Do Canadians UNDERSTAND we are in Afghanistan?

[Kitchener]

Hmmmm...seems these questions should have been asked before sending Canadian Forces.

Well, obviously.

Even Bush had a better story for the invasion of Iraq.

It's hard to see why anyone could think this. But it's not really germane to this thread.

[Topaz]

Canadians can find more info. about the war over on www.skyreporter.com from journalist A. Kent who lived in the country and knows alot of the people. His website has a messageboard and it has some of those people stating how they feel about the corrruptions within their own government. Also, this war isn't going well for NATO and the Taliban are coming back in great force as said by a US journalist in a view on the radio program. I'm sure if you goggled Afghanistan/ Canada or Afghanistan war a person can find more than what this gov't wants us to know.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, obviously.

Yes, obviously not asked when the Grits cried "Tally Ho!"

It's hard to see why anyone could think this. But it's not really germane to this thread.

Sure it is....President Bush had a goal and timeline. Ding Dong....Saddam is dead. Unlike Parliament, the US Congress even voted to start and extend the war. Dosen't get any better than that.

Meanwhile..."back under the radar"....

[Topaz]

Yes, obviously not asked when the Grits cried "Tally Ho!"

Sure it is....President Bush had a goal and timeline. Ding Dong....Saddam is dead. Unlike Parliament, the US Congress even voted to start and extend the war. Dosen't get any better than that.

Meanwhile..."back under the radar"....

You are right about one thing BC, Bush did have a goal but his time line went overtime! He and others in his group including Cheney who should be given more credit for his part of the worst government in US history. GW always talked about how his dad should have taken out Hussein and if he got into the presidency he would. The oil deposits under the Caspian Sea Basin and the buildup of a US military center in the Middle-East is all what this is about. Its not about Hussein dying its about all the children, women and men, who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan or are maimed for life, all for oil.

[margrace]

Yes, obviously not asked when the Grits cried "Tally Ho!"

Sure it is....President Bush had a goal and timeline. Ding Dong....Saddam is dead. Unlike Parliament, the US Congress even voted to start and extend the war. Dosen't get any better than that.

Meanwhile..."back under the radar"....

Hey there haven't you missed the weapons of mass distruction, now just where were they?

[bush_cheney2004]

You are right about one thing BC, Bush did have a goal but his time line went overtime! He and others in his group including Cheney who should be given more credit for his part of the worst government in US history. GW always talked about how his dad should have taken out Hussein and if he got into the presidency he would.

Worst government? Compared to what....(hint: America does not have "governments"....they do not "fall" as in Canada. See US Constitution). Perhaps you meant to say "worst Administration".

The oil deposits under the Caspian Sea Basin and the buildup of a US military center in the Middle-East is all what this is about. Its not about Hussein dying its about all the children, women and men, who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan or are maimed for life, all for oil.

Ya think? I wonder why Canada bombed and starved those poor Iraqi bastards back in the 90's?

[Kitchener]

Yes, obviously not asked when the Grits cried "Tally Ho!"

No, those questions were not asked (or rather, they were asked, but not given any media attention, and not properly aired in Parliament). They should have been. Certainly the Conservative Party, as HMLO, was not interested in carefully defining the mission before pushing for it; but the primary blame falls on the Liberals.

Sure it is....President Bush had a goal and timeline. Ding Dong....Saddam is dead. Unlike Parliament, the US Congress even voted to start and extend the war. Dosen't get any better than that.

These claims fairly strongly indicate that you are unfamiliar with the events and the public discourse leading up to the occupation of Iraq. But if you believe yourself to be in possession of actual facts to support these remarkable statements, you should feel free to take the questions I asked about Afghanistan and show how the Bush admin answered them in advance of the invasion of Iraq. A new thread would probably be the most appropriate venue.

Meanwhile..."back under the radar"....

You seem to be using this phrase in some way unique to yourself.

[Alexandra]

Again listening to the radio, Harper is saying that he thinks Canadians does know why we are there and how its in Canada's interest. So I'M asking a Con supporter to tell me why we are there and why we should be there until 2011 as Harper has said. I think most Canadians are not against reconstruction of the country but the problem is the "seek and kill and be killed" is the problem especially since the US has most of its troops in the north,east and west and not south in Afghanistan. There's also the cost of this war which could turn into another Iraq.

If you are so interested in Afghanistan and Canada's role in it's UN and NATO commitment whatever gives you the impression a 'Con' supporter or any 'supporter' on this Board is privy to the why's of the decision makers in the DND and in the offices of the Prime Miinister. Actually, by 'listening to the radio' you should already be aware that Canada's mission extension, if any, is not a decision to be made by one Stephen Harper. Your question to the 'Cons' then appears to be the ever so obvious baiting game.

Did you ask all of the 'Liberal' supporters on this Board why their Prime Ministers, Chretien and Martin, involved Canada in Afghanistan in 2002 and why the Prime Minister, Martin, made the decision to involve Canada's military in this Kandahar mission? If not, why not?

Here's a start in your search for answers as to the why's and wherefor's of Canada's role in Afghanistan.

http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/cip-pi...tan/menu-en.asp

CANADA'S APPROACH IN AFGHANISTAN:

Security

Governance

Development

Canada is in Afghanistan to help Afghans rebuild their country as a stable, democratic and self-sufficient society.

We are there with over 60 other nations and international organizations, at the request of the democratically-elected Afghan government, as part of a NATO-led, UN-sanctioned mission.

Our efforts there are guided by the Afghanistan Compact, a five-year blueprint signed by the international community and the Government of Afghanistan. Canada’s “3D” approach – defence, development and diplomacy – reflects the three pillars of the Compact: security, governance and development.

Canada and our international partners have committed to help the people of Afghanistan realize their own vision for a country that is:

secure and at peace with itself and its neighbours;

economically self-sufficient;

prosperous, with the capacity to deliver fundamental services such as water, health care and education; and

governed according to the rule of law.

The challenges are formidable but Afghanistan has made great strides since 2001. Canada’s resources and expertise on the defence, development and diplomatic fronts are playing no small part in helping the Government of Afghanistan secure a better future for its people....... etc. etc.

There is more than enough information on the net on Canada's role in Afghanistan to keep one busy without having to pick up tid bits from sound bites on the radio or tv.

`

[bush_cheney2004]

No, those questions were not asked (or rather, they were asked, but not given any media attention, and not properly aired in Parliament). They should have been. Certainly the Conservative Party, as HMLO, was not interested in carefully defining the mission before pushing for it; but the primary blame falls on the Liberals.

I see...must Canadians be whupped upside the head to pay attention to such things? Perhaps a stronger magnetron and descriminator circuit for that "radar"?

These claims fairly strongly indicate that you are unfamiliar with the events and the public discourse leading up to the occupation of Iraq. But if you believe yourself to be in possession of actual facts to support these remarkable statements, you should feel free to take the questions I asked about Afghanistan and show how the Bush admin answered them in advance of the invasion of Iraq.

The questions were answered before President Bush ever took office in the way of US public law and actions, to wit, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). After much bombing and UN inspection foreplay, this was followed by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243. PMs Blair and Howard concurred. The "explanation" was so complete that PM Chretien declined to join in the festivities, finding Afghanistan to be quite enough for his plate (but only a "take note" debate in Parliament). More "radar" trouble?

A new thread would probably be the most appropriate venue.

Knock yourself out...new threads are free.

You seem to be using this phrase in some way unique to yourself.

No, I am mocking earlier references to same. I'm more of a sonar man, but radar is fine in a pinch.

[Kitchener]

I see...must Canadians be whupped upside the head to pay attention to such things?

How you got that from anything I wrote is anyone's guess. Or is this more free association?

The questions were answered before President Bush ever took office in the way of US public law and actions, to wit, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). After much bombing and UN inspection foreplay, this was followed by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243. PMs Blair and Howard concurred. The "explanation" was so complete that PM Chretien declined to join in the festivities, finding Afghanistan to be quite enough for his plate (but only a "take note" debate in Parliament).

Well, some of the events you describe happened. So there's that. Your remarks about the relation between the "explanation", Chretien's reasoning, and Afghanistan are so confused that it's probably most charitable to regard them as an extended typo. But none of what you've written is correct as regards the Bush admin answering my questions for the invasion of Iraq.

But if you seriously believe that the stated legislation answered my questions, I invite you to demonstrate this by quoting my questions one by one, and quoting the parts of the legislation that clearly answers them.

No, I am mocking earlier references to same.

I understand that you are attempting to mock something or other that you think you sort of understand. The question is why this utterly uncontroversial point is causing you to strain so mightily. Canadian casualties were not as big a media story in the former Yugoslavia as they are in Afghanistan. The point is not a difficult one.

Edited December 29, 2007 by Kitchener

[Topaz]

Worst government? Compared to what....(hint: America does not have "governments"....they do not "fall" as in Canada. See US Constitution). Perhaps you meant to say "worst Administration".

Ya think? I wonder why Canada bombed and starved those poor Iraqi bastards back in the 90's?

Maybe governments or rather administrations should fall in the US, so presidents like GW wouldn't be governing or is that administrating?? Did Canada really bomb Iraq? I thought it was the US or Britain that had the air power then? Lets not start down the road of Canada vs US of who has done more deadly things to people around the world because you know that the US has done more and I don't mind losing that title.

[charter.rights]

Did Canada really bomb Iraq?

Really it was a food aid program where Canada's Air Force in Cesna 180s were delivering turkeys to Iraqis and it inadvertently became a bombing raid after they realized that the frozen turkeys couldn't fly..... :lol:

[Wilber]

Did Canada really bomb Iraq?

Yes, Canada sent a squadron of F-18's to the first Gulf War and they did carry out ground attack missions among other duties. In 1999, sixteen Canadian F-18's were also sent to the Italy and carried out attacks on ground targets in Kosovo.

[bush_cheney2004]

... Did Canada really bomb Iraq? I thought it was the US or Britain that had the air power then?...

Why am I not surprised you did not know this? Let me guess....that unreliable old "radar" was on the fritz again, keeping the Canadian public in the dark (again). How convenient...under the radar for Iraq....Serbia...Haiti...Afghanistan.

Edited December 29, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, Canada sent a squadron of F-18's to the first Gulf War and they did carry out ground attack missions among other duties. In 1999, sixteen Canadian F-18's were also sent to the Italy and carried out attacks on ground targets in Kosovo.

Thanks...nice to know that your "radar" is working fine.

[bush_cheney2004]

But if you seriously believe that the stated legislation answered my questions, I invite you to demonstrate this by quoting my questions one by one, and quoting the parts of the legislation that clearly answers them.

Are you joking? I am not here to hold your hand through the hard spots. The "legislation" is a matter of public record, and was quoted in its entirety in another thread. I've shown you mine, show me yours (Parliament)....and please, no more "under the radar" excuses.

I understand that you are attempting to mock something or other that you think you sort of understand. The question is why this utterly uncontroversial point is causing you to strain so mightily. Canadian casualties were not as big a media story in the former Yugoslavia as they are in Afghanistan. The point is not a difficult one.

See above.

[Kitchener]

Are you joking? I am not here to hold your hand through the hard spots.

You are not here to provide evidence for your claims? Okay. Argumentation isn't everyone's cup of tea.

At least we seem to have discovered we have something in common: neither of us has any idea how, e.g., the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 provides a clear answer to such questions as (i) what America was trying to accomplish in specific measurable terms; (ii) what mechanisms are expected to accomplish these specific goals; (iii) on what evidence those mechanisms are believed to have that likely outcome; and (iv) on what timetable the success is expected.

The problem, obviously, is not that the resolution failed to list the removal of Hussein from power among its various goals. The problem is that it included many other goals as well, all of them far more vaguely defined, some of them essentially undefinable, and hence as a whole is, if anything, an especially stark example of an utter failure to answer the questions I mentioned. (Or did I miss the operational definition and timetable for, e.g., Iraq's no longer posing "a continuing threat to... international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"?)

Don't throw irrelevant citations at me and claim you've answered a question. Tarting them up with their Congress and law numbers is vacuous; if you can't give the evidence in question -- even just because you can't be bothered -- I'd prefer you just admitted as much and moved on, rather than pretending that you've done so.

[Kitchener]

I've shown you mine, show me yours (Parliament)

Show you mine? Parliament?

Are you confusing me for someone else? This is completely unintelligible, attaching to nothing I've written to you. Could we stick to things that have actually happened, please?

[bush_cheney2004]

You are not here to provide evidence for your claims? Okay. Argumentation isn't everyone's cup of tea.

There is no argument....the American government prosecuted a continuation of foreign policy for Iraq and communicated same. The American public did not feign ignorance because of flaccid media reporting, and in fact, demanded more critical information wrt "WMD" playthings.

At least we seem to have discovered we have something in common: neither of us has any idea how, e.g., the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 provides a clear answer to such questions as (i) what America was trying to accomplish in specific measurable terms; (ii) what mechanisms are expected to accomplish these specific goals; (iii) on what evidence those mechanisms are believed to have that likely outcome; and (iv) on what timetable the success is expected.

Wrong again....the goals and methods were explicit, and complemented by Congressional budget appropriations. Timelines are only stipulated for reporting in accordance with the War Powers Act as described in the resolution.

The problem, obviously, is not that the resolution failed to list the removal of Hussein from power among its various goals. The problem is that it included many other goals as well, all of them far more vaguely defined, some of them essentially undefinable, and hence as a whole is, if anything, an especially stark example of an utter failure to answer the questions I mentioned. (Or did I miss the operational definition and timetable for, e.g., Iraq's no longer posing "a continuing threat to... international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"?)

Yes...you missed that and a lot more. That damn radar!

Don't throw irrelevant citations at me and claim you've answered a question. Tarting them up with their Congress and law numbers is vacuous; if you can't give the evidence in question -- even just because you can't be bothered -- I'd prefer you just admitted as much and moved on, rather than pretending that you've done so.

No, I like this game where I get to hand you your ass while you waste time asking how I did it. Your questions were answered (by the US Congress, not Canada's Parliament)...you just don't like the answers.

[Kitchener]

There is no argument....the American government prosecuted a continuation of foreign policy for Iraq and communicated same. The American public did not feign ignorance because of flaccid media reporting, and in fact, demanded more critical information wrt "WMD" playthings.

Intriguing. Of course, like your bizarre Parliament! outburst, it has nothing to do with what you said, and what I responded to -- namely, your specific claim that the Bush admin specifically answered my specific questions. So you've managed, as if by accident, to say something true: there is "no argument" about this latest batch of claims, because they were not the ones at issue. (Naturally, you've included some strange falsehoods in this batch too -- in particular this alleged lack of flaccid reporting about Iraq! -- but let's not be distracted from the mysteries currently before us.)

Wrong again....the goals and methods were explicit, and complemented by Congressional budget appropriations.

Let me repeat my wish not to discuss things you make up. I did not say the goals and methods were implicit; I said they were ill-defined. You could easily show otherwise by giving precise operational definitions of, e.g., Iraq's no longer posing a threat to the stability of the region (a goal given in the resolution). Wouldn't that be easier than jacking around with stream of consciousness musings? Only the absence of such evidence makes sense of your failure to provide any -- an absence confirmed by actually reading the red herrings you tossed out.

Timelines are only stipulated for reporting in accordance with the War Powers Act as described in the resolution.

The best interpretation of this presumed attempt at blank-verse poetry is: no timetables are actually given. Yes, I know. Hence the point that no timetables were given, and hence that that particular question was not answered.

No, I like this game where I get to hand you your ass while you waste time asking how I did it.

I see. Well, if that's what you think is happening. In fact I'm simply trying to get you to make sense of your claims, when I'm not just plain old trying to get you to make sense. There's little success on either front, but hard work never killed anyone.

[bush_cheney2004]

Intriguing. Of course, like your bizarre Parliament! outburst, it has nothing to do with what you said, and what I responded to -- namely, your specific claim that the Bush admin specifically answered my specific questions. So you've managed, as if by accident, to say something true: there is "no argument" about this latest batch of claims, because they were not the ones at issue. (Naturally, you've included some strange falsehoods in this batch too -- in particular this alleged lack of flaccid reporting about Iraq! -- but let's not be distracted from the mysteries currently before us.)

The "Bush Administration" is not the totality of American governance. That America chose to answer such questions according to law in a manner that does not appeal to your throbbing specificity in no way excuses the absence of citizen diligence, which is really the matter at hand. I prefer not to hide behind entertainment media.

Let me repeat my wish not to discuss things you make up. I did not say the goals and methods were implicit; I said they were ill-defined. You could easily show otherwise by giving precise operational definitions of, e.g., Iraq's no longer posing a threat to the stability of the region (a goal given in the resolution). Wouldn't that be easier than jacking around with stream of consciousness musings? Only the absence of such evidence makes sense of your failure to provide any -- an absence confirmed by actually reading the red herrings you tossed out.

No need to waste bandwidth on the obvious. Topaz figured it out right away....why not you?

The best interpretation of this presumed attempt at blank-verse poetry is: no timetables are actually given. Yes, I know. Hence the point that no timetables were given, and hence that that particular question was not answered.

I see. Well, if that's what you think is happening. In fact I'm simply trying to get you to make sense of your claims, when I'm not just plain old trying to get you to make sense. There's little success on either front, but hard work never killed anyone.

The question was answered...it was just not to your liking. Still waiting for any musings from Parliament on Afghanistan..real or imagined. How is that "radar" today?

Edited December 29, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Kitchener]

The "Bush Administration" is not the totality of American governance. That America chose to answer such questions according to law in a manner that does not appeal to your throbbing specificity

I don't blame you for losing track of your own claims. But think back really, really hard, now:

Hmmmm...seems these questions should have been asked before sending Canadian Forces. Even Bush had a better story for the invasion of Iraq.

Remember that these are claims about which I inquired? They may be ill-considered; they might be stupid. But they are yours, not mine.

in no way excuses the absence of citizen diligence, which is really the matter at hand. I prefer not to hide behind entertainment media.

Uh, okay. I prefer not to play hockey without two goalies. Glad we got these highly relevant preferences out in the open.

Still waiting for any musings from Parliament on Afghanistan..real or imagined.

Why on earth are you waiting for that? Do you mean from me? This business of making things up and then pathologically repeating them is very strange indeed. I suggest that if you tried to produce an actual quote from me, showing that I should somehow cite something from Parliament about Afghanistan, you might come to understand how disoriented and confused your posts have become.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't blame you for losing track of your own claims. But think back really, really hard, now:

My claims do not support your lack of attention span. Bush and company wove a wonderful tapestry for all the world to see...indeed....it made for high drama...even on radio. Only it didn't mean a thing without the US Congress. Hope that catches you up to speed.

Remember that these are claims about which I inquired? They may be ill-considered; they might be stupid. But they are yours, not mine.

See above

Uh, okay. I prefer not to play hockey without two goalies. Glad we got these highly relevant preferences out in the open.

Hockey or news media....you may hide behind either while your nation trots off to kill the enemy. Damn radar!

Why on earth are you waiting for that? Do you mean from me? This business of making things up and then pathologically repeating them is very strange indeed. I suggest that if you tried to produce an actual quote from me, showing that I should somehow cite something from Parliament about Afghanistan, you might come to understand how disoriented and confused your posts have become.

It's not all about you, but this thread does have a specific topic. I thought you were all about "specifics".

[Kitchener]

My claims do not support your lack of attention span. Bush and company wove a wonderful tapestry for all the world to see...indeed....it made for high drama...even on radio.

Could you please state your positions in the form of intelligible English sentences? Not only will it help you communicate with others; you may find it helps you to subsequently stick to what you've said.

Only it didn't mean a thing without the US Congress.

...who also did not answer the questions before the invasion, as it turns out. Yes, we've covered this ground.

Hockey or news media....you may hide behind either while your nation trots off to kill the enemy.

This too is unintelligible. It sounds like it's meant as an insult, but the lack of connection to anything that I've said makes it unfathomable even from that perspective.

It's not all about you, but this thread does have a specific topic. I thought you were all about "specifics".

Indeed. The OP says nothing about Parliament either; and it is to me, notice, that you keep repeating this Parliament! hiccup. So, yes, obviously you are making it about me by addressing it to me; and yes, it is every bit as rationally unrecoverable whether directed at me or to the thread at large. Both I and the OP hold that the right things haven't been said about Afghanistan; I more specifically say that they haven't been said in Parliament. You seem to respond by asking us/me for the quotes from Parliament that weren't said there. Who could have foreseen such an incisive challenge? I suppose that next you'll ask me for pieces of the alien spacecraft that I don't believe have landed.

Edited December 30, 2007 by Kitchener

[bush_cheney2004]

Could you please state your positions in the form of intelligible English sentences? Not only will it help you communicate with others; you may find it helps you to subsequently stick to what you've said.

No....everybody get same soup....nothing special for you. Next....

...who also did not answer the questions before the invasion, as it turns out. Yes, we've covered this ground.

Who: Saddam

Where: Iraq

When: 2003

Why: WMD

How: Military force

Any more questions?

This too is unintelligible. It sounds like it's meant as an insult, but the lack of connection to anything that I've said makes it unfathomable even from that perspective.

Well hell man, make up your mind....are you insulted or not? Don't be obtuse!

Indeed. The OP says nothing about Parliament either; and it is to me, notice, that you keep repeating this Parliament! hiccup. So, yes, obviously you are making it about me by addressing it to me; and yes, it is every bit as rationally unrecoverable whether directed at me or to the thread at large. Both I and the OP hold that the right things haven't been said about Afghanistan; I more specifically say that they haven't been said in Parliament. You seem to respond by asking us/me for the quotes from Parliament that weren't said there. Who could have foreseen such an incisive challenge? I suppose that next you'll ask me for pieces of the alien spacecraft that I don't believe have landed.

But yet you still engage my responses...amazing.

Let's get jiggy with it and include the others....please don't respond unless you are sure of what is at stake:

Does anyone know specifically how Canada managed to get involved with the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Not who, why, where, or when, but how. What was the legal (government) mechanism for sending Canadian Forces to Afghanistan??

Edited December 30, 2007 by bush_cheney2004