Afghanistan: Between the Taliban and a hard place »

RSS Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 2 (view all)

- Display No Filter Fair Comments - 25% and above Good Comments - 50% and above Excellent Comments - 75% and above

• Neutral

  willottica1 year, 2 months ago

  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

  I had a question on this at a Town Hall I participated in the other night. The only parties who will get the troops out of a combat role under NATO immediately are the New Democrats and the Greens.
  
  The Liberal candidate claimed that we had "made a commitment" and therefore had to stick to it. But it was a commitment made under duress, and contracts signed under duress are normally understood to be invalid.
  
  This is the same kind of crap that the Alberta Conservatives give us when they claim they MUST honour the contracts of Health Region CEOs demanding multi-million dollar severance packages and hundreds of thousands per year in pensions for the sacked Board. The same board that abused their power and didn't do the job they were brought in to do.
  
  I think there could be a compelling case of breach of contract on the board's part which would exclude the government of this liability... besides which, the initial salaries and employment contracts were NOT approved by the Albertan people, so why should we have to honour them?

  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)

  Reply

  1 Reply

  loading ...
  • Neutral

    Candida1 year, 2 months ago

    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

    That would depend on the wording of the contracts. In my view, it is foolish to sign a contract that guarantees the high pay and exorbitant severance no matter what, but sometimes people sign such contracts. There should be a clause that eliminates the severance if the person is fired for cause or incompetence. Cause can usually be proven (theft, abuse, etc.), but incompetence is hard to prove, and it's usually left out.
    
    Returning to the Afghan question, yes, a commitment was made originally, but it was for peacekeeping, if I remember correctly. Then, one of our wise Prime Ministers changed the mission to combat, which I found outrageous. I don't think there was any kind of vote on that, but I might be wrong. Then the mission was extended twice, if I remember correctly. Why, I'll never know, but I do know that the Liberals are losing quite a few votes because of their support of the latest extension.
    
    Now, Steven Harper is saying that 2011 is the final end date, but I'm sure that if he gets into power, especially if he ends up with a majority, there will be further extensions. Unless, of course, the US (or Afghanistan) ends that war somehow before 2011, which is doubtful.
    
    2011 will be the 10th anniversary of the invasion. That's how long the Soviets lasted.

    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)

    Reply

    0 Replies

    loading ...

View All 2 Comments

More News