Sir Bandelot

It happened as a reaction to outside interference. The right to self-determination was removed by external forces. The Ayatollah took advantage of the situation (ie backlash against the west) and in that climate of anger he succeeded in implementing his theocratic vision. The people were blinded by anger and bloodlust, so are easily convinced that he held the solution. By the way, criticism of their harsh theocracy is all too easy, too obvious. The lack of vocal criticism in that regard does not mean supporting it.

-> 1. Historically no country has been able to defeat the Afghan people. Which makes it a mission Impossiable...Can not be done regardless of what we do. I think that it CAN be done, but not so much "defeat the people", as transform the society, or rather, work to remove the negative aspects of it. But how can it be done, if not by using the same old (and failed) methods. Doing the same thing thats failed time and again before, should be questioned. What makes it different this time, enough that it would mean success. -> 2. You can not defeat an ideal, in this case the taliban Ideal, .... Arguably true, again depends on the method. When you push someone they usually push back. To win the psychological war is the most important form of victory (if lasting effects are in fact the goal). -> 3. You can not defeat a terrorist group with military forces.... Not if your method causes more new terrorists to be created, than the ones you kill off. It's all about method. -> 4. NATO military actions are drive Afghan people into the Taliban arms, and creating more taliban fighters. Seems to be a fact, not specifically for Taliban alone but the act of war means a recruitment of more soldiers by the enemy. Again it's all about psychology. I read the Taliban have done well in wining hearts and minds, by providing medicine and other aid to areas where our troops have attacked and killed civilians. Thus they are seen as "the good guys", or at least, the better guys since we don't show up with any aid. Often because the conflict zone is still too hot. If I were a strategist/ General I would be cognizant of the fact, there will always be a backlash. I'd also be aware that it may be impossible to win in this aspect. -> 5. We support our soldiers not the mission. How about, we support the overall mission objectives, but not the methods. I think I do... except the mission objectives seem to shift and change as the war goes on. But if the objective is to protect human rights, that I would support. Of course, war is the greatest affront to human rights, in the short term.

But not those who just kills others, without blowing themselves up. To use humans as weapons seems to me like an act of absolute desperation. People might do that to attack a perceived enemy if they felt they have no other options. They probably wouldn't need to do that, if they could just sit in their offices and attack their enemies remotely using predator drones. Thats not to say the act of terrorism is justified, but I think that understanding the reasons for terrorism might help toward eliminating it. To simply write them off as beasts does nothing other than dehumanize them, and create the mindset that arises the same old methods of dealing with the problem, which only gives us short-term solutions that satisfy our need for revenge. We must look at the problem from every angle or point of view. Every human is born with the same potential for good and evil, and what we experience in life is what ultimately shapes our choices. What is it that has made so many of these people our enemy. We certainly don't seem to attack them this way, we have much more advanced and (usually) discriminate solutions. But every time we attack, even if one innocent person is killed it is used against us as a recruiting device for more suicide bombers. Thats why the psychological war is much more important to win than the military one.

The silence roared.

What an "assinine" comparison

The Afghan population is faced with two prospective outcomes. One is the continued presence of a fighting force on their soil which has made mistakes resulting in civilian casualties. But that presence in itself provides a check on Karzai. I don't believe it really does. I heard about the shiny new rape law, even posted about it. The controversy was a while ago, back in April 2009. Did you hear much more about it, after Karzai said he would 'review' the law, in order to appease Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? Not much was discussed about what happened next. Afghanistan's contentious family law quietly enacted August 17, 2009- Women's rights activists alleged Monday that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has used a constitutional loophole to enact a law that allows minority Shia Muslim husbands to refuse food and money to their wives if they deny them sex. Female parliamentarians said they thought they would get the chance to fight for revisions, only to discover in recent days that Karzai had taken advantage of a legislative recess to approve the law by decree. Parliament has the right to examine and change the law when they reconvene but the law stays in effect in the meantime. The legislation was passed by presidential decree in mid-July and published in Afghanistan's official gazette on July 27, which brings the law into force, according to Human Rights Watch. Lawmakers confirmed the process. Presidential spokesmen could not be reached for comment. Also check out http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/13/afghanistan-law-curbing-women-s-rights-takes-effect which gives some details on the actual contents of the law. Karzai used women as pawns in his political manouvers. Thats a bit beyond anything that Harper or Obama would do. Well, Obama anyway. But isn't it odd that Obama and Clinton, and other western leaders have nothing to say about that? I guess it's just not our business. -ANYONE who thinks that this is about removing safe haven for terrorists, I ask how that could be done, when the very same mentality and values, disdain for western equality sits in the government of Afghanistan itself. These are the people our troops are fighting for, to keep them in power. Because it seems to me that there is no Taliban as a distinct cultural/ ideological movement, separate from the people of Afghanistan.

All quiet on the Haitian frontier? Why no daily reports on the status of aid for the earthquake survivors? There must be a reason. If they had something good to say, they surely would tell us. And if they don't tell us? U.N. officials say they are still far short of reaching all 2 million quake victims estimated to need food aid. Shortages of food, clean water, adequate shelter and latrines are creating a potential spawning ground for epidemics in a country with an estimated 1 million people made homeless by the Jan. 12 quake. Survivors have erected flimsy shelters of cloth, cardboard or plastic in nearly every open space left in the capital. Water is recycled - used first for brushing teeth, then for washing food, then for bathing. The crowding and puddles of filthy water that breed mosquitoes have begun to spread diseases such as dengue and malaria. Some hospitals report that half the children they treat have malaria, though the rainy season - the peak time for mosquitoes - won't start until April. Meanwhile, federal agencies scrambled to explain the U.S. military's suspension of medical evacuations of critically ill Haitians to the United States in a dispute over where the victims should be treated. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jKXZYLLR2aD-Ljf0vhXAxkeP3gNQ Went to a Tim Hortons drive-thru yesterday. Below the cashiers window there is a box taped to the sill with a hole cut in it, that says "Donations for Haiti". - Dump your money in this hole. How much money has been collected, worldwide? I think no one knows. Where is the money, how is it being used, how is it being safeguarded from theft? No one knows. They probably collected millions. But why after so long don't the people even have clean water to drink or wash in? Even if it costs a few million for a fleet of helicopters to carry the aid in, so what? Thats exactly what the money donations were supposed to be for. Seems to me, if you gave money to help people in Haiti get through this emergency, you (and the Haitians) have been shafted. But on the brighter side, it looks like FEMA has a few thousand trailers left over from Katrina that it would like to send there. You remember, the same ones that were so contaminated with formaldehyde that they made people sick... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2010/01/haiti-earthquake-.html

Yet it does imply that quite clearly, if you extend the meaning of things beyond the immediate declaration. Meanwhile on CTV news (television), the headline simply reads "Supreme court rules that Canadian government does not have to repatriate Khadr." Nice diversion from the important facts, Peter Mackay

The difference is only slight when we know that collateral deaths will be inevitable. Someone has to measure the value of human life vs. the potential benefit of attacking to protect our "security". And thats easier done when people are statistics, not so easy to take when they are your family and friends. As to whether they would think that the loss is acceptable, or a fair trade between taliban and coalition killing of civilians, we won't know. Dead men tell no tales.

In the initial airstrikes and invasion, most of the direct civilian deaths were the result of U.S.-led airstrikes and groundfire. In the years since 2005, the mounting insurgency has resulted in more direct civilian deaths being caused each year by insurgent actions than by coalition military action. Overall, however, the number of direct civilian casualties that have been attributed to insurgent forces by the available estimates remains less than the number that have been attributed to U.S.-led airstrikes and groundfire since 2001. (!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present) Didn't think that would be so easy to dispute. I would guess in terms of the numbers of civilians killed by either side, its close to 50-50. But who really knows anything about the reality of the situation, with all the disinformation being told. "if you need to make it personal, for whatever lame reason, please carry on." It does not matter what we think about the facts of the war. We are bombarded with garbage information from all sides of differeing opinion. With all this crap going on, most of us choose to believe what we want to. The truth is probably somewhere in-between.

Here's the insidious question- at what cost. If a small group of extremists is deeply entrenched or hidden in a larger society of non-threatening people, do we carpet bomb the areas where we think their hideouts are? Or would that simply exacerbate the situation, giving our enemies the moral high ground amongst the muslim people, somewhat like fanning the flames makes the fire get worse? This sounds something like kiling flies with a shotgun, and accitdently shooting your friend right in the face. Now who would be dumb enough to be so fixated on their small target, as to shoot their freind innocently standing by? Not all friends will be so forgiving. It takes cunning and intelligence to find terrorists. Yet it seems to me, even though I never supported the war, that to leave before the job is done would tarnish our achievements there. Whatever that was... I would have preferred that Harper et al had said, we will be re-assigned in our role there. Let someone else take the lead, while Canada takes on a more defensive and rebuilding infrastructure type of role. I don't know if this will be the case. But when I hear this kind of talk from our government, I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THEY DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE IN THIS WAR, that they think its a useless endeavour and don't care about the final outcome. And their actions over the years in supporting the troops, in providing appropriate logistics, also supports this notion.

Whle its true we dont slice off heads during intermission at soccer matches, "we" as in Canada, or the western alliance or whatever manipulate situations in other countries for our own nations personal interest, to the detriment of theirs. We are not unlike the Roman citizens of old who enjoyed the prosperity and security of living in Rome, while the troops battled in barbarian lands far away. We enjoy the wealth and profit made by those conquests, whose main purpose is to create economic security zones that benefit the empire. The way we attack, the way we destroy and assimilate into our culture, is different from the way they do. On this level we are only better because we don't get bombed by them.

I see. So they're kind of like the CPC

Then what else are you really saying. Do you actually doubt that women and children are killed routinely as collateral damage? I'd be very surprised if you said "yes...". Those links I showed were acquired in about 5 minutes of google. There is so much else. There is no doubt whatsoever that we (or any nation) will do whatever it takes to further our own self interests. If that means bombing people into the stone age, we will do that. If that means, you need to believe that its all for the greater good, so you can sleep well at night, please carry on.

WHat is deliberate. An act of ommission of the safety of others, is that not deliberate? It makes no difference, when the bombs are raining down on a civilian. They don't know or care if it was really meant for them or not. We certainly don't go out of our way to avoid these occurences, as they happen so frequently. There is probably more we could do to protect civilians. But we dont

KABUL, Afghanistan - With his lips quivering and voice breaking, a tearful President Hamid Karzai on Sunday lamented that Afghan children are being killed by NATO and US bombs and by terrorists from Pakistan - a portrait of helplessness in the face of spiraling chaos. In a heartfelt speech that brought audience members to tears, Karzai said the cruelty imposed on his people "is too much" and that Afghanistan cannot stop "the coalition from killing our children." http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-12/11/content_755352.htm http://www.progressohio.org/page/-/Images/Abu-Ghraib-Prison-Photos.jpg As though we haven't also done exactly that, eh? 30 years of war, and no end in sight for the people of Afghanistan. Hey give yourself a pat on the shoulder. You are great

That is the sheer absurdity of the situation. Yet if he had been given due process, there wouldn't have been such a problem. What was the alternative? In front of a court he probably would have been let go. Another, perhaps better option would have been to employ the Ralph Klein methid

If the ruling says his human rights were violated by the Canadian government, does it mean he can sue the government of Canada? Yes I think it does. Does it mean the Canadian government is guilty of crimes against humanity? Not really, if its an isolated case. But the same ruling would probably apply to all prisoners in Guantanamo, and so is part of a condemnation of the United States as well.

I agree that it should be the main objective, but the root causes for why they want to do that have yet to be explored. And even if it is the objective, how is it accomplished yet? Seems to me the Taliban will still be around, even in POWER as part of the government, if we go with this plan. If this is what they truly want to do, I do not understand how it achieves that objective at all. Thus one can only conclude, it is NOT the objective. At least, not any more so it seems. I agree with GhostHacked, but we have learned that we cannot FORCE freedom on a people, whose cultural values deliberately reject the idea of such freedoms, at their very core. But destabilization is being accomplished, that may be the only thing that matters.

I saw him giving his speech on TV. The sounds was off, but I could see his face. His lips were moving... I didn't turn the sound on, just changed the channel.

LONDON - World leaders meeting in London on Thursday agreed on a timetable for the handover of security duties in Afghan provinces starting in late 2010. The meeting backed Afghan President Hamid Karzai's decision to try to reintegrate Taliban willing to "cut ties with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups and pursue their political goals peacefully" after more than eight years of combat. The conference was called to help world powers chart a roadmap out of Afghanistan amid rising U.S. and NATO casualties and falling public support. Karzai's plan is to lure Taliban soldiers into mainstream society with offers of housing and jobs in the police, army, or in agriculture. "We must reach out to all our countrymen, especially our disenchanted brothers, who are not part of al-Qaida or other terrorist networks," he told the conference. --- Taliban fighters have been taking over wider swathes of the country and successfully attacked the center of Kabul, power base of the feeble central government led by Karzai. Al-Qaida leaders have regrouped near the Pakistan-Afghan border. The Taliban have dismissed his reconciliation plan, saying in a statement posted to their Web site Wednesday that their fighters wouldn't be swayed by financial incentives. The U.N. on Tuesday removed the names of five former Taliban officials — including a former confidant of Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar — from a U.N. sanctions list in support of the reconciliation efforts. Karzai said he wanted more names removed. "Some pretty unsavory characters are going to have to be brought within the system," Mark Sedwill, NATO's newly appointed civilian chief — and the ex-British ambassador in Kabul — told a meeting Wednesday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35118854/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/ --- Nice job. Oh well, wars over, time to clean up and move on the the next, great frontier. May I emphasize that the article clearly shows that the Taliban will be allowed to peacefully pursue their political agenda. To me it says, their agenda which is anti-democracy, anti womens equal rights and anti free education for all. The Taliban probably have a lot of political supporters of their ideas living in those regions. Other articles show how Karzais commitment to Obama to make meaningful political reforms in his cabinet, is bullshit. To that end they are "annoyed" with Karzai, but that is all. Allied soldiers, how you like me now

Ignatieff is such a political whore, he wears 9 inch stilleto heels but aside from that, there is room at the bottom for more labourers. While we teach our kids to all become PhD's, we need someone who knows how to work a roto-router. Thats life

I remember when I was 5 or 6 years old, I went to the corner store. I saw a "super-ball" that was 25 cents. All I had was 5 cents, so I stole it. I went to my school and bounced it against the wall for a while. But then I thought, shouldn't steal it. So I took it back to the store, discreetly put it back in the box and left. No one told me not to steal it, no one forced me to bring it back. But I knew it was wrong, and I made the moral choice on my own. I still try to live by those ideals now, never try to screw someone over, even if they don't know about it. You see, there really is no other choice for me, thats just the way I am. Now ask yourself, what are you

Hello again, Mr. Canada

Where is M Dancer when you need him