Oh, yes, I know the quotes are old, they've been close mouthed since they've been in power and have even moved to limit the power of the press to report; we can't have those body bags on the nightly news.

This one's newer than 2004 though:

"The fact is that homosexuals aren’t barred from marrying under Canadian law... Marriage is open to everybody as long as they’re a man and a woman."

- Conservative MP Jason Kenney, Punjabi Editorial Board Interview, January 30, 2005.

Having independent means does ensure that one is not tempted by corruption for personal financial gain. Although corruption to improve / maintain power is a different matter. Saint Danny of Newfoundland is a wealthy chap and squeaky clean which is more can be said for other Newfoundland politicians who seem to have syphoned off several hundred thousand dollars through one way or t'other.

Yes, that's her, a glamorous woman with a scarlet past. You don't think she's a better option than an American academic or Ontario's Ted Heath ?

Hmm. You recon? Didnt help Martin did it. He was not exaclty short of a bob or two. Cretien was a succesfull Lawyer too, and had a fair amount of personal wealth.

What it really does is free one up from the scrutiny of people wondering where your election funds are coming from.

Personally I though putting the decision to televise repatriations in the hands of the relatives was the correct thing to do. I certainly would not want glaring media intrusion on a personal tragedy. The deaths are reported, you dont need close ups of the greaving widow and fatherless children.

Living near Trenton we hear more than enough about the steady stream of bodies returning through the base here, and using the facilities at the base, talking to the people here is a sobering reminder of what exactly does go on at the dirty pointy end of international policy decisions. They still largely think that what they are doing in Afghanistan is making a difference to thousands of lives there.

Its Hobsons Choice. None of them set my pulse racing.

Why on earth do they think that ? Attempting to colonize Afghanistan has been a disaster for the UK, the US, and the Russians (to name a few powers), Canada's not going to do any better as we can see from the record crops this year. It's one thing to say that Canada is willing to lose a few soliders for the sake of better relations with the US but quite another to pretend that they can achieve anything.

This provides an idea of what it's like over there (the ambush video or the dawn raid).

http://youtube.com/results?search_ty...%20Afghanistan

Erm. because small girls can now go to school to learn how to do things for themselves, rather than serve as mens slaves.

Because if they left a bunch of oppressive extremists would quickly move to take power again. Its not about colonisation, its about creating a certain amount of stability so that the Afghanis can decide freely what they want to do for themselves without too much imposition from the old power wielding minority. That wont happen overnight, but is a worthwhile aim to get some stability in the region.

You seem to be confusing Afghanistan with Iraq. I think you will find they are there in support of a UN resolution, not a unilateral US foreign policy decision. Unfortunately sometimes as one of the larger countries on the world stage you have to stand up for whats right.

"A Dedication to the Soldiers"

Thats it in a nutshell. Thanks!

You romantic!

According to a lengthy article I read this week nothing has changed due to the attempted occupation. The Taliban rules the south while a corrupt and ineffectual government in the north makes no use of the schools the unwelcome foreigners have built. It was, of course, in the Guardian. Will hunt for a link.

Troops may be in Afghanistan as the result of a UN resolution but Canadian troops are there to free American ones for service in Iraq. There's no moral dimension to the Canadian involvement.

Much as I like the Guardian, I prefer to beleive what the forces people I spoke to who have been there told me. They say they are making a difference, and just wish they had more resources. Why do you think they are fighting the Taliban in the south?, and without some sort of day to day stability that makes everyone safe to express there opinion, how is the democratic process ever going to be allowed to elect an effective government.

The west created this situation through years of activity in Afghanistan, and has a duty to try and clean it up.

What nonsense again, Canada voted for the resolution, so canada sends troop. There are plenty of US troops in Afghanistan too (the majority by a long way), you make it sound like there are none!

Cretien in one of his few worthy moments said that Canadians would go to Iraq only if there was a UN mandate. There wasnt so they didnt go. Afghanistan was a totally different situation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanista...865302,00.html

The piece in the paper was a longer review of "Afghanistan Five Years Later" but the key points were the same :

- the military is primarily concerned with drug wars

- the war on drugs has failed, the opium crop is bigger than ever

- the Taliban is resurgent

- the population resents the invading force.

I submit that the western governments that have sent troops there did so knowing the mission to be pointless and did so, not because they anticipated success, but in pursuit of unrelated policy aims. Specifically, in the case of Canada, to please the US administration.

If that was the case then why piss them off so royally by refusing to go gung ho into Iraq. You make no sense. You might as well argue that every vote the security council makes is dependent solely on who wants to be the USAs best mate, as they are the only superpower around now.

Its a big mess, its going to take time to sort it out. Its took 30 years or more to **** up Afghanistan, you cant fix it overnight, and you certainly wont if you turn tail when the old guard start to fight back.

There was a big schpeil in the media only this week about how it was not about opium, despite the afghani government and some of the UN wanting it to be. The military realises that taking money out of the pockets of many poor afghanis by focussing on destroying the poppy crop is not the way to win hearts and minds. The Afghanis govt is pissed about this, because it is ineffective, and it doesnt want to be the fall guy!
NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has said NATO is not planning to play a leading role in the fight against narcotics in Afghanistan...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...International/

The opium is coming from the southern provinces precisely because there is no control there. Presumably either the Taliban dont have control either or need to raise money for ammunition somehow, despite there dislike for opium in general when they were in full control.