Peter F

It seems the Afghans of the Northern Alliance were quite capable of tossing the Taliban as long as they had available cash to buy recruits and large amounts of aerial support to convince the taliban foot-slogger that the norther alliance paid better rates. ...but those warlords are gone and NATO will not allow nor will the US be feeding cash to help the warlords establish themselves in little power bases. Those days are gone. Too late for all that now, myata. We won't be pulling out of Khandahar unless there is someone to replace us. Even the NDP won't be pulling the troops out without someone to replace replace them. Since no one else is volounteering It appears that someone else is going to be the Afghan army. So there we are for 3 or 4 more years even if we can't do the job required of us. It's the inevitable result of the governments retarded decision (advised by the CANDO attitude of the CDS - wich is an admirable and desireable attitude for a field commander to have, but sucks at the level of advising the goverment) to take over in Khandahar when we didn't have the means to do the job.

Can't find a single one for wilfully bombing civilians - post viet nam anyways. But the civilians get bombed nonetheless. But at least the mourners can take solace in the fact that the bombers meant well - as opposed to the terrorists.

No. The USofA demanded Afghanistan stop supporting terrorism to wich end they demanded Bin Laden and his alqueda cronies be turned over to the US. The Taliban refused so the USofA bombed the snot out of the Taliban lines so that the Northern Alliance could defeat the Taliban. NATO went into Afghanistan in support of the Americans after NATO determined that the USofA had been attacked by terrorists operating freely and without hindrance from Afghanistan. This is no longer about Bin Laden; It hasn't been since the Norther Alliance tossed the Taliban out of power. The Taliban, as you may have heard, is fighting a war with the present Afghn government to try to re-establish theocratic government. NATO, Canada included, is actively trying to keep the present Afghan government in power until such time as the Afghan army itself is deemed capable of doing that job. The drug trade - or lack of it - had nothing to do with choosing to toss the Taliban out. Except for the UN wich passed various sanctions against Afghanistan for providing support and sustenance to Al Queda. But, on the whole, no Afghanistan was not worth the media covering for the most part. Thus the impression that no one said anything about them. Yes, they say lots of things. They also say God is on thier side. Yes it is the Taliban we are fighting, or at least Taliban, religious fanatics, wannabe warlords and various tribal riff-raff all under the Taliban umbrella. I have no idea where to begin with the above statement. Perhaps its all true. Perhaps not...Except for the oil part - there is nor has there been any oil in Afghanistan. Natural Gas perhaps and certainly some have hoped to get a NG pipeline run through Afghanistan But this isnt about oil. Iraq may be - but not Afghanistan. The USofA is putting up 50% of the troops in Afghanistan. Probably alot more if they feel the need... but then NATO is an alliance...

A well written essay. Just go's to show imposing misery on millions for political ends is easily justified. Justification is important, after all.

Accepting that aerial bombing will result in collateral damage - and doing anyways knowing full well that non-targetted people will die as a result but, you know, maybe not - is certainly less brutal than strappiing bombs to the non-targetted. But brutality non the less and usually unnecessary - callously so. Our moral advantage over the terrorists is only slight when we regretfully accept the killing of innocents.

'Spend the money or go home'....absolutely. Canada can't go home so it follows that we must spend the money (through increased committment) to see the thing through. But Canada isn't going to do that either. edit to add: As for the troops asking 'WTF'... if Army Guy is representative, they are asking WTF. But they are asking it of the citizenry of Canada - particularly people like me or myata - WTF why don't we support the mission? In itself its a perfectly reasonable question, but really the question of WTF is misdirected. Nobody has yet said WTF to the Prime Minister who is going to use the present 'falling between two stools' situation to win the upcoming election. Nobody has yet said to Gen.Hillier WTF when he has been using the present 'falling between two stools' situation as a means to get all that new equipment. Hell, it would normally have taken the beurocracy 10 years to acquire new tanks. Hillier pulled it off in less than 2. He's playing rock soup...but nobody's aking him WTF. But no, WTF gets directed at us wimpy peaceniks as if we are the ones to blame for the present situation. Ignoring the fact that despite us peaceniks there they are and there they will remain.

It's not a 'hobby war' anymore. I think it was up to 2005 - not for the troops on the ground, of course - but certainly for the folks in Ottawa on parliament hill and at DND HQ.

The only answers I saw were trying to convince the other NATO allies to commit more troops/equipment/money and try to convince ISAF to better organize the operation and try to convince the Afhan government to crack down on the corruption. IE: the succesfull realization of Canada's goal in Kandahar is dependant upon what everyone else doe's or doesn't do. We can't do what we said we were going to do yet we can't leave either. We have not the wherewithall to stay nor wit enough to run away.

I suppose we could. We bought a bunch of new tanks and new Hercs and new IFV's and increased recruiting. But we arn't and Manley nor the Government nor Gen.Hillier recommend we send more troops and lease the helicopters to complete the job we signed onto. Rather strange isn't it? It's almost as if they don't want to reinforce failure...

There are no answers to the present situation. As the Manley Report spells out the only viable option Canada has is to remain in place and beg NATO to supply more toops and helicopters and if not then please , someone - anyone - please take over for us because Canada cannot accomplish our security goals without that support. Really good planning the Libs and Hillier pulled off.

and here we arrive at the Kangaroo aspect of the Military Commission. Should the commission find Mr.Khadr guilty he will be sent to jail. Should the commission find Mr.Khadr is not guilty he will be sent to jail.

Too right! I'm still laughing. Here's a treat for the 9/11 conspiracy: Now where have I heard all that before? or: Jewish Mind Control Mechanisms: And thats just two of the thousands of hours of entertainment available.

No old people? Lousy music?

Bill c24 So Unions cannot force its members to contribute financially to a party they may not support. Unions cannot financially support any political party. In fact, the National Citizens Coalation is upset that the AFL and the ABTC have produced some spots ('attack ads') for Albertans to watch on the tube. See NCC See Union advert

all those things are 'political activism'. If management fails to provide those things it is actually good for the Union to lobby the government to enact such laws and/or pressure management to do the right thing. Unions are by their very nature political activism. ... or should be, unless its some sort of 'company union'...

Good for the British government. They're right, yknow. Who gives a shit what the terrorists politics are - its thier actions that make em terrorists. Those that don't act are not terrorists. Its the Western way don't you know.

From the Military Commissions Act of 2006, under which Khadr is being tried: MCA2006 Despite the release of the pentagon to the press about what the eyewitness saw, no evidence has yet been produced at his trial. Who knows? Folks get shot in the back during firefights. This t'ain't the ol West. In combat its perfectly allright to shoot your enemy in the back or front or side or from the bottom or the top. That he was shot in the back really amounts to nothing if, as the US claims, there was a battle going on...

- excerpted from my copy of Islamica Magazine, issue 20, 2007. website: Islamica Magazine - 'Muslim WakeUp' , July 9 2005 Muslim WakeUp Bin Laden Stirs Struggle on Meaning of Jihad, January 27, 2002Sullivan county.com - etc etc. see Muslims Condemn Terrorism

Well, Friday has come and gone with no riots or other mayhem resulting from the 'shocking' program. Perhaps the viewiership was too small? Not enough advertising? Didn't get the message out, so to speak? Oh well. If at first you don't succeed...

No, a Canadian PM would not work as bogeyman - nor would the King of Norway suit the bill. A bogeyman requires vast amounts of power - mythically so. OBL fits, so did Saddam, so does Bush...and, of course, the Illuminati...I'm pretty sure that the next US President will fit the bill also.

They don't. I don't recall any riots (deadly or not) in North America or any exploding 'retarded people' in North America or anywhere else for that matter...except for the one incident in Baghdad. So your contention that the Cartoons inspire Muslims to defend themselves is very mistaken. You have taken the actions of a few (and who knows what thier inspiration is) and apply it to every Muslim on the face of this planet. Perhaps you should direct your question at those actually involved in the things you speak of. I'm sure they would supply all sorts of bullshit answers for you to rail at

If my need is strong enough, yes, And a valid point it is. Yes, the WoT is silly and No I do not think Americans sit at home and worry about the PM of Canada or the UK...unless they refuse to support the WoT then they worry about why 'they' abandoned America in its time of need, and they worry about wether Canada is doing all it can to secure America's borders or wether Canada allows terrorists to operate within Canada, or wether Canada is exporting too much marjiuana, or how the Canadian health-care system is a bad example etc etc.

I am anti-Bush because he is the figurehead of the fuckedup war on terrorism. But I could be mistaken. Perhaps it will all work out in the end...but I doubt it. In any event, since I am not a citizen of the USofA, President Bush has sweet bugger-all to do with my freedoms - such as they are. That is entirely dependant upon the present Canadian government.

As a pinko ex-commie I will confirm that I do not love terrorists - whatever thier creed or rationalization. I am anti-Bush et al, though. The real enemy of freedom is not terrorists but ourselves. Terrorists have no power over any government - all they can do is terrorize. It is we ourselves who will restrict our own freedoms in order to feel safer. The terrorists can't do a thing except kill - and because its easy, kill indesciminantly. Who's been spinning? All terrorism is horrific. What is more horrific about this particular attack as opposed to the usual run-of-the-mill terrorism? Doe's anyone here think terrorists are picky about who gets killed? I'm glad you qualified 'Islamic' with 'terrorists'. There are many here who believe the two terms are interchangeable.