Sir Bandelot

Although we are told everything is wonderful in Afghanistan, where our troops are showered with rose-petals every time they go out for a drive, it seems that the extremists are doing well in Pakistan: ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - A potentially troubling era dawned Sunday in Pakistan's Swat Valley, where a top Islamist militant leader, emboldened by a peace agreement with the federal government, laid out an ambitious plan to bring a "complete Islamic system" to the surrounding northwest region and the entire country. Speaking to thousands of followers in an address aired live from Swat on national news channels, cleric Sufi Mohammed bluntly defied the constitution and federal judiciary, saying he would not allow any appeals to state courts under the system of sharia, or Islamic law, that will prevail there as a result of the peace accord signed by the president Tuesday. "The Koran says that supporting an infidel system is a great sin," Mohammed said, referring to Pakistan's modern democratic institutions. He declared that in Swat, home to 1.5 million people, all "un-Islamic laws and customs will be abolished," and he suggested that the official imprimatur on the agreement would pave the way for sharia to be installed in other areas. Mohammed's dramatic speech echoed a rousing sermon in Islamabad on Friday by another radical cleric, Maulana Abdul Aziz, who appeared at the Red Mosque in the capital after nearly two years in detention and urged several thousand chanting followers to launch a crusade for sharia nationwide. Together, these rallying cries seemed to create an arc of radical religious energy between the turbulent, Taliban-plagued northwest region and the increasingly vulnerable federal capital, less than 100 miles to the east. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30299557/ -------------------------- Taliban plagued? Sounds more like Taliban loved, as they moved into the SWAT valley a few months ago. Looks like this is what the people really want. They see democracy as part of the evils of the western "infidel system", that directly conflicts with their fundamental beliefs. And I have read several times elsewhere, there is no cultural disconnect between Afghanistan and Pakistan. ----- Reason for edit: Added link

I'm glad to see that some people here are able to use their intelligence when they make a reply. Let the childish taunters out themselves. For the record, the measure was signed into law by Karzai last month. His comments after the general public outcry was merely to the extent that it is "under review", which means, it still maintains legal status until such a review takes place. Otherwise, why would there even be a protest about it as happened just a few days ago. "In an interview to air on Sunday's "GPS" program, Karzai told CNN's Fareed Zakaria that he and others were unaware of the provision in the legislation, which he said "has so many articles." Karzai signed the measure into law last month. "Now I have instructed, in consultation with clergy of the country, that the law be revised, and any article that is not in keeping with the Afghan Constitution and Islamic Sharia must be removed from this law," Karzai said. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/1...rzai/index.html Now, I agree as some of you have pointed out, that our expectations of whats achievable in Afghanistan are too high. What do we do if, upon bestowing blessed democracy to this people, they willingly vote for sharia laws, inequality of the sexes, sanctioned rape and slavery? This is based on their fundamentalist muslim beliefs, ideas that existed for centuries, yes even in our culture and which we have only really come around to on our own in the past 70 or 80 years? Some might even say, we haven't achieved true equality yet in our society. So now thinking along these lines, what is the purpose of this war? Why should Karen Blais give up her young life, when we don't have a realistic and worthwhile goal to achieve? This war is like the impulsive reaction of an angry man shouting from the podium, after September 11, who demanded it, asked others to get involved and then largely ignored it. Is it possible that our weak minded administration cannot admit the fault in their strategy, because the utter shame of bringing their stupidity to light now refuse to make the right decision? To create a facade that our troops died for a good cause? A war can be started in a moment. Like a bad law voted in by a fool, without accountability. Easy to implement, difficult to remove.

This is todays news. And this is about the cultural attitudes of people who would pass such laws, or defend them in the streets! So obfuscate away

"The law, passed last month, says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse — a clause that critics say legalizes marital rape. It also regulates when and for what reasons a wife may leave her home alone." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30223599/ This law was recently passed, by the officially recognized government of Afghanistan. That is to say, the same governbment we are defending by sending our troops, the same government we will leave in power when we leave. This is their attitude, their very idea of justice. Now ask yourself WHY, any young Canadians should die to defend these people, what exactly is being accomplished that leaves something in place, any better than the Taliban? Who is the Taliban? Who is the government? This is the people of Afghanistan! As evidenced further in the article: "KABUL - A group of some 1,000 Afghans swarmed a demonstration of 300 women protesting against a new conservative marriage law on Wednesday. The women were pelted with small stones as police struggled to keep the two groups apart." This is a cultural, ideological problem, not a political or a military one!!!

Well looks like he did find a way to get Canadian crowds animated after all. Go home, yankee

- These and other substances could be harmful depending on circumstances, but this issue should come down to mitigating harm, and whether or not legal punishment is the best way to deal with it. - There are many scientific reports about marijuana, both good and bad which amount to propaganda used by either side to promote their political agendas. Thanks to that its hard for the average person to determine what is actually true. But now after about 70 years of prohibition, and with millions in Canada admitting to habitual pot use, we should be able to ask- if it is a toxic substance, habeus corpus? In other words, where are the bodies. A pragmatic question. Having worked in a cancer centre for more than 20 years I can personally testify to it, I have never heard of it being a concern in regards to head and neck, or any other disease. In fact its more the opposiite... there are things done quietly for the benefit of patients, which are not talked about publicly. Marijuana is given to some who are permitted to smoke it right on the premises. Its used in pain management and weight gain following treatment. Even as far back as the 80's I knew that pot was given to some in our centre. I never heard of anyone being administered tobacco or alcohol. I know the studies are on-going ad theres a lot more interest in it today, with medical marijuana. Products like Marinol taken sub-lingually. But they are not as good as the real thing, its faster uptake to inhale the smoke and to use a variety of species. So I do not think its even as harmful as tobacco. You don't have to believe me but this is my experience, not drawn from statistics.

Why should this (and everything) descend into a pissing match between the "left and right"? Do you think this financial problem happened the day after Ralph Klein retired? It often seems to me that when theres a change in leadership, its followed by bad news. How could all that wealth evaporate in such a short time... where did it really go? Evidently not to the hard-working citizens.

I heard there has not been a single case of cancer or death due to illness, caused by smoking marijuana. Since probably a few million people smoke it, there should be some data that prove or disprove this?

"why can't the rest of Canada just get on board...." Because unlike soldiers we are able to use our independent thought and critical analysis. A soldier is expected to do what they're told by the leadership, without questioning. For that level of loyalty we are all grateful but its not our job to obey without question. It is in fact our job, to QUESTION, so that unscrupulous leaders can't have their way and abuse their power, and send troops to wars that aren't beneficial to Canadians somehow. A positive outcome in the use of war to bring about change, is not guaranteed. There are other ways to bring about change besides using military force, and there is ample evidence that you cannot change a culture or ideology such as this through the use of violence. There are even certain arguments to be made, that democracy is not POSSIBLE in a country such as Afghanistan. Nor do these islamic countries even want it, they have their reasons to fundamentally disagree with the concept of democracy. Besides this weepy rhetoric about bringing peace and democracy, we can only conclude after so many years and with increasing risk of failure, that war on these terms is unwinnable. Either we change our definition of success (already happening now), or accept the fact that we have failed outright. We are not winning, according to President Obama himself. If anything, this newbie president makes the mistake of telling the truth when he's not supposed to- Mar. 9 2009 (CNN) -- Regarding the Taliban in Afghanistan, the president said that while the situation is much more complex than in Iraq, "There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and Pakistan." "If you talk to Gen. [David] Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of al Qaeda in Iraq," he told the Times. Petraeus is the U.S. commander in the region. But Obama added that Afghanistan's complexities -- "a less governed region, a history of fierce independence among tribes," he said -- mean that developing a new strategy "is going to be much more of a challenge." Asked if the United States is winning the war in Afghanistan, Obama said "no." http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/09/oba...iban/index.html

"So you think leaving the Taleban in control was an option?" Karzai cheers possible reaching out to Taliban Afghan leader speaks after Obama raises possibility of reconciliation Timely article as these are the current discussions- Sun., March. 8, 2009 KABUL - President Hamid Karzai on Sunday welcomed President Barack Obama's call to identify moderate elements of the Taliban and encourage them to reconcile with the Afghan government. Obama's call "was good news because this has been the stand of the Afghan government," Karzai told a gymnasium full of Afghan women during a speech to commemorate International Women's Day. --- Talk about irony, he's standing in front of a room full of women talking about how he will allow the Taliban to participate in government. Isn't this the group that wants sharia law, and prevent girls from getting any education or being allowed out in public? They go around beating people in the streets for minor infractions. So we were told But I want all my army buddies to know, you know? This is whats now going down! The fat baby-faced leader of our country also doesn't have a problem with it. He's a good boy does what he's told! Give it ten years to come around full circle, it'll be as if it never happened. Except for the grave markers of our young people who died of course. A buncha suckers are we

It seems to me that Stalin did some killing too, maybe up to 20 million. Who did it for him, the Germans? How many european civilians were killed, by all parties, all around? Single out the Germans is just a scapegoat. We know that these wars introduced modern wrfare on a whole new scale, not just in mechanization but in the mandatory draft and "total warfare", complete anihilation. Yes, its a war on ideology. That is in fact what makes modern wars so cruel, compared to wars for teritory as the old style wars were often about. Complete destruction was not desireable, not necessary but when it comes down to wanting to change someones ideology...

As is now evidenced by the re-introduction of sharia law in parts of Pakistan. We have not done well in spreading good will and democracy by the use of force, so lets get off that one.

Your quote about what YOU call "winning" does not even include the removal of the Taliban, and I doubt thats the way it will go down. Well, it appears now that the Taliban are going to have some say in the way the country will be run. Thats what Mr. Karzai has been talking about for months, and now we are hearing similar noises coming from western leaders. So for all intents and purposes that will not be a necessary outcome. In terms of reducing terrorism the strategy was grossly ineffective, perhaps even producing the opposite result as thousands of disenchanted muslim youth now have a focal point for their hatred, someone to blame, and a cause to rally around. So I say, these bare minimum outcomes could have been accomplished by other less costly means. To me that says, they were never really the objectives, just lip service for the bobble headed public. Now that the war is dragging on, and the economy tanking our leaders don't see the war as so attractive anymore. Their short attention span diverts them elsewhere. To the country we attacked, we appear to be either as cowards or fools since we didn't achieve what we set out to do. This only makes us look stupid and weak, to people such as these.

If that's all it takes for you to declare it a victory, then there was no point even going into Afghanistan. We could have just left it the hell alone in the first place!

With the sad news today of three more Canadians killed, and comments from Harper that the war is not winnable, many are left wondering what the hell is going on. This about-face comes right after he meets with Barack Obama, who will likely make a tactical shift in the use of military in Afghanistan. Right away we hear Harper singing a different tune, as though we should all simply forget what he said before? Is Stephen Harper just a lap-dog for the US President? Those soldiers gave their lives for this garbage!

Prime Minister Stephen Harper concedes the fact- http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0303?hub=Canada Harper told the U.S. television network that the Afghan government needs to be able to manage the persistent Taliban insurgency that rages across swaths of the country. "We're not going to win this war just by staying," Harper said. "Quite frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency. Afghanistan has probably had - my reading of Afghanistan history (is) it's probably had an insurgency forever of some kind. "What has to happen in Afghanistan is we have to have an Afghan government that is capable of managing that insurgency." --- Maybe someone should have given our political leaders a history lesson, BEFORE they have the power to make decisions that send our troops into harms way, costing great destruction of human lives, property and wealth! All for what now, Stephen please tell us.

What next, shall we come up with a new definition what "victory" means, in corporate double-speak? How about in the context that Afghanistan is going to have to solve its own peace and security problems... waste of time? What have they been doing for the past few centuries without our meddling... their minds are already made up as to what they want. The Taliban will be asked to participate in the government, that is what Mr. Karzai has been saying for months. Sharia law will be put in place, as was just allowed once again in Pakistan. We have done nothing, except reinforce their mistrust and anger towards the west.

Stephen Harper- "We are not going to achieve peace and security in Afghanistan." How is it that we achieve anything at all then, if not security? Can it be stabilized economically, can anything be built, projects, with it. Or will the solution ultimately be to include the Taliban and make conciliatory gestures... even... allowing sharia law, if the government of Afghanistan says so? No, somehow that don't smell like victory

Accordng to this article, victory is not achieveable in the Afghan war. That is to say, a victory in military terms. It is now coming down to protecting our interests. Is that like making the best of a bad situation? Top commander offers grim view of military efforts against Taliban Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, said Wednesday that the foreign ministers of those countries will travel to Washington next week to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other officials as the U.S. formulates a policy review. Appearing on "The NewsHour" on PBS, Holbrooke was asked how the Obama administration sees victory in Afghanistan. "First of all, the victory, as defined in purely military terms, is not achievable, and I cannot stress that too highly," he said. "What we're looking for is the definition of our vital national security interests." Link This guy says things have been going quite badly. Yet we hear about staying the course. Who's right here?

He will be speaking in Calgary, considered a "safe" location for him to start out because of their highly conservative and pro-American views. I'm sure he'll receive a warm welcome. Many will wave and salute to him- this time with all five fingers.

Polls?? Most people in the general public have no idea of what to do about this crisis. Seems everybody thinks they're an economics expert now. Even real "Economists" are split on a solution.

"Belief in Dawkins - God's Spectrum of Probabilities" Some say, Dawkins does not really exist. And indeed, according to modern theories of cosmology, he would be inclined to agree

Obama is popular in part because he is introducing social reforms that resonate with Liberals and leftist ideas. He talks about creating a new accountablility, payroll caps for executives in public funding, government oversight of markets, health care reform, free health care for children. Things that many Liberal and leftist Canadians believe in. This is in contrast to policies and ideas from the CPC, which were (up until recently) all about deregulation, privatization, increased military adventurism, private health care. On the whole the US is much more right-wing than Canada. A realistic comparison may show Obama as being more right-wing in some ways that Harper, but this is all about perception and the media, and how it affects the attitude of the voting public. In other words, the more people love Obama, the less they love the ideas of the CPC.

But they did not close off the Hill when president Bush came to visit in, think it was October 2003. There was thousands of protesters there, some giving speeches to crowds of hundreds right on the hill. Protesters marched in parades around the city streets all day, and anyone could walk around on the Hill. Why was this allowed? Who was in power in the federal government then? I say this is purely political. They are thinking about the press releases and videos that will follow, showing what would be in this case thousands of CHEERING Canadians, not booing as they were in 2003, not needing to be followed, chased through the streets by troops of armed riot police in full uniforms as it was then, but happy, peaceful celebrations. Ask yourself, why is this not being allowed? The answer seems clear to me, it's not a security concern, but the fact that so many might show support for this Democrat, with his Liberal leaning ideas, the man who speaks about equality and fairness, about closing Gitmo, reaching out to find common ground with others around the world instead of dictating military terms. And this flies right in the face of our current government, which is nothing more than a propped-up remnant of the Bush era. Hence, there will be no group gatherings permitted, the gates will be closed. Political machinations that would more suit Red China than a true democracy. This is the attitude of the CPC, to silence public opposition to their ideologies.

I suggest the level of respect given in these forum discussions be no more or less civil than what we see happening every day in our House of Commons. If they can do it to each other, so can we. Is that not the best example of politics in action?