betsy

Maybe he's promoting a movie?

See what I mean about spitting in the wind? You did it again! Lol. I'm outa here....

Hi there. Welcome to the forum! I don't think I brought up OBL for nothing. I believe it was in answer to a question. Anyway, as for the high moral ground and all that....please check out the rest of the thread and other related threads. I've already given my views.

The war on terror was conceived only hours after the 9/11 attack. The invasion of Iraq is the continuation of the war on terror. The search for Bin Laden started it and the war continues today in Iraq, in the West Bank, in Syria and in Afghanistan. In fact, all around the world where Muslims dwell. Unfortunately, the coalition of the willing has lost its resolve. It's unlikely we'll do the right thing and move into Iran. The so-called Axis of Evil still exists. Don't ever imagine that this is over. The only question is, will there be a will to see it through. If not, we'll pay a dear price.

I doubt it but neither of us can prove it one way or the other. Maybe not prove, but the odds that they would have appeased Hitler, based on their behaviour today...are overwhelmingly in my favour! Yes! And if he had been the Prime Minister of England, he wouldn't have appeased Hitler! Evidence? Well-researched. Good job! And I agree with every word he said. That's why I'm proud of him! He knew enough that the government ought to do the right thing. But he knew Chretien would fail dismally!

What waffling? Hello? Remember Chretien sitting on the fence??? That was the time, btw, when my attention was drawn to Harper for the very first time....and he was the only one who stood behind the Americans, reminding us of our obligations as allies! Chretien was too concerned with political points, knowing that looney-left Canadians were anti-Bush...no matter what! The only Canadians who did anything useful were those many so-called "ordinary" citizens, such as those who accommodated the Americans stranded because of airport closures and our firemen who rushed to NY to do the right thing! Our anti-semitic government was especially hesitant to support Bush lest they lose favour with Arafat and the other dysfunctional lunatic leaders in the Muddled East. You want waffle - well flip this around in your mind a while...drawn as a Quick Pick from my modest and disorganised file on such issues - think what I could come up with if it was still important, six years after the waffle began... "Lewis MacKenzie National Post Thursday, April 24, 2003 Is there to be no end to the humiliation we must endure resulting from Ottawa's mismanagement of the Iraq/Afghanistan file? When will I be able to start my speeches in both the United States and Europe with something other than an apology? A mere few months ago the sides were being chosen for the pending U.S.-led intervention in Iraq. For those who followed the issue all indications pointed toward Canada committing a modest military contribution along lines similar, but slightly larger, than promised by Australia -- ultimately the third-largest allied contingent behind the U.S. and Britain. In February, to the surprise of most -- at home and abroad -- the Prime Minister stood in the House and announced Canada would not participate in any war in Iraq, but would take on the command and control of the United Nations' peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan. Major-General Cam Ross who was responsible for preparing options for the government's consideration for both Iraq and Afghanistan resigned, indicating that Canada was not capable of taking on the Afghanistan peacekeeping leadership role. The government immediately went into full spin mode pronouncing that the Afghanistan option was in fact a plan submitted by the military and that in a democracy it was the political leadership who decided the employment of the army not the generals -- Ouch! Low blow, but a good sound bite. Under questioning the Minister of National Defence, renowned for his honesty which, while refreshing, occasionally gets him into trouble with his boss, admitted that the plan for the Afghanistan option was only prepared by the military after he, the Minister, directed the military to do so. When the plan was finally submitted it clearly stated that that the option was not feasible without a "partner." In other words, Canada was not capable of taking on the leadership task in Afghanistan without major assistance from some other country's military. Nevertheless, the PM continued to stress that Canada would lead the UN's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan thereby making a major contribution to the ongoing war against terrorism. The fact that the UN force in Afghanistan has nothing to do with the war against terrorism was conveniently ignored. ISAF's mandate restricts its operations to the capital, Kabul. For all intents and purposes, ISAF is a security force for Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his government. Mind you, for all intents and purposes President Karzai is merely the mayor of Kabul as, sans the security provided by the UN, he cannot venture outside the city into the areas controlled by the warlords. The war against terrorism in and around Afghanistan is currently being fought by U.S.-led coalition forces operating out of Kandahar -- the very force Canada abandoned last July because of inadequate resources. As General Ross was the military's corporate memory on the Iraq/Afghanistan file, he agreed to stay on until this summer. In an ironic twist, soon after the PM's decision that Canada would "lead" the Afghanistan mission, General Ross was dispatched abroad to various capitals to find the elusive "partner" that Canada needed to make it all work. This was no small task considering more than 400 military personnel are employed running the Kabul airport -- skills that the Canadian military has been forced to contract out to civilians due to budget cuts over the past 10 years. Likewise the need to provide and man a hospital for the 4,500-man force -- whoops, we were forced to "civilianize" a good deal of our medical support in our military so we would need help with that too -- not to mention the overall communications infrastructure and support for the mission's command headquarters that we no longer have. Hmmm, looks like any partner country would end up providing the vast majority of the resources to "lead" the mission so presumably it would want to provide the leader too. Enter NATO, always on the lookout for something to justify its continued existence, bearing in mind that its original mission to keep the Warsaw Pact at bay is somewhat dated. So what if Afghanistan is "out of area." The UN has proven inept in most peace operations since the end of the Cold War and NATO, having spent 50 years preparing for war that never came, is certainly militarily efficient. Thanks for the offer Canada -- we accept! So let's get this straight: Our government announces no support for the United States in ridding the world of a genocidal maniac; it offers to lead a UN mission in Afghanistan (Kabul) as a smoke screen knowing full well that we won't be able to do the job; we ridicule the general(s) that pointed out the flaws in the plan; we quietly abdicate the UN mission's leadership role to someone else and agree to send 3,000 troops over one year to a theatre of operations where we withdrew 900 some nine months ago because we couldn't find replacements. Isn't foreign policy supposed to be a source of national pride?" And so began Canada's Mission to Afghanistan. Liberal waffling par excellence. Impressed??? Probably. Fortunately we now have at least a competent government even if not a particularly impressive "National Will" - typically, the chicken-littles that are the left will run around agonizing over climate change instead of doing something that will actually make things better in the future and for their kids - getting rid of the threat that is terrorism... it's real, it is not going to go away, and it will take time and resources... better get used to it, or better prepare for a few changes...

I assume you're one of the white middle-class. Only leftwing liberals are gratified by wallowing in self-deprecation. Of course we know, it's an imagined superiority that allows them to do it. Nonetheless, it's racist bigotry....no matter from what mouth it comes.

Who doesn't know that???? How often does that need to be repeated? The Taliban is the enemy! Yes, we're there to help them rebuild! Which also involves participating in combat missions! You see, just because you think that way, doesn't mean I think that way. First of all, why would I expect any humane treatment from the Taliban? They're not signatory of the Geneva Conventions! We've heard how they treated the Afghan population. We've heard how they stopped little girls on their way to school, and beheaded them right on the spot just for going to school. We've heard how practice of torture is a part of life in the whole region. If they do happen to treat you humanely...then thank your lucky stars! But its is self-delusional to think that you'd be treated humanely just because you showed utmost compassion and bended over backwards to protect your enemies. Since when do you protect your enemies? If you remind them about your kindness.... Most likely, you'd be getting backhand slaps on the head and jeering taunts of "you pathetic stupid western cowards!" They see your gestures of kindness as a show of weakness! Remember that well! Because in the future, if ever the Liberals have their way....you'll need to know it. That is being looked after by Human Rights people and NATO, I believe. Well, you've just lost your argument here. This is nothing more than an irrational anti-Bush rant! If ever your only choice of leader is Bush or Bin Laden....come back and tell me whom you'd follow.....actually, neither answer would surprise me.

When parties are bound by the Geneva Convention (Convention 3), amongst other things, in a … “relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention Although leftwingers will tell you that Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran are signatories to the GC, it’s irrelevant! The Taliban is not. Neither is Al-Qaeda. They are the enemy.

I know. Then why didn't we, without qualification, come to the defense of the USA following the events of 9/11? We are a signatory to NATO. The Liberal waffling after 9/11 was inexcusable. Legally.

Btw, does anybody know how these detainees happened to be captured? I'm talking about the ones caught by our troops....and if I'm not mistake, there's only a couple of them?

I don't remember any specific amount....but yes, he did give some funding. After the humiliating and humbling incident...our own troops, bumming for a ride! From our nextdoor neighbor! After the trashy behaviours of our Liberal MPs towards this neighbor. Boy, that's gotta be too hard to swallow.

Maybe I'm being naive. But according to that news, a lot of former members and officers of the hardline-Taliban regime had reconciled with the government. If I'm not mistaken, one of NATO's strategy is try to encourage insurgents to surrender voluntarily? Maybe Taliban members, being haters of anything representing the western world would rather talk with Karzai than any other officers of NATO.

From my understanding of the scandal, the prisoners claim being abused by thier Afghan keepers. Back home in Canada the opposition parties have criticized the government for turning over captured taliban to Afghans who abuse the prisoners. According to you , we Canadians treat our prisoners humanely...its just that we don't have any prisoners nor do we want any prisoners, so we turn them over to others and if those others are abusive well then thats not our problem. So yes I guess we don't agree. NATO, as far as I know, has not signed the Geneva Conventions nor the conventions against torture. Nor does NATO have any organisation in place to keep or care for prisoners. That is done by the individual nations that are part of NATO. So to say Canada has no obligations to prisoners - NATO does, is Monty Pythonesque. Apparently, in 2005, Gen.Hillier entered into agreement with the Afghan government to turn over any persons captured by Canadians to the Afghans for detention. Such an agreement was not between NATO and Afghanistan, it was between Canada and Afghanistan. If there are any problems with that agreement, then it is not NATO's problem - it is Canada's problem. Canada should deal with it, or not, as we will. What we can't do, and apparently its what you think we should do, is admit we entered into agreement with Afghansitan regarding treatment and monitoring of prisoners we capture, but we really don't have anything to do with it so its not our problem....Why then did Hillier enter into any agreement at all? But he did, so it must mean something. Maybe we should ask the previous government! They were the ones who signed up with NATO in the first place, didn't they? Especially, if it's true that NATO had not signed the Geneva Conventions. Anyway, the fact that we've signed up with NATO...and that this is a NATO operation....makes it NATO's problem.

And Norm, As for Martin's "generosity" of finally giving some funding...well, how can he ignore the humiliating fact that our soldiers had to bum a ride to reach a destination? The snickers and nudge-nudge-wink-winks of other leaders and dignitaries must've been resounding in the halls of the world community! It was humiliating! Not only for us all...but especially for our soldiers!

Liberals bash the US as much as Conservatives did while Clinton was president. IOW, neither of us bash the country, though we do at times bash its leadership depending on our own personal views. Well, the trashy comment of Parrish is still fresh in my memory..."I hate those damn Americans!" I don't know of any trashy bashings the Conservatives may have done to the USA or its leaders. Criticisms, maybe. But downright insults and undignified behaviours that is unbecoming of any political leaders and MPs...we've witnessed a spate of them during the Chretien and Paul Martin years.

I guess Paul Martin had no choice but to give some funding. But didn't you say earlier that he weakened the military? I didn't say Paul Martin had weakened the military. I said: ...and I gave a link that supports that argument.

So, you're saying May's comment was alright after all? Nope. What made you think that? It said anything but that. Can you not read or can you not comprehend? Or is this a deliberate weasel-like strategy of taking things out of context....etc.., Anyway, you clearly missed my point. Here is the continuation. And this.

Why, were the prisoners being detained by our soldiers when the alleged abuse happened? Or were they already handed over to the Afghans? If by "captors"....you mean the ones who had captured them right from the start....well I guess I misunderstood. My answer was based on the word "captors" meaning those who currently holds and detains them. So maybe, we don't agree. And after reading the rest of your post (my pov on this had been posted already somewhere here)...then I definitely say, we don't agree. It's NATO's problem.

Although May tries to wiggle out of the Chamberlain's Nazi comparison by suggesting that not only was she quoting somebody else, but that quote simply said that the Conservative policy on the environment would be judged in history the same way Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler's had been judged. Although the comparison is of little value, and a stretch even in the liberal mind, the irony is that Elizabeth May, Jack Layton, Stephane Dion et al, had they been in government at the time, would've been firmly behind Chamberlain, with their noses appropriately pressed to his posterior. Just as Chamberlain had hoped to have his nose appropriately placed to please Hitler. In the same way will history judge both the seditious stand of the liberals of every party on our war effort in Afghanistan....AND their stand on the environment based on disinformation and fanaticism, inspired by environmental fascists.

I guess Paul Martin had no choice but to give some funding. That was quite humiliating! Hitching a ride....and from the neighbors Liberals so loved to bash. It's impossible for the Liberals to put down and feel superior to the USA....when we end up relying on the USA! It's bloody difficult to feel smug and to posture around being a world leader...when our own troops cannot even reach a destination to give some relief!

Safety of the prisoners. They are unarmed and at the mercy of thier captors. It is the duty of the captor to do all in thier power to ensure thier safety. If the prisoners are in your hands. If our soldiers are the ones holding and detaining the prisoners. Yes, I would expect that. That's how we've believed and keep on hoping it will be. But the scenario we've got here is not anything like that. That's why I don't agree with the Liberals/NDP demand to cease handing prisoners to the Afghan authorities immedialtely....and that CANADIAN soldiers should be the ones detaining the prisoners. Why should we burden our own soldiers? Why should we put them at a greater disadvantage? UNNECESSARY RISK? Why should we stick out their necks any further? Aside from the possible scenario I've written somewhere in this post....all you need is one detainee to make allegation that our soldiers are torturing them. Then what? We start grilling our own soldiers? Of course....the National Association of Taliban Ombudsmen will want an inquiry! So why should we be stupid enough to set us up on that very highly likely scenario? I would even bet...at the end of the day, they'll find a way that we also end up paying for compensation! Layton and Dion and Diuseppe are making a farce out of this war! Their reality looks like something out of Monty Python! (Sorry, I missed your post).

Yeah, I know. But I'm not talking about your NATO. National Association of Taliban Ombudsmen. I'm talking about the OTHER NATO....you know, the one who wages war against the Taliban. (sorry, but I just can't resist that!) Lol.

If I said that you should support the cops by supporting the gun registry, would you? Keep a stiff upper lip and all. The cops want the registry. They access it thousands and thousands of times as week. I think their morale will go down if you eliminate it. Better support our cops. Nice try, Dob. But it ain't the same. Anyway, can you explain why they're accessing the registry....if it's really true that they do. Can you make another thread on it? I don't want to hijack this thread.

If we can't trust our host country not to torture and kill detainees who may or may not be Taliban, we probably have no business being in Afghanistan. We are NATO, by the way. How can our host country learn overnight after years of being under the Taliban rule...and before that, I don't know what kind of government system they have. It is a different culture there. They see these detainees as someone who also indiscriminately kill civilians...maimed or killed a brother, children, wives, massacred entired families. Many must have been tortured by the Taliban during their reign of terror. And now, the shoe is on the other foot. It is a culture of tit-for-tat. An eye for an eye. It's hard. We can't just insist and impose in a heavy-handed way. We are a part of NATO. The most constructive thing we can all do....the very least we can show our troops....is to stand united behind our soldiers and the mission. Keep a stiff upper lip!