Wilber

If this is directed at me, you have obviously never read any of my posts.

I am not trying to justify the invasion of Iraq. For about the tenth time I will repeat, We Are Not In Iraq. The US was attacked by a group based in Afghanistan and supported by its government. That's good enough for me, regardless of what party is in power in Washington or whether I like them or not. They are our allies. They have every right to elect the government they chose and my approval of that government they has nothing to do with keeping our treaty commitments. I find it strange that you don't see supporting your neighbor who shares most of the same values, language, and law as you and is a free democratic society, as being in your interest. Supporting such a country that has been attacked, where it's citizens are free to chose the government of their choice regardless of whether I approve of it, is in my interest. Particularly if that country happens to be my next door neighbor. But what the hey, if Americans get attacked, it must be their own fault right.

I need more info on why it can't work, I'd actually like to know why you personally think it can't work. Because anyone who has ever done anything worthwhile to improve society has been trying to rise above the herd, not lose themselves in it. The idea of a classless society is nonsense. It is human nature to divide itself into classes. Some people wish to excel and others believe society owes them. The rest are somewhere in between. The idea that they should all be made equal is just plain dumb. The idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat is just as dumb. There will always be one real dictator telling the proletariat what to dictate. Communist countries are one party states for a reason. They can't survive with democratically elected opposition. Wonder why.

"Marx called capitalism the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which he believed would be superseded by the dictatorship of the proletariat, which in turn would be superseded by a classless and stateless society known as communism" Need any other explanation why it can't work? Pure nonsense. The concept goes completely against human nature.

Well thats the same rational that the US used, no one has attacked us therefore it's not our fight. Just because our ally was attacked by people based in this country and we have a mutual defense treaty through an organization called NATO, that says an attack against one is an attack against all, doesn't mean we should actually honor it, does it. It wonder what the chances would be of the US coming to our aid if we were attacked by terrorists. Somewhat better I think.

For the first time in our country's history a Prime Minister has actually gone to a war zone to visit our troops. Good on him. The usual Canadian practice is to send them to some god awful place and forget them until someone gets killed. The usual platitudes are expressed from the safety of Ottawa and it's back to the business of politics in Canada. No wonder some Canadians are having a problem with him going there. The behavior is completely out of character for a Canadian politician.

"It's too bad we have idiots in this country that would rather us curl up in a ball and ignore what happens in the rest of the world. It's people like them that nearly cost us our freedom in the second world war." Usually the same idiots who criticize the US for being isolationist at the beginning of the two world wars.

"In 1982, Canadian diplomat John W. Holmes discussing NORAD - “if there were no rules, the Americans would simply take over the defence of the continent." They didn't have to take it over, we forfeited it to them.

I may be right about how it came about but you and I have completely opposite views on the decision. Whether we agree or not, our country has made a commitment. The question is, are we a country that can be depended on to keep its commitments or not? I say we live up to our commitment, then reevaluate the situation as that commitment is coming to an end and decide what we want to do. The situation will change over that period and none of us know how, so now is not the time to debate it.

Other heads of government do it. Bush and Blair have both been to Iraq. They had a tough time keeping Churchill away when he was PM. Maybe it's because Canadian heads of government have never done it that makes it seem so strange. It's government that determines the mission and sends them there. It's only right that it's head should be seen with them and share a little bit of the risk. PM's aren't really that important or indispensable.

Ever wonder if a country that tries to be all things to all people is in danger of meaning nothing to most of them?

No, we don't. And your poll, like your statement, is crap. Canada has had a long and honourable role as a world peace maker. People who hate this role are undercover warmongers. Bush has one object in mind, world domination and people in Canada and on this site who want to join him should do so. We will not stop them from joining the US. Margrace Let me explain something. Canada does not have a reputation as a peace maker. We used to have a reputation as a peace keeper. In order to be a peace keeper there has to be a peace to keep. In almost all of our missions as peace keepers it has been someone else who has made the peace we have tried to keep. Now we are trying to assume the roll of peace makers and that is why we are having so much trouble. Too many Canadians can't seem to grasp the difference.

Whoops, wrong button. And here I was thinking that it was our former Liberal government that sent our troops to Afghanistan and it was our former Liberal government that redefined the mission and that General Hillier ( who was made defense chief under the former Liberal government) made his statement concerning expressing his view of the mission when the former Liberal government was still in power. Now that that the new Conservative government is in power and actually supports the actions taken by the former Liberal government, Liberals are suddenly having second thoughts. Surprise, surprise.

"I think such distinctions are lost on a country that has seen three successive western powers invade it over the past 130 years, each claiming to be there to help the people." The British were there several times, to exert influence and keep the Russians out. Prop up their favorite government yes but I don't recall that they ever said they were there to help the people. I don't think our primary reason for being there is to help the people although it would be a nice bonus if we could. I really don't care what type of government Afghanistan chooses as long as it is one that doesn't actively encourage and support international terrorism. If they do, they can expect there to be consequences.

"Well, I don't see how Canada's Afghan campaign impacts our country's welfare. As for our plan for Afghanistan, I say pull out the troops. Keep supporting local organizations trying to develop democratic institutions at the grassroots level. And don't expect any miracles." Don't be ridiculous. That would be expecting miracles. I'm sure you will be at the head of the list when it comes to volunteers. How long would you expect to live? "As for the Taliban, well, they're stil out there and there basic ideas are stil supported by most of Afghanistan's population; idealogically, there's not much difference between the Taliban and teh warlords we're working with. Al Qaeda is a different story: their continued existence depends on us following their "imperialist Crusaders" script and so far, we've obliged." Yes the Taliban are still out there. The majority of the population still supports them? Do you have a credible reference to that effect or is that an opinion? The difference between them an the warlords is that the warlords don't actively support people who fly aircraft into buildings, blowing up railway stations, night clubs, embassies etc. They don't destroy Buddhist rock carvings that are thousands of years old. In many ways including its age, Islam is where Christianity was during the Inquisition. A good portion of it has some growing up to do. If you want to be their appologist, fill your boots, you won't get any satisfaction from me. I've read a lot about the history of Afghanistan and have the same concerns but it is better to fight Al Qaeda on their turf than ours. Maybe we can help out the average Afghani a little while we are at it but if not, so be it.

I'm not saying failure is insured, you are. I'm saying it is not guaranteed. Evidently you won't attempt anything without one. This is not a left or right wing issue. Some people cannot seem to separate their politics from their country's welfare. What is is your plan for the Taliban, Al Qaed and Afghanistan, turn it back into the same country it was before 9/11 2001?

Gee I dunno: how about a clear idea of how long we're going to be there, what we hope to accomplish and why in god's name we're buying this pollyannna crap about freedom and democracy. We are there trying to prevent Al Qaeda from using Afghanistan as a base to attack others. To do so we have to try and help Afghanis to form some kind of government that is not an international pariah. You are quite right when you say this may not be possible and no one knows how long it may take, if in fact it is. This does not automatically mean it is not worth doing. Do you ever take it upon yourself to do anything without a written guarantee and your ass completely covered? Keeping your word even though it may come at a personal cost to yourself? I've never though of freedom and democracy as "pollyanna crap".

Good riddance. She is right, if we are to have an ethics commissioner it should be one chosen by a bipartisan Parliamentary committee, not a PM's lap dog.

We have told our allies we will do a job. We have given our word and they are depending on us to keep it. What other reason does an honorable person need? I can see it now. Gee guys, we know there are two thousand of us here and our general is running the show but our naturaly superior Canadian morality prevents us from actually killing anyone. Unfortunately you are going to have to do the dirty work while we stay back here lookin good and telling you how to do it. Sorry chaps. Geez, wouldn't that make you proud to be a Canadian soldier.

A: The United States was attacked by a group based in Afghanistan and supported by its government. The Americans are not the aggressors in Afghanistan. It was not the US that blew up an Embassy in Nairobi and a night club in Bali. It was an organization based in Afghanistan and supported by its government. B: There is no peace to be kept in Afghanistan. C: Why do you want to bring the troops home? Iraq is not the same as Afghanistan, that is why we are not in Iraq. Democracy is worthy of promoting but not defending. Interesting.

Canadians are not clear about the mission. It's not enough to say that any discussion about the mission is undermining the troops and expect people to be satisfied with that. We've just seen that kind of garbage slung on the American people for the last 3 years and we're not going to swallow it. Don't accuse Canadians of not supporting the troops just because they want the mission clearly laid out and questions about things like detainees answered. It is up to the government to clarify both the mission and the question of detainees, even though this was not the government that sent them there or defined the present mission. I don't see why a debate in Parliament is necessary to do so, or how it would help the troops who are there. As far as the mission goes, I really don't see how General Hillier could have made it much clearer as far as the military is concerned. Or did what he had to say sound so un Canadian that no one took him seriously? When I hear the kind of blather coming from the likes of Layton about peacekeeping in a war zone and how peacemaking is different from making war, I really wonder what could be accomplished by a debate in Parliament other than make Canadians look like idiots to the rest of the world and especially to the people our soldiers are fighting. On the other hand, maybe it is time we found out whether we are a country that can be relied upon keep its commitments or not. Whether we can take on a tough job for the long haul or be the nation of the fence sitters and the half assed. Let's have a debate.

The World Trade Center is still there. I saw it yesterday.

"The poll was conducted in conjunction with the Center for Peace and Global Studies at Le Moyne College, a Catholic school in Syracuse, New York. While the center promotes the study of conflict around the world, it is not an anti-war organization." The "Center for Peace" is not an anti-war organization? An odd choice of names.

A nice sentiment and one I could support. But! For there to be peace keeping there has to be a peace to be kept. So far there is none. Until the waring parties can reach an agreement to turn security over to peace keepers and honour it, the result will be another Yugoslavia. Only the involved parties can bring this about and until that time we should not get involved.