Peter F

Well, from what I gather, Betsy's argument is that us liberal men are fools to give up power to Women. Doing so emasculates us. I have yet to see what she bases that argument on. I give up power to women every chance I get and I'm still getting laid. I don't miss the power either. I have no idea what she's on about.

Army Guy: I am one of the 54%. Your question is reasonable and deserves a straight answer. I arrived at my position over time, based upon various suppositions and, since I know/knew nothing of Afghanistan prior to 2001, various articles (opeds and not) that I read in the printed/internet press. I have no TV, nor want one, so TV journalism (including internet 'video-journalism' if one can call it that) has not been a factor. I did and do believe that military force will never end Islamic Radicalism/terrorism. Military force can overthrow governments and install different ones and/or govern through a Military Occupation...but neither of those things mean squat to the Faithfull. Originally I was against Canadian intervention in Afghanistan (back in the days when JTF were the ones involved) for the very simple reason that any impact Canada may have on Afghanistan would be minimal at best. It seemed to me that the Northern Alliance once supported by the USAF and $$$ were quite capable of driving out the Taliban. They did. So the idea of sending in the JTF was political - symbolic support to the Americans in order to show that we care. As time passed I came to believe that, yes, I suppose Canada should be involved in 'rebuilding' and providing security because the Karzai government was trying to govern a country ripped apart by war and internal warlord/Taliban powerstruggles. That would be early in 2003 sometime. Of course the story in those days was that the Karzai government needed support for the time it took for the government to trainup troops that would be able to provide security on thier own. How long does it take to train an army? two or three years. So, I patiently waited. Meanwhile the USA invades Iraq. In Canada many are actually embarassed that Canadian troops are not alongside our American, British and Australian allies. Granatstien published and article in some newspaper or other actually criticizing the Government of the day for not committing Canadian troops on the grounds that we were missing a grand oportunity to provide the CAF with combat experience. I mention this only as an example of the level of embarassment felt by many Canadians. Many others in the press and parliament spoke of 'Shame' and 'Honour' and 'hanging heads' etc. It started to occur to me that there was a large proportion of Canadians to whom 'Honour' and not reality was the determinant by which our government should/should not commit our forces. This, I thought, was an indication of trouble; commitments to feel good could possibly arise in the future. meanwhile, if I am not mistaken, in 2004 Canada committed troops to a security operation in Kabul. Fair enough. Afghan troops are still in training. Security is important for those troops to be trained and the Karzai government to be established. At the time the word was that Karzai pretty much controlled only Kabul and not much else. Then in late 2005 the government decided to commit combat troops to the Kandahar area in SE Afghanistan. This would not be a peackeeping role but a combat role. The idea to actually drive the re-established Taliban out of the area. This was welcomed with joy by many in the press. At last, Canada can be proud again. Our armed forces would be able to show their mettle and stand tall. Gen.Hilliers bombast particularly standing out in my memory. As I mentioned earlier - this, to me, is a bad sign. I feared the government was taking on far more than it could chew in order to satisfy the desperate 'wannabe's'. In that they 'wannabe tough MF'rs just like the Americans'. I thought/think that there is a military lobby pressuring the government to get involved in the war so that we could garner our share of glory too. Meanwhile, everybody who attacks anything in Afghanistan was being called either 'Taliban' or 'Al Queda'. Apparently the warlords of the ex-Northern Alliance were no longer interested in establishing power bases. Meanwhile, these Taliban guys were launching a few attacks on exposed Afghan/US positions from time to time and losing huge amounts of troops doing so. 40 killed here, 30 there, 20odd somewhere else. Considering that they are armed with assault rifles for the most part, backed up by a mortar or two, some MMGs and RPGs; and that they were attacking prepared postions defended by the equivalent small arms plus on-call artillery and air strikes. They were taking huge casualties in the process, against overwhelming firepower...yet continued to make such insane and pointless attacks. This indicates to me that these evil Taliban guys, though poorly trained and poorly led, were actually committed to thier cause. So committed that they were willing to die for the cause. They actually believe, like fuzzy-wuzzies at Omdurman, that God is going to grant them victory. And, they apparently appear out of nowhere. They have to recieve thier training somewhere, thier arms from somewhere, thier ammunition from somewhere, thier organization - such as it is - from somewhere. Yet there was zero mention where this 'somewhere' is. Somehwere remained hidden to the American 100% control of the air with the assumed regular reconnaisance flights, IR TV's, regular patrolling and no need to mention constant satellite surveilance. Yet they appeared out of nowhere and attack some minor, tactically meaningless position and press home thier attacks and only withdraw once inordinate casualties have been suffered. I would guess thier casualty rates would be at least 50% or so, if not more. Wich means that 60 odd Taliban guys closed on the position over the few preceeding days from dispersed origin and often unnoticed. Some amount of planning went into it. Where were they all coming from? Where are they getting recruits? Why would anyone sign on to this outfit? Then Canada goes on the offensive in operation whateveritwas. The operation is a success, of course. Yet there seems to be an element of surprise in the officership of the CAF. The Taliban fought from prepared positions; were competent enough with thier weapons to destroy a vehicle or two, had to be driven out of many positions or died holding them. ...and suddenly we needed Tanks, dammit. The enemy is actually defending themselves somehow. And I ask, what kind of intelligence were the generals operating on? Did they think the enemy would only snipe? They seemed to think the Taliban would not meet the Canadians in battle. Who was feeding them this bullshit? Why did they not think that Tanks wouldn't be necessary? Or perhaps they did consider sending tanks but budgetary restraints over-rode thier concerns. That was clue number two that we were biting off more than we could chew. In an appearance before the Senate Defence committe the General in charge of organizing supply and support for the Afghan mission mentioned that the CAF was dangerously close to overcommitment of its forces. He was trying to avoid the possiblity of reducing the time at home in the standard 36 months rotation. Another sign of overcommittment. My 17yearold son, enrolled in the Voltigeurs de Quebec, was called and asked if he would be willing to volounteer for Afghanistan. He said he would think about it. His mother told him she would break his legs if he did agree. Another clue to overcommitment. So now we are in Afghanistan, not to fill the time gap necessary for an army to be trained, but to bring them good government, a functioning economy, education for all, and peace in our time. I say ok, we are committed til 2009. So be it. At that point, either Karzai stands or falls on his own. If his government falls to insurgency that tells me that Afghans themselves don't support him. If its the Taliban that does the toppling then that tells me that Afhans have no interest in stopping them. No government stands without the support of the people. If Afghans don't support what we and Nato and the west are trying to do, then no amount of cash or dead Taliban will change that. And then there is also Pakistan, the source of recruiting, planning, and supplying. Yet Pakistan is untouchable for they are our allies. There will be no end to the Taliban as long as Musharif is turning a politically necessary blind eye to the support being given to our enemy within the borders of that country. There is the argument that on a humanitarian level we should remain for however long it takes. True enough. But then, by the same logic we should be invading North Korea, China, Kyrgystan, Turkmenistan, Sri Lanka, Mayanmar, Tanzania, Fiji, Pakistan and of course Darfur, Iran, Iraq. Syria, Gaza, Lebanon and many other places. The fact is we can't do that, nor do we have any intention of doing that. What should be the principal reason for Canadian military intervention is strategic interest. As it is we are involved in a Civil War in Afghanistan, a nation that had zero strategic interest to us before when they were an organized functioning country, and certainly has less interest as a broken, corrupt, economically ruined country. Certainly we can feed them money and expertise and influence. But we shouldn't be propping up a government for the Afghans who don't seem to want to prop it up themselves. Thats my take. We're in over our heads and if we're not carefull we're going to find ourselves buried.

The province of Quebec is entitled to a public education outside of Quebec??

Geez, you make it sound like that's a bad thing.

Betsy: Where is that? You havn't specified except in terms of a television commercial.

The donor in the second case was not being vindictivly forced. His estate is. Apparently the man in question had (to again quote the judge) "... a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvment far beyond merely biological"

Did you miss the part of this story where legal experts are calling this a precedent? And they only have one person saying anonymous donors shouldn't worry. That doesn't make it set in stone. That the donor was at the birth and good enough to donate money for the child's upbringing was enough for the judge to make it manitory, even though the child has 2 parents already. A dumb ruling by an activist judge. Not dumb at all. The judge did the job he was required to do, settle the dispute based on the evidence. Obviously you failed to note " While these contributuions have been voluntary, they evidence a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvment far beyond merely biological" To repeat: They evidence a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvment far beyond merely biological. So the judge is actually smart and deciding the issue based upon the facts. Not being activist at all.

Outside of ensuring the Taliban don't form the government of the Islamic Republic, I would prefer Canada not be involved. We originally entered the conflict to aid the USA to overthrow the Taliban. We did so because the Taliban government was one of those governments aiding and abetting terrorism. So the Afghans themselves with the tremendous support of the USAF and USN threw out the Taliban. Now, apparently, Afghans cannot defeat the Taliban themselves. The USAF and USN havn't gone away; the Afghans who overthrew the Taliban are still there, but now, it seems, what worked like a charm in 2001/2 is no longer sufficient. Why is that? If the Afghans were quite capable of giving a shit-kicking to the Taliban then, Why are they unable to give a shit-kicking to the Taliban now? What has changed? Why are Afghans no longer able to secure thier own future without NATO and Canadian aid?

Indeed, they do. I am presently involved with Revenue Quebec and service is provided in English at my request.Then why is public education of children of Allophone parents virtually mandated to be in French? Canadians have a right to public education. That education is either in French or English. If one of the parents was educated in English then you have the right to have your children educated in English. If one of the parents was educated in French then your children have a right to be educated in French. This applies throughout the country. If neither parent was educated in French then there is no right to a French education and you get whatever the provincial government makes available...that being an education in English in most cases except Quebec. Possibly New Brunswick also. In Quebec, naturally, it works in reverse. If neither parent was educated in English then the children gets the education provided by the Province - French. That is to say that, yes, public education of the children of allophones is, in Quebec, French. Everywhere else the allophone's children are educated in English. ...and somehow or other all that results in the Quebec government communicating with me in English.

and left out of the quote: But don't let your own story stop the show.

Indeed, they do. I am presently involved with Revenue Quebec and service is provided in English at my request.

Well, if its justified then to use terrorism to overthrow tyranny, and terrorism is no different from war, then Bush et al are justified overthrowing Saddam via invasion. Whats the dif?

True, but then the freedom fighter will of necessity be adopting the methods of terrorism. Thats bad.

Political expidiency. Quebec has lots of votes. Any party seeking power isn't going to change it. ('it' being cultural support programs. Equalization being a different kettle of fish)

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 the looney left Canadians were anti-Bush...no matter what! The only Canadians who did anything useful were those so-called ordinary citizens, such as those who accomodated the Americans stranded because of airport closures and our firemen who rushed to NY to do the right thing! What fence-sitting? I think you may be confusing the events leading up to the Iraq invasion as events that occurred after 9 sept 2001. edit 1427pm: Ah. I see you have clarified things somewhat with the addition of the Mckenzie piece. The question here is Canada, as a member of NATO, coming to the USofA's defence as per the NATO agreement. America being attacked on 11 September 2000. Ok, but what does that have to do with joining the co-alation of the willing in the attack on Iraq?

Betsy: What waffling?

Somehow the logic seems inconsistent. Either they're civilized and entitled to the benefits and burdens of nation-statehood, with its trappings of passports, access to international aid mechanisms and whatnot or they're not. Being entitled to all the benefits and burdens of nation-statehood etc is neither here nor there. If they are abusing prisoners (contrary to the agreement with Canada who turned those prisoners over to them) then Canada should cease turning prisoners over to them. Is there any point to the Canada-Afghan agreement regarding detainee's at all?

That is an interesting point. I have no knowledge of how the education system in Louisiana functioned in the past or present. I imagine that presently if you send your kid to public school in that state then that public school will be an english-language one. I imagine that at the time of the Louisiana purchase a public school (if there were any) would have been a french-language one. Probably the idea of public education occurred long after the purchase, by wich time English language instruction would have been the defacto 'default'. But that is a matter of American History of wich I am ignorant. Kapitan Roberts statement to Leafless wich we barged into was: You responded with the Louisiana episode as (I assume) an example of volountary assimilation. It turns out that the conditions of admittance to the union did in fact constitute inevitable assimilation. Wether those signing the agreement knew this and accepted it, or suspected it but were determined to avoid it, or sold it to the populace as a guarantee they wouldn't be assimilated is beyond my ken. Perhaps, due to the mixing of Spanish, French and English, they didn't consider it a big deal. Wich is to say they were not concerned about assimilation at all. I am not sure that what you state is true at all. Many Quebecers are indeed immersed in English, in Montreal, the Ottawa Valley, and most of the south shore. But many Quebecers only hear English when surfing through the channels of thier TV's from SRC to TVA. In Quebec City, where I lived for 10 years, English is only heard on the tube or from tourists on the street. It has been my experience that while most French Quebecers know a smattering of English most are not bilingual. Those who are learned thier English from a close relative (immersion) or in school. I do not buy the argument that most Quebecers are bilingual and therefore most Quebecers profit from a bilingual civil service. This, I think is false. If it were true then there would be more civil servant who learned English as a second language than civil servants who learned French as a second language. I have also heard the many stories of Englishmen contacting a federal govt agency only to have to deal with some Frenchman who could hardly speak English at all. The assumption is that the Frenchman only got the job because they are bilingual and/or French. The funny thing is we can never hear of the Englishman contacting the civil servant only to be met with and Englishman who speaks french terribly. I guess we never will. But it has probably occurred far more often. I thoroughly disagree with the contention that official bilingualism was enacted in this country so that Francophone politicians and civil servants could benefit from it. That is Leafless's argument and in that regard I am firmly in agreement with Kapitan Robert. Because they always had that option. They still do, its just that the government is no longer going to pay for it unless one of the parents was educated in English. I have the option of going on the next Russian rocket up to the Space station. So do you and so does everyone else on this planet. What inhibits us is our lack of cash. Prior to 1974 Quebecers did have the option of sending thier kids to English school but few took that option for many reasons. Most didnt see any advantage to an English education. Many found that there were no English schools nearby. Some found those English schools already full. I moved from Quebec to SW Ontario with 2 children in tow. The youngest hadn't yet started school and the other had spent 2 years in English grade school. When it came time to enroll them I found that it was going to be impossible to have them enrolled in French school. There were none available short of bussing them 3 hours each day. So English school it was. When I moved to NW Ontario with the same 2 children in tow (now starting grades 3 and 5) I tried again to enroll them in French schools but sorry, in order to be enrolled in such a school they needed to have commenced in grade 1. But I certainly can't deny that French education was an option. In 1974 the option of English education for most Quebecers vanished. This was a blow to those who had access to English schools. But the Government, PQ and determined to put an end to English Supremacy, decided to not fund English education except in cases where they, more or less, had to. But they never withdrew the option to parents of an English education - only that the government was no longer going to finance it. Of course the curriculum at French schools includes English language instruction all the way through and vice versa for English schools. I find this to be perfectly reasonable.

Polly: Otherwise known as 'Black Magic'

He same with me!

So is the problem that the Taliban watched mothers die in delivery or that that were dispassionate? Mothers die in delivery quite often - particularly in third world countries. It seems that according to the Ottawa Sun the real crime is that the Taliban were dispassionate. Says who?What was the study's measure of passion? The present government of Karzai is far better, I think, than the government of the Taliban. But accomodation doesn't mean let the Taliban form the government. This Ottawa Sun editorial you present has zero to do with the article I posted.

True enough. That would be Louis St.Laurent's Liberal government of 1949. No, Its Canada's problem. Nato being a collection of soveriegn states each agreeing to help defend the other should any one of them be attacked. There is nothing about treatment of prisoners, capturing of prisoners or anything else to do with prisoners. That would come under each nations concept of the Laws of War. In Canada's case, we have agreed to apply the geneva conventions and Canada has also signed the agreement against torture of prisoners. Domestically we accept that prisoners - no matter how heinous their crimes - shall be treated in a humane manner. So our concept of how prisoners should be treated are fairly Liberal in that we do not torture them, or abuse them, or starve them or beat them, or deny them mail, or religion or water or anything else. We treat our prisoners humanely. So if our government, as they have, enter into agreement with the Afghan government where they take our prisoners from us and in return we get to check on the prisoners from time to time to ensure they are treated in a humane manner, I find that very acceptable. If however, Afghanistan treats the prisoners poorly, then of what use was our government and/or Hillier in entering into an agreement with Afghanistan? Did we not negotiate in good faith?

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.

But, considering the circumstance of the day, they considered that a small price. The condition for admission in no way required them to stop speaking French or give up thier civil laws or religion. The USA was not requiring 'assimilation'. It never has. Thats the thing. No Canadian is required to speak in two languages. No one in Louisianna is required to speak English. The governments of both the USofA and Canada allow for translators when necessary. The difference being in Canada you may communicate with functionaries of the Federal government in either English or French. This, of necessity, requires the Federal government to hire those who speak the minority language of a given area in order to supply the service. The government, to achieve efficiency, prefers to hire one bilingual employee at the point of contact, rather than one English speaker and one French speaker. French is neither Gibberish nor an obsolete second language. Should the state be required to fund the education of the children of the Italian immigrants in Italian? No. The default language of education in Quebec is French. Elsewhere in Canada its English. If the immigrants wish to have thier children learn English then they should fund such education themselves (home schooling is allowed - but of course French would be part of any curriculum) or immigrate to some other place other than Quebec.

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.I guess the Left is against self-determination when the results of it aren't to their liking, and in favor of self-determination when the West is hurt by it. I guess it's heads I win tails you lose. I'm all for self-determination. If the Afghans believe abusing the prisoners is the right thing to do, I say 'carry on. It's none of our business'. Our business is ensuring those captured by Canadians are not abused. If Afghans are abusing them, then the answer is simple: Stop turning them over to Afghans.