myata

That's our boys. The only way this so con bunch can be kept in check is by watching their every step. They just don't believe in democracy. They think that they know better than us what's good for us. Even if we told and keep telling them otherwise (as with death penalty; as with Kyoto; as with Afghanistan), they'll just keep pushing their line, mostly quietly and behind the doors. This time it came out though, and I fully appreciate that somebody finally makes the effort take the merry to task, if court is the only option, so be it.

Oh my, it's really hard getting it, is it? Really, it's you who's thinking that "they are .. feeble minded and so on". All I'm saying is that if the democracy is what they really want, they'd sure be able to get it without us (US) sticking our long nose into their affairs and teaching them how they should live.

You mean, you were reading their minds? Or, they had a history of democratic governments subverted by evil Taleban? Or, at least, any record of any serious genuine attempt to achieve democracy? If so, perhaps you could share you knowledge with everybody? Because for all I know, Afghanistan is an early feodal society that is simply not developed enough to be anywhere near democracy. It's a sheer delusion to think that a societ can be changed in its tracks no matter history, traditions or condition. That delustion, on the part of neo con crowd that used to dominate US administration, is the only reason we're there. Otherwise, Kosovo solution would have worked just fine: we'd make them understand, with as strong means as necessary, that they shouldn't be helping terrorists, and leave them alone otherwise.

That's exactly the problem - applying our own moral norms and standards to people half world away. I.e presuming that they want and have to be like us. ... Surely, if the current government is what (majority of) Afghanis truly want and wish, they should be able to defend it no less than Taleban could upset it. Really one should be able to see it: one of the two groups (Karzai vs Taleban) is stronger. Stronger because more people support it with greater will. If Karzai is stronger, he would be able, by and large, to control the country without 50,000 foreign troops. If he's weaker, there's no point is supporting the weak side in a strange country with completely different traditions and moral and culture. Because it's bound to collapse the moment we leave. You see now that the same scare "if we leave now Taleban will take over" is at great odds with our being there in the first place. Because we shouldn't be there unless invited by a government supported by the people - support that is showing in its ability to control the country, rather than performing meaningless (for the great majority of population) pseudo democratic ritual. As of now, if my understanding is correct, there's not a single province that is managed by the government forces without significant foreign presence. Far from "democracy", this, for all can say, isn't even an independent state, main criteria of which is the ability to control its territory. These are simply puppet governments of the foreigners that will last only as long as the supply of resources and foreign troops exists and will inevitably collapse the moment lifeline is cut. I want to hope that whatever comes afterwards will be better than what Afghanis have experienced over the last two decades, but there's no guarantees of that. This is because our presence there, far from solving any problems, only increases hostility between the sides. The sides that eventually will have to find a way to coexist for the country to move forward.

I don't know what regular Afghani thinks. And for that reason, I'd leave it up to regular Afghanis to choose which way they want to leave. Not by imposing on them meaningless (in their view) democracy. But by leaving them alone. When they have made their choice, we can offer our help. It's up to them to take it or refuse it. Not up to us to tell them what is good for them. That'll be same old imperialism, by another name. But quite certainly, with the same result. BTW what do you mean "not their choice"? Whose then? Have Taleban come from another planet? Did they have zombies to fight for them, to defeat not one, but two governments supported by foreigners (communists, then mojaheddins)? The question is, do we want to maintain that rosy illusion that everybody wants to be just like us, and if they behave as though they don't they only need a bit of persuasion (or liberation - choice of term is immaterial). Of course the cost of sticking to rosy illusions has been proven, historically, to be high, while their efficiency - quite the contrary.

Are you sure that "we" know better than them, what to live and work for? Otherwise, surely, they would be able to fight and and win their battles, without us doing all the work. Afghanis won't be Canadians no matter how much do goodie propaganda (and money; and sadly, lives) we sink into it. When Afghanis will know what they want, they won't need our army to do the work for them. We only just need to get out of their way, to let them make this decision. And accept it, even it's not exactly what we may be planning for them.

However, thanks for a frank admission, I think this is exactly the question we (all Canadians) need a serous debate on. Namely, should we be fighting (whether winning or otherwise) in other people's wars? When we went there, it was to oust a regime that was supposedly helping our enemies. This changed to helping the government we installed with security, and now to taking direct part in this government's war against insurgency. Somehow it happened without much of our understanding or debate. Later better than never.

What you seem to be failing to understand: "we are winning the war ... we are rebuilding country.." Are we going to live their lives for them too?

Has anybody noticed it too? Every time somebody somewhere has an urge (or itch?) to "go in", it's to save us from an imminent disaster. And every time we believe and do it, it actually ends up in one (or very near it). Some paradox ...

Too bad the experience does not teach us anything. It was a mistake to go there in the first place. It's near desperate to stay now propping on a weak government that can't do much (anything?) on their own. We (especially Bush's cronies) just can't seem to be able to admit that the world will go its own way, whatever grand plan we may have prepared for it.

Ideological and contemptuous to democracy to the core. Add to this word games with Kyoto, inherent dislike of the media, attack ads with no election and the picture (of the Harper's bunch) becomes quite clear.

You call "only posturing" a backdoor reversal of one of a key principles of Canadian law? Right. Just shows the attitude of this crowd to the law and democracy: pay lip service, do as we please. Oh wait, isn't that what they do in our new gems of democracy of Afganistan, Iraq, and such (like till very recently, Pakistan, maybe)?

Another interesting aspect to discuss would be the motivations of people who believe that their superiority entitles them to barge into other countries, destroy, kill, then rebuild them accoriding to their bizzare ideas, and call it salvation. In my understanding, they're as good (or bad, depending on the perspective) as their counterparts. Except, theirs was the first hand.

I wouldn't confuse this thread with the other one, on the merits (and otherwise) of death penalty, which is running in the Moral issues. I would have less issues if Harper cons have openly debated their position, and if they could gather majority behind it, so be it - even if it meant return of death penalty. The way they are trying to sneak in their little "moral" preferences behind the door and without any respect for democratic process speaks volumes about this crowd. It's utterly disgusting. There's no excuse. These people are plain and simple after power and they must be stopped.

With all respect to your personal opinion on the matter, the will of ALL Canadians was clearly expressed in democratic process in two votes in the Parliament. Dion was fully entitled to say that, unless Harper's cons were able to reverse those decisions in the Parliament. Which they did not dare to try. And until they do, and succeed at that, the decision stays: death penalty is inacceptable for citizens of this country. You may be reading too much, but not very well. Dion chose word "enhance" which means that in his view, the reputation and dignity will be increased, if the sentence were to be commuted. He did not say anything about it to be diminished by the execution (even though many people, Americans included would certainly believe so).

Really. So easy to get upset about other peoples's beliefs and traditions. Why wouldn't they be just like ... me?

Agreed. The solutions must be specifically targeted to the group. They should solve specific problems for the target group, not "provide comfortable living" forever at the expense of somebody else. This, of course, will require serious conversation about causes of "poverty" and realistic achievable goals. Far from simple and catchy "throw more money to eliminate poverty by ..." slogan thingy.

Now, with Harpers death penalty atticks I won't be surprised if the old divisions in the conservative block will come out yet again. The first signs are already appearing - with PC joining liberals, for the lack of better choice. Many more, I'm sure, have bad aftertaste that may show in their voting next time around. The problem is that the so con core just won't let go of their core beliefs, such as death penalty, no matter what the majority of this country may think. Even greater one is that the government of the day would never openly admit it. It now falls to the opposition to expose this link, no matter how hard Harper and his team are trying to hide it or divert our attention to other topics.

Boer war: purely colonial matter, Canada has nothing do with, other than serving the queen. WWI: a petty conflict of a bunch of crazy monarchs which translated into a major bloodshed in which millons lost lives. No winners. I already made exeption for WWII, which was a legitimate defense against deadly and unprovoked aggression. Won't comment on Korean war, its a complicated matter of which I don't know enough First gulf war: legitimate defense against unprovoked aggression, however it did not cause us to start building democracy in Iraq. Second gulf war, aka Iraq war: also unprovoked aggression, but this time on the coalition part. Of course we can play with words always painting us as the good side, there would be nothing new in that. If we play sheriffs of the world, we'll probably end up in a mess, as others before us. We can help when we believe it's the right thing to do, but draw a line at taking direct part in internal conflicts of other people. It almost never works as intended.

It came handy in the midst of death penalty row. Simple Dion swallowed it hard and whole.

Certainly opposition had been less than efficient on this issue. As seen on TV yesterday with Dion actually showing some fire, but unfortunately in the wrong place (Mulroney affair, which most likely will come out as a dud). Once again, distraction tactics seem to have worked. Mulroney thing will be soon forgotten, along with (at least as the plan is) policy changes preceeding it. If the guy (Dion) shoots himself in the foot, it'll be entirely of his own making.

With the exception of WWII, which was a clear threat for the whole democratic world, I'd question the meaning of "success" in these wars, both for Canada, and people on whose soil they were fought. You're right though, I should have made and do make one exception, when an innocent is being attacked without provocation and we help them to defend themselves against an external aggression. This clearly does not "extend" to the cases of civil conflict within a country. What's the meaning of free elections for people who never had free elections? And with thousands of foreign troops in the country. In any case, it's beyond the point. Where freely or not, we should not be fighting in any internal conflicts, period.

Much like the boer war, agreed. WWI - yes and no, but mostly, yes. Not really like WWII, in which a deadly regime invaded and subdued half of a continent. Don't know much about Korea, so won't comment. Not like the first gulf war, in which the regime was initiator of aggression, and the country was never occupied. Much like the Iraq war, too. Stand up - on somebody else's soil? Sure, we could extend it to whatever we like, just like others before us. Terminology does not change the facts. We are on their soil, we're supporting one side that better suits our interests. It's been tried so many times over before, and almost never worked, in the long run. Instead of trying to get Afghans to like the government that we have installed and supported, we should have let them come up with the one that can govern, and then deal with it on very simple and clear terms: we'll help if you ask, we won't interfere if you don't, and we'll respond in force if you threaten. It could have happened immediately after the fall of the previous regime. Except the US wanted democratic domino effect in the Middle East. So here we go - as you said - in our new Boer war. This time, building a democracy where it never existed before.

Of course, this latest story began when Schreiber has come out with the new allegations - filed affedavit and sent letter to PM. CBC should just have ignored this story - along with other inconvenient ones, like death penalty policy changes. Instead focusing on tax cuts and other (real or not so) priorities, as defined by the government. That would be our independent press.

If the West wants to acquire new partners and potentially, allies in countries like Russia, India, Middle East, it has to be prepared for a real dialogue, in which it would listen and accommodate its partners. So far, it's been pretty much a one way road. Not to apologize the regime in Russia, the country had a number of reasons to be upset with the way it's been treated by the West. Sure, a better established democracy could have found more diplomatic ways to react to what appeared like attempts to subjugate Russia's independecy to the Western influence. In the unstable country as it was after the fall of the Soviet Union and the chaos of the first years, these ostensibly unfriendly actions (like extending NATO to its borders) may have just been another factor (along with long time history of autocratic and often despotic rule) that tipped the balance toward the new autocracy and nationalizm.