Afghanistan

[normanchateau]

Sure....Iraqi's sure do miss Saddam. Besides, Canada didn't attend the wedding either way.

What a shame Harper wasn't PM when the US invaded Iraq to look for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. Canada could now be engaged there and billions of our tax dollars could be squandered to prop up the current Islamic government of Iraq which is now pressuring the US "infidels" to leave. If Harper could gain a majority he wouldn't have to go on US television to tell Americans what Canadians "really" think about Iraq and that it was the evil Liberals who kept us out of Iraq:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads=

[myata]

This is very common for newlyweds...sometimes all they have is LOVE!

Yeah, I can almost see folks and London chatting in that same key about their miscellaneous foreign conquests over a beer in the good old Queen Victoria times. Plus ca change...

[madmax]

Bullshit....you cannot give what you don't have..and you still don't have it. Iraq was invaded in 2003....not 2001.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and the rest of his incompetent troop were fingering Iraq Sept, 12. Opportunity knocks. Lie to the public, the US has to live with those lies. There was a opportunity to receive the support from around the globe, not just Canada, and quite frankly, Bush wasn't interested.

Yep...another "support our troops" platitude....but at least you have admitted the obvious about the role of America in Canada's "commitment".

Nobody is blaming them at all....incompetence can also be found in Ottawa.

Incompetence is my way of giving respect to a President who deliberately started a war in Iraq. I have the term War Criminal in mind most of the time. But it will never happen.

Yes, incompetence can be found in Ottawa. Both Ignatieff and Harper wanted to invade Iraq and support naked aggression.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

With talk like that.....

watch a good Rambo III movie. Enjoy those holy warriors.

Better yet, watch the Rambo II....

"Do we get to win this time"

Too bad Bush and Cheney didn't resign or get impeached.

Leaving is on offer. You won't miss our committment, nor do you appreciate our 7 years there.

[Army Guy]

No, nothing pretty about the picture you've drawn. But, when gory graphic emotional pictures are thrown as the last argument, it's sure time to ring the alarm bell.

Is it, i think it clearly demonstrates that the Taliban are indeed terrorists, terrorist of the worst type, and should be stopped. It was you that stated "assuming they are terrorist or just fighting for cultural or religious ideals....i wanted to make it clear that they are not...they are bent on forcing there ideals on the masses , and the masses don't want anything to do with them....

The whole Afganistan issue is full of graphic and emotional pictures that one must first see in order to get a clearer picture of what is going on in that country....understanding the true nature of our enemy.

First of all, the problem with emotional arguments is that nobody knows where they stop. E.g if tomorrow we discover some lost tribes of cannibal savages, should NATO urgently equip reeducation mission (granted with military support, as savages may take in the ideas of peace and democracy at first sight); or, if somebody draws serious emotional discontent with practices of deliberate killing of convicts, would that give them the right to seek forced reeducation?

Still stuck on the forced reeducation deal i see...Here is an opinion that is shared by a few, but no one todate has given any proof, any sources, any links....you say it's true , and i believe you honsetly think it is happening, you just can't convince others because there is no proof....

[madmax]

Sure....Iraqi's sure do miss Saddam.

That is the problem. If you cannot provide Stability and security, anything will look better.

Afghanistan is posing a similar problem.

[normanchateau]

Incompetence is my way of giving respect to a President who deliberately started a war in Iraq. I have the term War Criminal in mind most of the time. But it will never happen.

And incompetence describes Stephen Harper who wanted Canada to join in and went on US television to say Canadians stood with the President.

[bush_cheney2004]

What a shame Harper wasn't PM when the US invaded Iraq to look for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. Canada could now be engaged there and billions of our tax dollars could be squandered to prop up the current Islamic government of Iraq which is now pressuring the US "infidels" to leave. If Harper could gain a majority he wouldn't have to go on US television to tell Americans what Canadians "really" think about Iraq and that it was the evil Liberals who kept us out of Iraq:

It matters not....Canada couldn't have invaded Iraq even if it wanted to. PM Chretien knew this and stayed on side by trumpeting the virtues of "invading" Afghanistan instead, where Canadians are dying and paying billions. Still, the frigates stayed on station, the overflights for cargo continued, the exchange personnel remained at their posts for the Iraq mission.

No "WMDs" in Afghanistan either.

Canadian PMs are a non-factor on US television....that's just posturing for a domestic audience.

[normanchateau]

Canadian PMs are a non-factor on US television....that's just posturing for a domestic audience.

In other words, Harper was being insincere and hypocritical as usual.

[bush_cheney2004]

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and the rest of his incompetent troop were fingering Iraq Sept, 12. Opportunity knocks. Lie to the public, the US has to live with those lies. There was a opportunity to receive the support from around the globe, not just Canada, and quite frankly, Bush wasn't interested.

Wrong...Iraq has been fingered by the US and UK since the first Gulf War. The US Congress agreed (see Iraq Liberation Act - 1998). Support from the globe usually means blessing, not substantial military power.

Incompetence is my way of giving respect to a President who deliberately started a war in Iraq. I have the term War Criminal in mind most of the time. But it will never happen.

Because it's not a war crime....maybe a 'crime against the peace'. But hell, so was Kosovo. And you're right....it ain't even gonna happen.

Yes, incompetence can be found in Ottawa. Both Ignatieff and Harper wanted to invade Iraq and support naked aggression.

As opposed to PM Chretien / Martin bombing Serbia or sacking Haiti? Methinks your politics are showing, not any penchant for peace.

With talk like that.....

watch a good Rambo III movie. Enjoy those holy warriors.

Better yet, watch the Rambo II....

"Do we get to win this time"

I never liked the "Rambo" franchise....too much whining. Give me Ahnold instead.

Too bad Bush and Cheney didn't resign or get impeached.

But Clinton was impeached....he still got to bomb the crap out of Serbia aftrward...with Canada's hallowed blessing and permission, of course!

Leaving is on offer. You won't miss our committment, nor do you appreciate our 7 years there.

False...CENTCOM has dedicated a web page of devotion just to Canada. Salute!

But Canada doesn't do it for Americans...it's their mission too as NATO members.

[bush_cheney2004]

In other words, Harper was being insincere and hypocritical as usual.

Maybe...he is just a politician afterall.....and a successful one at that. Obama did the same thing with NAFTA threats. All is well......

[jdobbin]

Both Ignatieff and Harper wanted to invade Iraq and support naked aggression.

At least Ignatieff did a mea culpa. Harper just kept changing his story about what he said and what he meant.

Afghanistan might still possibly hurt Harper the longer he stats in office. He owns the extension now and will have to show what progress is being made or face questions about his management of the war. It will be hard like on days like this when NATO and its allies lose another 8 soldiers including 3 Canadians and we keep hearing about the great progress being made.

[myata]

Is it, i think it clearly demonstrates that the Taliban are indeed terrorists, terrorist of the worst type, and should be stopped.

No it doesn't. For once you haven't explained the exact meaning of that stretchy notion "terrorist", that somehow almost inveriably follows wherever "our enemy" can be found. Secondly, horrifying practices are also used by some of our allies (e.g Saudis practice public beheadings). Then, as already pointed out, it's not up to us to decide what's appropriate or not for other people to do in their land; Aghanis may interpret these acts as outrageous and turn away from Taleban; when they'll do it, we'll see it in the facts.

, and the masses don't want anything to do with them....

You're repeating it as a mantra, in the hope that it'll make doubts, concerns, facts and numbers go away. It won't. If Taleban had no support in the general population, it would have been defeated by hugely superior NATO and hostile local population long time ago.

Still stuck on the forced reeducation deal i see...Here is an opinion that is shared by a few, but no one todate has given any proof, any sources, any links....you say it's true , and i believe you honsetly think it is happening, you just can't convince others because there is no proof....

On the contrary; I'm only trying to retain some rational view of this argument; because the only arguments you're using relate to the horrible nature of the enemy, I'm force to presume that it's the main argumentation for our being there. I.e change that part of population that does not want to accept our morals, standards, and ways of life, and change it by force.

BTW other arguments used even by some allies ("sad necessity", "can't allow Taleban to retake") are at least more honest. One can argue whether a strategy of forced containment of opposition by outside power could be successful; one can't move one step if they're still unsure whether the opposition in fact exists.

[madmax]

Is it, i think it clearly demonstrates that the Taliban are indeed terrorists, terrorist of the worst type, and should be stopped. It was you that stated "assuming they are terrorist or just fighting for cultural or religious ideals....i wanted to make it clear that they are not...they are bent on forcing there ideals on the masses , and the masses don't want anything to do with them....

I don't see alot of differences in the cultural ideals between the people of Afghanistan (Taliban/Non Taliban? Sure one group flies kites and the others don't, and one lets you use the car radio and the other doesn't. But haggling over whether it is best to kill your adulterous wife in Public (Taliban) or in Private (Non Taliban) is splitting hairs to me. Also, the Gay Friday thing I find pretty sick, which is the story that made the Taliban famous for stopping Men raping boys back in the 1990s, and apparently this is back and we are standing by watching.

The Taliban are using terrorist tactics, and I don't know of a good type of terrorist. The IRA were terrorists of the worst type, and I got lucky by one subway stop.

I agree that the Majority want nothing to do with them.

Unfortuneately, I have yet to see any kind of proof that the majority want anything to do with us.

The whole Afganistan issue is full of graphic and emotional pictures that one must first see in order to get a clearer picture of what is going on in that country....understanding the true nature of our enemy.

The enemy benefits 100 fold for every mistake we make. Yet....

When the aid workers were killed, how many Pashtuns gave a care? When a Canadian Soldier is killed how many Pashtuns give one bit about the life lost? I doubt the population would miss us and those forces engaged in search and detroy missiosn who accidently kill innocents, while seeking the enemy.

If Karzai cannot create an army in 7 years, in a country that can create a military force in a day, then he is never going to have a loyal army.

[madmax]

No it doesn't. For once you haven't explained the exact meaning of that stretchy notion "terrorist", that somehow almost inveriably follows wherever "our enemy" can be found. Secondly, horrifying practices are also used by some of our allies (e.g Saudis practice public beheadings). Then, as already pointed out, it's not up to us to decide what's appropriate or not for other people to do in their land; Aghanis may interpret these acts as outrageous and turn away from Taleban; when they'll do it, we'll see it in the facts.

The tactics that the Taleban use are terrorist. There goal is to spread fear and terror. This is a traditional way of fighting well prior to 1979. Like other Pashtuns, the Taliban are not known to strike outside their country. They also, in general follow the Pashtunwali code, which is how one survives in a land that has been governed by Anarchy, and has always been considered ungovernable for centuries. The US supported these terrorist tactics along with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Obviously, we know Saudi Arabia was beheading people publicly while George Bush was calling them, great friends in the fight against terror. That's why he let all the Bin Ladens go home.

Guerrilla tactics and terrorist tactics were used by the Taliban and by the Northern Alliance, as well as all the independent warlords etc, whose loyalties shift by the week. Mafia problems exist as well.

Anyone caught on the wrong end of a conflict is often called a Taliban, when it really isn't known if they are or aren't, but they often are hostile to western forces on their land. And that can get them killed, and unfortuneately all their relatives wanting to exact revenge.

Unlike Bush, I have no use for the practices of Saudi Arabia and their public beheadings or their wahabbi religion that they imported into Afghanistan, which created a group of people(Taleban and non Taleban) who will never willingly change these religion values or their views of woman. They are capable of putting down their arms, and this can be done piecemeal easier then it would be to get Omar to call it a day.

Karzai knows this, but the search and destroy mission undermines this process. There have been successful and unsuccessful dialogues with those taliban and taliban supporters, and these occur even within our own command structure.

The object is to get to a position of stability and then peace.

You're repeating it as a mantra, in the hope that it'll make doubts, concerns, facts and numbers go away. It won't. If Taleban had no support in the general population, it would have been defeated by hugely superior NATO and hostile local population long time ago.

Blood and religion is thicker then western idealism and force. The Taliban may have people who do not support them, but will support their kin if they are harmed if fighting for the taliban or if accidentally killed by an errant bullet or bomb.

[Isomorphic]

Yes, I don't understand why some people can't see that. 'They' hate us in every way because of who we are and what we do. Some people would love to take away any freedom that we have because they simply hate it. That can't be allowed. As GWB once said, freedom will be defended.

You actually buy into that crap? That's only what the gov't tells us. The real motives are are much more complex and anyone with reason should be able to understand that.

Edited August 21, 2008 by Isomorphic

[madmax]

No "WMDs" in Afghanistan either.

Going into Afghanistan was to get OBL. Remember him. "We're gonna smoke him out"

WMD was the whopper of a lie used to invade Iraq. Found more WMD with that US Scientist who committed suicide just back. I don't know what state he lived in, but it is a good thing the US didn't bomb the hell out of it

Edited August 21, 2008 by madmax

[normanchateau]

Maybe...he is just a politician afterall.....and a successful one at that.

As was Brian Mulroney...

[madmax]

At least Ignatieff did a mea culpa. Harper just kept changing his story about what he said and what he meant.

I didn't know that Ignatieff did a mea culpa. I also didn't know that Harper kept changing his story.

You've got me interest.......

[madmax]

Wrong...Iraq .....

Bush is commander in chief.

Edited August 21, 2008 by madmax

[normanchateau]

I didn't know that Ignatieff did a mea culpa.

Ignatieff acknowledging he was wrong on Iraq:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/magazine...ml?pagewanted=1

[jbg]

Going into Afghanistan was to get OBL. Remember him. "We're gonna smoke him out"

WMD was the whopper of a lie used to invade Iraq. Found more WMD with that US Scientist who committed suicide just back. I don't know what state he lived in, but it is a good thing the US didn't bomb the hell out of it

Where is your anger at the Russian invasion of Georgia?

[madmax]

Ignatieff acknowledging he was wrong on Iraq:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/magazine...ml?pagewanted=1

4 years later

August 5th, 2007

HEADLINE NEWS!!! IRAQ IS GOING DOWN THE TOILET!!!

he cops out at the end.

A prudent leader will save democracies from the worst, but prudent leaders will not inspire a democracy to give its best. Democratic peoples should always be looking for something more than prudence in a leader: daring, vision and — what goes with both — a willingness to risk failure. Daring leaders can be trusted as long as they give some inkling of knowing what it is to fail. They must be men of sorrow acquainted with grief, as the prophet Isaiah says, men and women who have not led charmed lives, who understand us as we really are, who have never given up hope and who know they are in politics to make their country better. These are the leaders whose judgment, even if sometimes wrong, will still prove worthy of trust.

His real message is.

TRUST ME

[normanchateau]

Where is your anger at the Russian invasion of Georgia?

Perhaps the number of Georgians killed is not quite up there with the number of Iraqis killed.

[jdobbin]

I didn't know that Ignatieff did a mea culpa. I also didn't know that Harper kept changing his story.

You've got me interest.......

I see that the mea culpa was posted.

Harper's changing story on Iraq:

http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article....9_139786_139786

In Harper's words:

We should be there with our allies when it counts against Saddam Hussein.

He changed his tune though. He was basically saying Canada could not have helped in Iraq.

Given our limited military capacity and the extent to which our people are already over-commited across the world, I don't think that's feasible.

There is more in the article but Harper was climbing off his position of sending Canada to war when it was obvious that the Iraq war wasn't a walk in the park.

If Harper is the leader of Canada along with McCain, I fully expect the two of them will go to war with Iran.

[jdobbin]

4 years later

There is a reason why he didn't win the leadership. This was a big one.

Is he a different man than he was in academia? I guess that it is still to be determined but he did admit he was wrong.

Harper's says the only reason he can think of why Canada was not in Iraq under his leadership is because he didn't have the troops.