize is that Dion's wife is an internationally renowned security expert and has considerable knowledge on the Afghanistan file.  Cheers.
 
stegner said:
.... he has a very qualified advisor on the matter, someone who works for DND and has tought CF Officers, his wife, Janine Krieber. 
Being an academic at a military college does not make one even a semi-qualified adviser on defence, security or foreign affairs.

stegner said:
What I meant to emphasize is that Dion's wife is an internationally renowned security expert and has considerable knowledge on the Afghanistan file. 
So, if she is advising, why is he not able to put together a coherent & complete proposal/recommendation?
 
This link appeared as part of a google alert in my inbox. I thought the article was a well written response to Dion's drivel.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=379a88ea-5fb7-44f4-aedd-ffab1e14f3be

Enjoy,

CAW
 
Sorry for going against the Conservative grain on the site here.  But what exactly is Harper's policy on Afghanistan?   How is it any more coherent than Dion's? Harper is such a strong leader that he has appointed a commission to decide Canada's policy on Afghanistan, chaired by John Manley a former Liberal Deputy PM and among others, my personal favorite being Pamera Wallin of CTV fame.  Clearly the cream of the crop on this matter.   http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/10/12/afghan-panel.html ::)   Sorry for not wanting to blindly follow, but this PM is not any more of a leader than Dion, given such activities.  So instead of going after Dion who is not in government, perhaps we could critique the policies of Harper on the matter.
 
stegner said:
But what exactly is Harper's policy on Afghanistan?  How is it any more coherent than Dion's?

An almost incomprehensibly stupid question!  In Canada we have this funny little tradition called the "Speech from the Throne" where the government lays-out it's policy ... maybe you haven't heard of it?

...  Nowhere is Canada making a difference more clearly than in Afghanistan. Canada has joined the United Nations-sanctioned mission in Afghanistan because it is noble and necessary. Canadians understand that development and security go hand in hand. Without security, there can be no humanitarian aid, no reconstruction and no democratic development. Progress will be slow, but our efforts are bearing fruit. There is no better measure of this progress than the four million Afghan boys and two million girls who can dream of a better future because they now go to school.

The Canadian Forces mission has been approved by Parliament until February 2009, and our Government has made clear to Canadians and our allies that any future military deployments must also be supported by a majority of parliamentarians. In the coming session, members will be asked to vote on the future of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. This decision should honour the dedication and sacrifice of Canada’s development workers, diplomats and men and women in uniform. It should ensure that progress in Afghanistan is not lost and that our international commitments and reputation are upheld.

Our Government does not believe that Canada should simply abandon the people of Afghanistan after February 2009. Canada should build on its accomplishments and shift to accelerate the training of the Afghan army and police so that the Afghan government can defend its own sovereignty. This will not be completed by February 2009, but our Government believes this objective should be achievable by 2011, the end of the period covered by the Afghanistan Compact. Our Government has appointed an independent panel to advise Canadians on how best to proceed given these considerations. ...

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2888/
 
Yeah he mentions the commision that he made Manley the chair and Pamela Wallin a members.  Wicked sweet! That sir, is not a policy.  Harpers throne speech is a continuation of the status quo of the policies implemented by the Liberals and has lots of political platitudes but no real plan.  When you find a good plan of substance proposed by the Conservatives get back to me.  A plan of substance would look like something that General David Howell Petraeus has implemented in Iraq.
 
stegner said:
Yeah he mentions the commision that he made Manley the chair and Pamela Wallin a members.  Wicked sweet! That sir, is not a policy.  Harpers throne speech is a continuation of the status quo of the policies implemented by the Liberals and has lots of political platitudes but no real plan.  When you find a good plan of substance proposed by the Conservatives get back to me.  A plan of substance would look like something that General David Howell Petraeus has implemented in Iraq.

No, it's the establishment of a body of respected public figures who will make a thorough enough analysis of the current situation and the future alternatives, thus allowing the government to actually have a valid foundation upon which to build a real policy- not reactionaryism based on public opinion polls, but something based on what the commission determines will actually work. Moreover, it's not necessary to make a new policy every other week- in some cases what's necessary is to allow the current approach sufficient time to continue bearing fruit. These things are simply not accomplished in a scant handful of years. We're in this for the long run if we want to maintain a semblance of integrity in the field of international conflict and the development following thereunto.
 
My contention is that some of these respected public figures and partisan appointments do not have the capability to make a thorough analysis.  What is wrong with appointing some old soldiers and foreign affairs people to this commission?  I would take Lew Mackenzie or Romeo D'Aillaire over Pamela Wallin any day.  By the way Petraeus  went against public opinion.  The American people wanted out of Iraq and he told Congress that that would not work and to put more soldiers in.
 
stegner said:
Yeah he mentions the commision that he made Manley the chair and Pamela Wallin a members.  Wicked sweet! That sir, is not a policy.  Harpers throne speech is a continuation of the status quo of the policies implemented by the Liberals and has lots of political platitudes but no real plan.  When you find a good plan of substance proposed by the Conservatives get back to me.  A plan of substance would look like something that General David Howell Petraeus has implemented in Iraq.

If you read that excerpt and can't understand that:
1.  The current CF mission is authorized by parliament until Feb. 2009;
2.  further deployment will be the subject of a vote in parliament;
3.  that is expected that they will continue to need our help until 2011; and,
4.  the government is setting-up a committee to determine in what specific from we should best provide that help,

then you are an idiot!

Dion had a policy of total withdrawal, however this latest nebulous idea of "remaining engaged" is a naked appeal to populism and not a policy in any way, shape or form.  The fact that you don't like the people on the committee (you know, the one that the policy said would be created) does not change the fact that it is a part of the policy in action.

stegner, do you work for the Liberal party?
 
stegner said:
I would take Lew Mackenzie or Romeo D'Aillaire over Pamela Wallin any day.
Then perhaps you should read the article linked below (Mackenzie's take on Dion's various "policies").

By the way Petraeus  went against public opinion.
And Dion shamelessly panders to it ...
 
Total withdrawal would mean that Canadian Forces would be pulled out completely from Afghanistan.  Dion has not said that-note his meeting today with Karzai.   Have a look at the Constitution Act, 1867 and the National Defence Act, CF deployments do not require the consent of Parliament, they require the consent of the Governor-in-Council, MND and CDS, so your points 1 and 2 are immaterial.   Again, I do not know why you don't want more qualified people on the committee I take that very seriously, because lives are at stake.  Exactly my point on Lew he should have been on the committee not Wallin.  In the event of Dion's policies being blind populism, democracy is driven by populism.  Last time I checked Canada was a democracy. I do not work for the Liberal Party, I just don't see why people on this site give the Conservatives a free ride.  
 
stegner said:
I just don't see why people on this site give the Conservatives a free ride.  

Let me see...They support us (military), they don't cancel a contract for helicopters that we need anyway...

Maybe we should have Dion give us a speech live from Afghanistan.  Wait can't do that, it's way too dangerous.  People get shot over there.  For the people that are still debating if we need to be there or not, let me analyse you this in one minute.

If you can die from walking or driving in the city streets from a road side explosion.  If a woman can be shot right on the spot by any man without consequence.  The list goes on...  Well, someone needs to do something about it.  In this case it's us, Canada.  So we have one leader that says we need to do something and the other one is trying to find an elegant way to get out.

Military personnel have taken an oath to protect the weak and innocent.  That's what we do.  We don't need anyone to support us, we will do it anyway. (Still nice when we get support, but it's not a requirement).

Edited:  Looks like Dion went there...my bad.
 
stegner said:
Harpers throne speech is a continuation of the status quo of the policies implemented by the Liberals and has lots of political platitudes but no real plan.  When you find a good plan of substance proposed by the Conservatives get back to me. 
Actually, many "Liberal" policies were continuations of policies implemented by the Progressive Conservatives under Brian Mulroney.  The one thing that most parties have is to spin their "positions" as their own.  The Conservative Party of Canada is no different in that regard.  In my opinion, they are far from perfect; however, they do have the most effective leader (in my opinion) of the major federal parties.
 
Back
Top