myata

You mean, there's nobody it can be delivered to? After we blasted out the only government that stayed in place for any considerable time, since decades? That's exactly what I say: starting the cycle of fighting and instability, all over, right at the time the country seemed to have setteled on some level of stability wasn't smart; and maybe, wasn't necessary; and from the perspective of locals will cause them much pain; maybe, from their perspective, more pain than Taleban was causing them.. So who did we do it for, really? Funny you mentioned it... surely there's one big difference with that particular, 1812, case. Try to spot it... As for the rest, there're many things people were doing in the 18-ies that we don't do now. It's called learning, i.e not stepping on the same rake, twice. Absolutely agreed. The way that Kandahar mission was pulled in is shameful. There should have been a full discussion in the Parliament and the country. Like going out in the field and blasting insurgents; Good point... Here's what I'll do. I'm not going to vote for the party that sent you there; or is keeping you there; that I'll do.

The best way to save ours, and everybody's lives, is to get out, fast (I mean of course, military force; not general assistance). It's not our business to fight in the other peoples's conflicts; nor is it to tell them which government is good for them; Canadians know that and sensed that somehow somewhere the nature of this mission has changed, seriously: from punishing the terrorists, which they reluctantly supported; to assisting the new government with development and training, with which Canadians, myself included, have no problem; to propping, and fighting on the side of, one faction in the internal conflict; Trying to set them up with our model of how we think they should be has proven to be, over many years and missions, a bloody and very uncertain business.

And the 60,000 army plus another 70,000 police can do absolutely nothing about it? (ratio 130 : 2). Not even if we throw in a few local militia volunteers, which, according to our esteemed friend, are all and wholeheartedly, on the side of the new government. Let's say, 1 in 50 of grown up male population volunteered to militia as they did during Soviet occupation (surely fear factor etc was no less then than now?). That's (30,000,000 / 2 (male) / 2 (young + elderly) / 50 = 150,000 of able bodied armed militia, i.e another 150 : 2. Bringing the total to 280 : 2, or 140 of government forces per 1 (one!) Taleban. No, not enough, they need another 50,000 of NATO troops, with their fighter planes, helicopters and heavy artillery (equipment / traning factor 1 : 5) doubling the total to some 250 : 1); all to just to keep things in, quite unstable, order. You want to believe it, go ahead; there's no limit to how far imagination can be stretched, as previous outlandish claimes (of WMD, ballistic missiles, alien invasions, etc) have demonstrated. To anybody with a clear mind though it should be quite obvious that with this kind of armed forces involved, we're talking about a civil war, if not in the whole country, then in the "unstable provinces" (which make at least a half of it). Fighting in a civil war propping governments that can't stand on their own - we always did it, and always with the same result (i.e being kicked out on the way causing huge anguish and damage to the locals). I wounder if / why the result should be any different this time around?

Well then, there's a number of other countries where such camps operated (and possibly still operate). Does that make them willing accomplices of Al Quaeda too? Are we going to reeducate them all now? See, I'm not saying that Taleban wasn't involved in Al Quaeda's terrorism; only that such fact had to be proven with solid undeniable evidence before such a serious measure as full invasion is even considered; and the evidence demonstrated so far has been very thin. I'm not going to analyse every accusation one can throw up, but yes, in principle, one side could maintain relations, and use services, of another, without full knowledge of the latter's plans and/or activities; to accuse Taleban of being accomplice, one'd have to prove that they at least knew, and did nothing to prevent, of the forthcoming attacks. BTW - according to the same link (Taliban - Wikipedia), Taleban has offered to extradite Al Quaeda lidership to a third muslim country for a trial; of course there's no way to tell how genuine it was, but wouldn't the chance that it'd work worth at least a try? It would achieve the stated objectives (dismantle Al Quaeda: remember, that was the objective to begin with, correct? not to save the world...), and avoid the invasion and insurgency it triggered. OK, that's worth noting, for the record. Because what we're hearing here is that we absolutely cannot withdraw or the countrys, and whole world's future would be put in great jeopardy. BTW here's some independent info on situation in Afghan: The Star: Afghanistan, from today's news. Doesn't make it likely that Taleban is a small insignificant group (look at the number of thier dead, in just one year). Much more like, as any number of times before, that we picked a faction and now supporting it at all costs, because it's more likely to do our bidding.

Sure works, only on the likes of Messrs Bicycles. In the heat of the chase, without noticing it (or maybe, all too willingly?) they're becoming every bit alike their arch enemies. See, cheering for the torture, already; at this pace, I wouldn't be stretching it too far to expect calls for public prosecutions (or executions?) of convicted (or perhaps suspected?) culprits, in some historically near future (which, somehow, would strangely resemble less than glorious past??)...

... #1 I'm not sure about that "knowing full well" part; can it be substantiated, somehow? .... #2 Really? Try searching for "Taliban" in your own reference; please report your findings here Overall: No, none of the above, even if we admit it proven, without reservations, makes Taleban conscious and willing co-conspirator of Al Quaeda's terrorist activities abroad. Finally: No, one can't seriously argue that Taleban is a negligent little group that enjoys no popular support in the country; then turn around to say that they'll jump to the power the moment we leave; it's a nonsense; logical impossibility; the reality of the things, most likely, is that the government in Kabul has insufficient credibility among population, and unclear loyaltly of army and police, and only the presence of NATO troops holds the unlikely bundle together.

You see, that link between Taleban and Al Quaeda needs to be proven. In our practice we do not condemn people just because somebody throws up an accusation. Any such accusations are brought before a court that determines whether it has a merit; especially when accusation is brought by somebody proven to be wrong (45 minutues claim; WMD claim) in the previous instances; after all, that's what we want to educate them, poor, in, right? Rule of law, democracy, you know... So your second link, MI5, does not offer any such evidence; simply states that it exists, matter of factly; as it did about that infamous 45 minute missile attack, taken from 10 year old student essay; no it won't bear any weight with me.. The first one, Wikipedia, which I generally trust as an initial source of information for further research, doesn't mention any such links. It only describes Al Quaeda training camps, with no reference to Taleban. Now of course everybody knows that over the course of their history the group resided (and continues to reside) in many countries (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, etc), none of which nonetheless merited a full invasion by NATO; Afghanistan was only the latest link in the chain; so until some solid evidence is presented about confirmed involvement of Taleban in the Al Quaeda terrorist activities, please refrain from reiterating that "sponsor terrorism" adage; I'm going to ignore it until such time anyways, on the same ground as "WMD", or "45 minute attack" etc propaganda. wait, wait, who said that they had to have these "elections"? Look around you... Do you see many places where they hold elections? Including our most worthy friends like Egypt or Saudi Arabia? Should all of them be branded illegitimate and qualify for an educational invasion on that ground?? OK, we're down to that old song again... For the record, no, I'm not legitimizing Taleban, or devil incarnate for that matter; people of Afghanistan gave them some legitimacy when they allowed them to stay in power longer than any of the groups before them, including groups supported by outside powers. On the other hand, to "legitimize" our friendly government, we'll have to stop propping it, and demonstrate that it has enough support among its own people to stand on its own.

I'm not aware of that; i.e. any facts or evidence, implicating Taleban in terrorist attacks outside, directly or indirectly; unless you belong to the proud democratization coalition that freely mixes their paranoid fantasies with reality (WMD; 45 min ballistic missile attack on UK; Al Quaeda as ally of Saddam - btw do I hear something familiar?), you'll have to either present such facts / evidence, or retract this statement. I'm not a friend of Taleban if I need to repeat it over, but accusing them of imaginary sins does nothing to understand the problem. I'm not in the mood to open another discussion on the war history of the world; enouigh is to say that Taleban did not invade anybody and were a legitimate government of Afghanistan (or most of it) at the time of invasion. Election in an occupied country cannot be free by definition; the only choice population has (if it knows what a democratic choice is, which this one does not), is between the candidate supported by the occupying power, or big trouble. No you can't show any links that a) foreign army withdrew, completely; Afghan people organized and successfully ran free democratic elections; Without such evidence it's yet another colonial pseudo "election" as any number before it ("native' "independent" administrations of colonies under British; "elections" in Eastern Europe or the same Afghanistan under Soviets), etc), I don't really care how much paperwork you show for that. Indeed it's very grave; yet we aren't asking US, or NATO to send in their armies, to keep law and order here? Maybe that's one of the things that makes us independent and sovereign? I don't understand, what further evidence you're looking for? In mathematics there's a method of proof called "from opposite". Let's imagine that all what you're saying is true; then we'll have 30 active afghan military / police and about 1,000 of armed local volunteers per 1 (one!!!) Taleban fighter. And they need another 25, of NATO troops, armed with war planes and latest equipement, just to keep the order. No it's not credible. Not just incredible, impossible. Outside of domain of reality. I.e myth, fantasy... .... OK on one side you're saying that if we were to withdraw, Taleban would take over; on the over hand, they aren't anywhere strong enough to "make a civil war";; then, HOW in the world would they take over??????????

OK, if you insist, though I thought it was pretty obvious already; Germany and Japan have started regional conquests that led them to heavy losses of life and resources, and complete irreversible bankrupcy of ideology, and the society model dictated by it, even before the foreign invasion entered their territories. That is the only time a society may switch to a new model. Nothing like that happened in Taleban, or Iraq for that matter; the ideological foundations of their societies were still strong at the time of invasion; invasion in that situation only strengthens and focuses opposition, and triggers further polarization of the society; Because of significant residual threat, coalition forces had little choice whether to occupy Germany or Japan; presence of Soviets who wouldn't hesitate to take the slack was a big factor; unlike situation with Afghanistan and Iraq; overall, there was no need whatsoever to go there and redesign their countries according to our plan; it was sheer lunacy, derived from the democracy domino theory, as so many other beautiful visions that causes so much destruction and death before. Right; Afghan is fighting foreign invasion by a superior adversary... do you feel like this is beginning to sound less and less as a rational argument; much more like a desperate propaganda? Wait, you seem to like switching context in a flash, like GWB instantly went from fighting Al Quaeda in Tora Bora to global democracy quest on the planet; we aren't talking defending the nation against foreign invasion; simply keeping law and order, in the own country, against opposition that does not recognize the government installed by foreigners; if that doesn't define a functioning government, I don't know what is? maybe, democratic attire of the president? Election is not and never was an established way to delegate authority in these societies. You can show the paper leaf all you want, but it won't add one bit of power, or legitimacy, to the installed government. It's the people of the country who unlimately define whether government is legitimate or not; not a bunch of papers; not even democratic fanfares; they do (or don't do) it by cooperating with it; supporting it; defending it; the fact that mass of people aren't doing it; the fact that it can't stand on its own; tells me all I need to know; if you decided to believe otherwise, and it'll have to be that pure irrational belief a la "it's for your own good", because it has no ground in the fact; it's your choice, and there's little I can do to pursuade you otherwise. You probably thought, but didn't want to say that if we were to pull out, nobody would be able to tell how many of these 60,000 army and another 70,000 police would stay with the government in Kabul. Correct? Let's talk about it when Canada's elected democratic government (see I have no legitimacy issues here) invites foreign army to keep law and order here? Sounds good? OK, I can talk about ratios; 2000/20 = 100 bands of Taleban; we have 60,000 army + 70,000 police + approx 15 mln / 4 = ~ 4 mln of able bodied male population in the "unstable regions" of the country (1/2 of overall population - 1/2 females - 1/2 elderly and kids); say 1/3 of army and 2/3 of police are busy with something else; that's 60,000; let's say half of able bodies male population carries, or has access to guns; that's 2 mln. So against our 100 bands of 20, we have 100 groups of 600 presumably well trained and committed army / police; plus 100 communities of 20,000 armed volunteers, all (or in great mass) presumably supporting new government. So the count would look like: 600 + 20,000 against 20 Correct? that's not even 7 samurajs; or 300 spartans for that; it's like nothing we've ever seen before!... Unless of course, the real loyalties of those 20,000 aren't that clear, at all. Then, the equasion would be: 600 + ? against 20 + ??? I can see potential problem here; and that latter, much more probable situation would signify that we aren't as much protecting peace and democracy, as fighting in a civil war. Can you allow that some of us are concerned because the well intentioned desire to help has resulted in a wrong action; something that cannot succeed, not anymore than a full brain transplant is possible; something that may, and did result in more destruction and suffering; with no clear result anywhere in sight; These questions have to be asked, continuously, because if simply left to run its course, the reality would still present itself, eventually, as in Vietnam.

One shouldn't confuse a quantitive measure, low income cuttoff, with a broadly and loosely interpreted word like "poverty". Low income is a comparative relative measure; not a statement of a quality of life per se. In a well managed family, 30K will go a long way to keep members sheltered, fed, dressed and even reasonably entertained; in a lavishly spending household with twice as much income one could be struggling to have kids fed. The challenge for low income population is to make right choices. In a society with so many distractions, alternatives, and choices it could be a significant challenge; the issue is, in many cases (would be interesting to find out, exactly how many, i.e the ratio of reasonably managed households in the low income bracket) is not with insufficient income, but with improper management of income that could otherwise be sufficient.

OK. And they enjoy all the same services as the rest of us; thats how things should be. OK, so the answer here is, No. Reserves do not contribute to the revenues of the country; which too would be OK with me, if they mostly relied on thier own means, as independent societies; of course with access to all services off reserve as required by treaties; not paying a cent for them, as compensation for the past land deals; as my understanding of the general principle of the deal was. But I'm not overly excited about that idea of one community obligated to continuously sponsor, or "fund", another. Where did this come from?? It looks like, again, you want it both ways: i.e independence in the matters of arranging the internal affairs; while relying on the outside community to pay for it; not realizing perhaps that the two are closely tied; society operating by the laws of middle ages (hereditory transition of power; limited individual rights, political and property; etc, etc) cannot prosper on par with the modern democratic societies; that's the core of your misunderstanding; you can have a 1700 hunter-gatherer community; or you can have a modern metropolis; but you can't have the first living on the same level of living standard, as the second. I never said "directly"; but yes, all revenues government receives are coming from its citizens, individual and corporate (which are owned by individuals). That's another confusion that would be good for you to clarify: there isn't a free lunch; there isn't a government with black hole deep pockets full of cash which magically refill overnight; it's all, 100% of it paid by people around you; .. no, nobody should be made to pay, unconditionally and no questions asked, expenses of others; this would be like slavery; the only thing you can count on (apart from example and advice) is voluntary assistance, aka donation. There's no obligation on the rest of the country to pump the cash into a few backward communities to make the appearance of things looking like everywhere else (except they won't, really, even then - because everywhere else those things, they are made by the people themselves, right?). I suggest, separate the notions in you mind; for healing a cut, there's process of redemption; apologies; books; museums; exhibitions; films; reconciliation commissions; and so on. For the prosperity, there's a will and hard work; with help of others around you; They are two different things; one will never replace another; and nobody can give it to you. Wrong btw - government isn't "responsible" for poverty problems. Government provides some tools to assist people in overcoming their poverty; it's impossible to make somebody who wants to be poor, or doesn't care to be anything else, rich against their will. I'm sure such programs exist; and probably can be improved, in many ways; the important thing to understand is that in the end, they'll only be as efficient as the community's will to help itself; not a prerequisite; not a condition; only assistence that can only go so far, and won't solve anything unless people themselves start seriously working on the solution. As e.g. many of those water, education, social problems; they are all community issues; and unlimately, it's up to the community, not somebody from outside, to fix them. Threats? What's that all about? If you don't answer clear and direct question asked several times, indeed there's little point for your being in this discussion.

A simple answer to this, is because these are different societies; they aren't the same as ours (and ours wasn't always the same as now - look several generations back for example); it's unfortunate and sad, but that's the way things are in some (many?) third world societies... just the fact that some are geographically located within our borders doesn't change them one bit; it takes time and pain, and patience, getting there;

Gee, you're a master of avoidance... OK, one more time: do status aboriginals pay income tax, like the rest of us?? FYI I do not receive "funding"; I get services for which I pay with my taxes; if somebody pays no taxes, surely it's only fair that their free "funding" is less than my fully paid services, no? Because those moneys, saved from paying taxes, they could go quite a way if invested into community; education; etc. When you answer this, we can go on to address other issues you raised? And for the record, you believe that sending more (lot more) handout will solve all problems of those communities? How, if not a secret?

Please clarify: do you mean 10% of federal/provincial transfers to municipalities, or total overall funding? Did you remember to adjust your calculation per capita of population (given that aboriginal population is less than 10%)? Then there's a question of taxes (which you never answered). Federal and provincial transfers, plus municipal taxes are paid by taxpayers. It's not the government that "funds" us, no! We give our money to the government so that it can redistribute (some of) it (hopefully!) where it's most needed. So if there's a community that does not pay any taxes (in a meaningful way), you can't really compare its funding (which is, really, a handout) to the transfers to tax paying communities (which is really redistribution of their moneys). Yes that's a tragic state of affairs. Caused not in the least by the erosion of traditional power structure and values, without replacing them with the new ones. Tragic but genocide has nothing to do with it. Turn your sight to the communities that develop and prosper. If you're stuck in the past, incapable, or unwilling, to learn and adapt, you have only yourself to blame. I hear more reasons why things can't be done. Yet they can and they're done every single day by many - people arriving to this country with little more capital than their luggage. So many of them come to build businesses, find meaningful jobs, contribute to the wealth of the country; what is it they have that's missing from your picture? No I'm not smug; I'm reading papers and watching news (e.g CBC French has been running a series on this very subject). The poverty and depth of desperation is indeed appauling. However, I'm deeply sceptical about possibilities of meaningful help (other than basic subsistence help, which is exactly what's going on), to somebody who isn't willing to help themselves. In particular, this strategy when you're asking for help from one end of the mouth, while instantly condemning it as insufficient, inadequite, or even wile, from another, doesn't make any sense to me. OK how about for a change you share with us your vision as to in what meaningful ways those struggling communities can be helped?

I agree that encounter with Western culture is the prinicipal cause of problems in some native communities. I don't agree that it (Western culture) is ultimately to blame for it though. More precisely, in the context of present; all past abuses, which deliberatly purpose to diminish aboriginal culture, force it into certain ways, etc, should be condemned, acknowledged and properly compensated. But if outside of that, as we hopefully, are by now, there's an issue of interaction of cultures for which there's simply no easy fix. Traditional societies are strongly hierarchical, where authority, often hereditory, propagates from the top, and does not leave much room for individual freedom, or dissent. That model works while individual has nowhere else to go. Our current reality is different, however. The TV shows that all authority can be contested and opposed; a short ride takes one to communities where authority of the chief means nothing; kids may have friends / "associates" from other communities; all this (and many many other simple facts of everyday life) erode the authority in such communities; and the people there haven't much else to rely on to order their lives; not because someone wants it; simply because they haven't been taught; haven't grown up into it. There's no easy remedy for this situation, other than change. I.e adapt to the world around you that has changed. And embracing change is a serious problem in some native communities (and not only native, for sure). However there's little alternative; communities that admit new realities; promote education; cooperation; and so on (and there many of those), will survive and prosper; and those who'll stick to the status quo, and rather look for all and any reasons to put a blame on for their situation, will obviously get as much, ie status quo.

Crowds are getting used to pretty much anything these days and it's becoming seriously tough to make an artistic statement that would create a splash. The way things are going, we're going to see more of increasingly bizzare "art". There's no limit to artistic imagination...

Nothing. All are totally different cases. Nothing to do with this incident. No it's not, if it did you wouldn't be there fighting its enemies. Indeed, isn that what most installed puppet regimes do? For the very reason that they are puppet regimes, i.e can't stand on their own. Even after Stalin occupied Eastern Europe there were quickly "elected" government that asked Soviets to stay. To assist them (and so on) against (so forth). And as was explained, "election" in a country that does not have democratic traditions means very little (other than a holiday and a funny novelty for the locals, and a justification of actions for the misterminds of the invasion). And if they were free and etc we could certainly take out troops back and see them do it again. And even if they asked, we didn't have to agree (to have our troops fight for them). You seem to imply that Afghanistan as a country just started out couple of years back; yet it existed for hundreds of years, and those tribal areas were always there, and they managed with them somehow anyways; not just managed at that but ousted, on at least two previous occasions, hugely superior foreign invaders (British and Russians). And again, if we believe your point that Taleban has no, or very little support in Afghanistan proper, surely, 60,000 strong local army wouldn't need another 50,000 hugely superior foreign troops to fights 2,000 backward terrorists. The ratio would be, like, 100 : 2! Yet, you keep saying that if we leave now, Taleban will take over. 2,000 fighters will defeat 60,000, armed and instructed by superior foreign army! Do you believe what you're saying? If you took it in any way that anything I said is putting any blame on any of the soldiers for what's happening in Afghan (and other places, broadly speaking), you're mistaken. This is a discussion forum and I dispute a point that we shouldn't be there. I agree 100% that we're all implicated in this decision, and in fact, I'd like to see a law that would call for a referendum before troops are sent anywhere abroad, on mission like this. That way, we won't have that easy out, "it was the government that sent you there, and now we voted it down, so nobody's to blame". No I thought it's for defence of this country; real defence not imagined threats or global democracy projects on the other side of the globe Think of this: if these kind of cases still happen here in Canada; where we have all the means; money; traditions etc; and we can't make all people do what we want (i.e leave peacefully within the law); how can we pretend to be able to instill the same onto a whole country of totaly different people? wouldn't it be a pure and sheer utopia? pipe dream? fantasy? Sure if they want the rule of law and democracy, they'll come to us for advice and peaceful assistance; till then, we'd better spend our efforts where we may have at least a chance of success.

That's all nice and fine, but gazzilion of other countries did not need years under control of foreign powers to establish simple working functioning government; that includes Taleban government and yes after years of warfare too. The simple question you cannot answer is this: if this is legitimate government that enjoys full support of population (not some factions of it), then why cannot it function on its own; as Taleban government, with all limitations, unquestionnably did; and if it's not a legitimate government that enjoys full support of majority of population, why do we have to fight for it? because we happen to like this faction better than that? Funded by who? Somebody who supports it? Then even with loads of cash, it'd be hard to recruit many volunteers if it was accepted in the mass of population as a dead cause; they'd more likely to hand them over to the authorities... Something doesn't line up.. OK now you're saying that Vietnam war was fought by bandits and terrorists while foreigners came to sew pure eternal love and peace. Too bad it needed napalm and casset bombs to sink in; and even with those, didn't work, eventually. You know what; it's really a matter of perspective; I mean, really, for someone who's convinced that they're doing good, by any means, it's impossible to persuade them otherwise. That famous rationale / or defense, "It's done for your own good", it's 100% solid. Undefeatable. Because essentially it comes down to the morals, definition of good and evil. If I believe that by my very nature, I'm called to do good, and good is all I do, whatever I do, and however I do it, who's there to challenge it? However, even though the question is impossible to resolve logically, there's always the practical test; i.e forget what I say (e.g about peace and love); and look at the results of my actions; and if those results involve violence; deaths; suffering; then probably "my" interpretation of good, 100% solid and undefeatable, isn't all good. OK, that's exactly what I'm saying: why did we have to "kick the crap" out of the entire nation? I thought our beef was with a small isolated terrorist group hiding in the remote mountains? how did the latter quietly transformed into a democracy quest? global conflict of civilizations? You can't seem to understand, that very simply put, not everybody in this world shares our ways; if people did not come up with democracy on their own, they can't simply turn it on. It's not a hairstyle you put on in the morning. In a society there's always certain ways, traditions to establish and delegate power; in some it's democracy; in others - monarchy; clans and so on, and so forth; if certain form of governance is imposed from outside, only two things can happen: either, existing power structures will adapt to the imposed form; i.e the same people who used to run country as local barons, warlords will become new "democratic" senators and governors; that's no different from colonial administrations of old; or, a democratic faction that has little or no real influence in the society gets propelled to the top by the outsiders; in that case, their influence would last exactly as long as the presense of outside power; I'll leave it up to you to decide which variant looks more like what you see in Afghan (maybe some sort of combination of the two); but neither has anything to do with real democracy. Surely in case of such daily atrocities, masses of volunteers would flock to the cause of those who opposed Taleban, and, eventually, defeat them. Which didn't happen. So, should we take the reality itself as an indication of the unpleasant possibility that with all their shortcomings, Taleban may have enjoyed some popular support; or shall we continue with less and less plausible explanations as to why things aren't really what they appear to be? I commented on this before; you're certainly entitled to believe in our inherent superiority and right to enlighten others by force. Somehow though, in the long track of history, these beliefs invariably translated into wars, violence, dictate, and innocent deaths; something that wasn't declared purpose of enlightenment but what does it matter, the glorious goal justifies all collateral damage, correct?

I'm not questioning their dedication; only the fact that in 6 years and with massive foreign support, there doesn't seem to be a demonstration of sufficient will in the population to join the army in much greater numbers; numbers which would be sufficient to secure the country against any "small groups bent on yada old ways"... could it be a sign that the mass of population is lukewarm to the democracy idea and is simply sitting it out while foreigners are in control?? You really want to paint a picture that the resistance are no more than a bunch of terrorists, but I find it hard to believe. Even Karzai himself was on the record that there should be negotiations with at least some groups of Taleban; why would he say that, if it was just a bunch of "terrorists"? also, even harder to believe that an isolated group with little support from the general population, could mount such a resistence, over the years, to an overwhelmingly superior force; ends in your propaganda just don't tie up. Well, and why does it have to offer, anything? Shouldn't it be up to the people themselves to decide what kind of government they want? We always think that by definition everybody wants to be like us.. last time that they want to serve our queen; now worship our democratic gods... could that attitude explain some of negative response we're experiencing in some parts of the world? I.e not their inbord backwardness; hostility; intolerance; but us trying to tell them how they should live, in their own land? One more time: how would you like the same? I.e a stranger in your own home teaching you, gently but firmly, how the things should be done? arranged? And one other thing, about the democracy: it's not the process per se that makes it (the democracy) legitimate; no, it's the other way around: ie. democratically minded people create, and legitimize democratic processes; the opposite is true too: people with no democratic culture won't have democracy even if they follow certain process, script; it may (and often used to) "legitimize" this government for the outside world; but doesn't in any way means that it'll make it legitimate for the mass of local population. Yet it's the latter that should matter, right? Because supposedly, we're building that "democracy", for them.. Yet they enjoyed support (translated into their ability to govern), greater than that of the current government; why do you always assume that everybody everywhere has to be just like us? what if people somewhere like (ie, understand, trust) iron fist government better than our democracy? Should they be changed, reeducated, by force? Or should it be left up to them to develop and hopefully, change their ways, when and if they're ready? That's what happened to us, right? We didn't have some well meaning aliens dragging us to democracy and enlightement, from middle ages, no matter how we'd kick and scream? Why should we go and do it to the others? Even then they don't ask to be taught?

And could there be a reason, why we haven't (yet) been attacked?

Indeed took me awhile to be able to read it; but wouldn't those "few" provinces, with massive foreign presence (39,000 US, 7700 UK, 3,500 Germany, 2,500 Canada, 1100 Australia - overall over 50,000 troops) cover at least a half of the country's territory? And the government that cannot control half of its territory, other than with a help of full blown foreign army, can hardly be called sovereign and legitimate. I'm not making any judgements though; let's see how it plays out in the long run, ie. 1-3 years after we pull out. And we have to take you word on that; because the last time they had free and democratic elections was ??? never. And the democracy (experience of it, understanding of democratic procedures; it's cornerstones like civil society; rule of law; personal freedoms; free and independent media; etc; spread instantly, like a virus; or domino effect; correct?). Except explain me one simple thing: if it is so, if democracy is indeed in such high esteem and value among great majority of population; why then, with all the massive assistance from the world; with all the advisers, arms, etc; they don't seem to be able to keep the country in control; same feat that took Taleban less time not to mention that they had to rely exclusively on their own forces? What did they have that this current presumably democratic and presumably super popular, government doesn't? Why did the Taleban have enough people to fight for them, while this "democratic" etc government, haven't? Still, there was no mission like this: ie. to invade, depose a government and install and support a new one (also your further references to Cyprus, etc). Those were either peacekeeping missions monitoring peace agreements already in place, or limited scope actions which did not invlolve complete takeover of a country. I'll have to do some research on the exact sequence of actions before the invasion (but Wiki page should already give some initial info), will post on that later. I would be more inclined to believe that if we didn't stay back with our huge military force, and let them themselves decide what they want to build, standing by to provide assistance if asked for; or firm and very clear demonstration that any future threat to any alliance member won't be tolerated;

What isn't a fact? What there're 50,000 foreign troops there, in ongoing operations? What there's but a few (if any) provinces, which are controlled entirely by the government, without massive presence of foreign troops? World isn't arranged nicely into a clear lines of command.. No 100% true unquestionnable statements....Sometimes have to make do with opinions... or facts... Unless you're avoiding answering direct questions? You aren't listening. "Elected" government doesn't mean much in a country that doesn't know what election is. It's simply a form of giving legitimacy to a proxy installed by foreign powers. If a government was indeed "legal" (I'd rather use the term "legitimate"), it would have enough support from its people to control the territory of its own country. Sorry, I can't recall any such previous missions approved by UN (ie. than an independed country had to be invaded, it's government thrown out and replaced with appointed one). Perhaps you could refresh my memory? Even this one, was an afterfact; postfactum, avoiding a difficult question of whether a legitimate grievance translated into a legitimate action, given all facts and details. ... Speaking of the problems, I meant our colonial past... Look around all the places we've been to, supposedly to educate and enlighten them ... Many. The problem was with the objectives; which were not to deal efficiently with a particular terrorist group; it's still there, and maybe in greater numbers than before; the objective was to trigger democractic "domino effect" in the regoin; reengineer it; and the objectives, obviously, defined the actions. For all I know, the only crime the Taleban were accused of, was their refusal to hand over Bin Laden (Prelude to invasion). Which isn't exactly the same as what you state. If you know otherwise (I'll be glad to learn, and admit), please share facts, links etc. No, there's no rules to invade and reeducate countries, where we don't like practices, traditions, religion culture etc. Or you'd be able to demonstrate them, here. Those "rules" are made ad hoc on as needed basis. I.e the same way as in the past.

I don't need one. Your very presence there (along with ongoing adage that if we return, the country will be overrun by Taleban) is my proof. The government appointed by invading forces isn't sovereign simply because it can only stand while propped by ,000 of foreign troops. I.e, in plain words, it's a puppet; proxy. Nothing to do with democracy as we understand it here. Right... Isn't that what (what's his name) Kabrak Barmal?? asked the Soviets to do, couple of decades previously? Help him to stay and assist with rebuilding ... communism? Of course, that was so wrong! I monitor such things and I remember a frienzy of activity, during the invasion, of US trying to find an appropriate government for them people after Talibs are ousted (there's been something in exile, then this Karzai guy came out of nowhere). An "election" in a country occupied by foreign troops, country without any traditions of responsible democracy; civil society; media; etc; etc; means nothing. Only an easy way to justify whatever choice was already made for them. But, as always, the proof of pudding is in the pudding. If our proxy does not have the influence, authority, or respect to control the country, we only have the mirror to blame. And nice tales of democracy that needs time and protection, to spin. Occupation means massive presence and control of in an independent coutry through use of force. No need to repeat myself (as I won't anymore), the help isn't one and the same with thoughtless barging in and rearranging the place according to our understanding of how it should be. The problem is that in the long run this approach usually creates more problems than it (was supposed to) solve. Especially if and when unasked for. Think of this: whatever problems may be in your house, you wouldn't have an intruder blasting in and telling you and others in your family how you should be.. Why do you think people there are any different? Because they're less... developed? Need be taught how to go about their lives? I.e...inferior??? Regarding the "rules", who (and how) defines and enforces them, see my comment above. You haven't responded to it, and simply repeating it over and again does nothing to support your argument.

Nope of course not; agreements and laws enacted within Canada (e.g. between provinces) will have no effect on its relations with other countries (unless Canada choses so). As has already been pointed out to you by other users, you can't be both within (for Canada to be bound by past agreements), and without (pretending an outside authority exists to interpret or enforce such agreements), all at the same time. Nope, having a representative democratic government isn't in any way equivalent to maintaining a claim for independence. All provinces have such government, but should any one of the put forward a claim for independence, it'll be decided based on realities of today, not 200 years back. To claim full sovereignity over all historic land a constistent ongoing claim would have to be made throughout most of the past time; such claim would include consistent settlement and / or use of land in question; maintaining or consistently attempting to maintain control over the terrtitory, and so on. As there's little evidence of that happening over the years, the claim to "90% of Canada", even if it was ever valid, is now null and void. The only land natives can fairly and reasonably claim are those that they settled, used and controlled. As I said, I have no issue with that whatsoever and would support any mothion calling on the government to facilitate resolution of all such claims. I always find it amusing to observe how thinning of arguments almost invariably (with some users of course) translates into thickening of insults.

No, there're nuances here that you either fail to notice, or chose to not mention; e.g. the important point Riverwind made about "use it or lose it". It applies to the concept of sovereignity too. There're many nations in the recent history, which, being occupied or colonized, never relinquished their claim for independence. Ireland is one example out of great many. Eventually, through continuous struggle, many were able to restore their sovereignity. Situation in Canada is by far and large, different. I know of no examples where either specific nation; or confederation or group thereof; raised and maintained continuous resistence to the alleged colonization; I admit that I haven't studied the subject deeply, but if such examples exist, they aren't in the domain of general public knowledge. Certainly conflicts and disputes arose here and there (Metis being one example), but they were almost always centered around specific local issues, not the general notion of independence. Therefore, and unless you can prove otherwise, the claim for full sovereignity over the original territories may, by now, be nullified; the only claim of independence any nation can make would have to be settled (by negotiation, or otherwise) between two equal sides, i.e Canada and the nation in question. The basis for such claim (which I, in principle would fully support, if the people of the nation showed free and clear choice for it) would have to be the de facto situation as of today (i.e territories actually controlled and used by nation), and not de jure of the days long past. Don't believe me? We'll have to wait for the first precedent of the kind, if it ever comes to happen. In common language this means that one can't have it both ways; i.e. enjoy free benefits of being a part of country; while maintaining the claim of independence if and when it suits you. So the choices we have are either to negotiate a fair and reasonable interpretation of the past agreements under the general jurisdiction of Canada, or, if the wish arises, put forward the question of formal independence, which would have to be settled between the equal partners based on the current reality. Which, outside of legal scope of Canada, should and would be the only basis for such negotiation. There would be neither a need, nor reason for Canada to take into account documents like the Royal Proclamation, as those were issued within it's jurisdiction and for its citizens, and would have no relevance in the matters of international negotiations.