Afghanistan

[Army Guy]

No. You're trying to rebuild their society by our standard. Making bad guys stop would involve, first of all, agreeing on what constitutes fundamental human rights. Not the balloon rights (democracy, freedom of press, yada) that are taken out of pocket whenever needed to preach and invade. But those rights that most, 99.9% of stable societies uphold; like right to life; or personal freedom. Note that male homosexuality, or female literacy won't be one of those fundamental universal freedoms. Which doesn't in any way mean that we shouldn't have them. Only that we can't go around the world forcing them on people who aren't ready to adopt them, whenever we find it convenient.

Your wrong, The freely elected government of Afganistan is making those choices and decisions. Not NATO, or the US, or any other part of the coalition. They make thier own policies and directives. That being said we are there to assist them in thier implementation. I don't know where your getting your info, but it is false, and misleading.

As for them the Afgan people not being ready for more advanced rights your once again wrong, painting them out to be nothing but warlords and goat herders is also wrong. so your whole argument on we are forcing them into something they don't want or are not ready for is garbage....and really needs to be back with a source, or is it just opinion, one that has already been made firm without all the facts, clearly made evident by your lack of knowledge of Taliban crimes, and what life was like under thier rule.

After all, they are in their own land, defending their own way of life. They aren't obliged to follow our laws, traditions and morals. Only theirs.

The Taliban are not defending the Afgans way of life, nor thier traditions and morals, they are fighting so they can impose thier own radical ideals on the majority.

And I'm not. The line is where the fundamental rights of life and personal freedom are. Mass infringements of these rights are crime against humanity and should be stopped immediately. Installation of foreign way of life (whether called "civilization", "democracy", or "socialism") where there's no conditions for that and by force is nothing short of unprovoked interference and should be a crime in its own right.

You keep spewing this dogma like it is true, perhaps you can educate me and the opthers by giving us a source that clearly shows that NATO and coalition forces are indeed using force to install anything foreign to them, except perhaps peace...

I'll try to help. Would that girl suffer the same fate, if her father didn't buy into promises of well meaning foreigners (often accompanied by a lure of worry free food supply - there, you send your kid to school, you get a bag of grain, we report the progress of female education) who in the end could not ensure their safety?

Once again you missed the nail, The entire education of women and girls idea comes from thier own government, one that does have women serving in it.... who deem it to be a noble quality, one that would benifit the entire nation, "prior to the Taliban women and girls did have acess to education", so it is not a new concept some NATO soldier convince them to try....

NATO does not bribe the Afgan people with cash, or food, so we can report progress of anything, so the only incentive the father had was to ensure his daughter had an education, and perhaps a better chance of life....

Yes, it is convient to piont the finger at NATO and say "YOU"VE FAILED" in providing this girls safety, and techically you are right, and as a soldier i'm have to live with that every time i close my eyes, our battle group patrols the area the size of PEI, with just over 700 combat troops........

but wait theres more, Soldiers have continuely reported that there is not enough combat troops in our area, that we needed to boast "our" numbers drastically, along with long lists of other problems that need to be addressed to provide security....those reports have always been made public, so the majority of Canadians know about them, but because this mission can not be completed in the time it takes to go thru the drive thru at our favorite micky dees it has become very unpopular....making getting anything additional extremily hard.... So while i learn to live with my nightmares, perhaps the Canadian people can share in them, because as with me ,you've failed this little girl as well....

[myata]

Your wrong, The freely elected government of Afganistan is making those choices and decisions.

Then "freely elected" government can defend itself. If it was really and freely elected that is. There'd be nothing for NATO to do, except may be sharing information and training. That this freely elected government cannot control its own territory, means very simple that it's not even an independent government per se, but a puppet of foreign powers. If not, you'll be able to tell me how long it'd stand on its own, if NATO were to withdraw. Please give a direct answers without ifs and buts.

As for them the Afgan people not being ready for more advanced rights your once again wrong, painting them out to be nothing but warlords and goat herders is also wrong. so your whole argument on we are forcing them into something they don't want or are not ready for is garbage....and really needs to be back with a source, or is it just opinion, one that has already been made firm without all the facts, clearly made evident by your lack of knowledge of Taliban crimes, and what life was like under thier rule.

They sure may be. We'll see it when they'll define these rights and protect them on their own, without foreign meddling. Why have you decided that they need us speaking for them?

The Taliban are not defending the Afgans way of life, nor thier traditions and morals, they are fighting so they can impose thier own radical ideals on the majority.

You're saying. They grew up and lived their lives there. You - here. Who appointed you to decide who's doing what? Tell who should be doing what?

You keep spewing this dogma like it is true, perhaps you can educate me and the opthers by giving us a source that clearly shows that NATO and coalition forces are indeed using force to install anything foreign to them, except perhaps peace...

Peace that means dropping bomds. Paradoxes...

Once again you missed the nail, The entire education of women and girls idea comes from thier own government,

one that does have women serving in it.... who deem it to be a noble quality, one that would benifit the entire nation, "prior to the Taliban women and girls did have acess to education", so it is not a new concept some NATO soldier convince them to try....

Right, right, the government. Government that stands propped by our troops. See above. In any case, you just won't simple question, one more time: if all these rights is what majority of population understands and wants, wouldn't they be able to stand for them on their own?? With our help, of course, but without our military intervention?

NATO does not bribe the Afgan people with cash, or food, so we can report progress of anything, so the only incentive the father had was to ensure his daughter had an education, and perhaps a better chance of life....

That was a story that was proudly broadcasted on CBC radio awhile ago. A bag of grain (a highly valuable commodity) handed down for each child attending school, with emphasis (I can't recall now, maybe double amount) on female attendance. I'll try to find a reference if you strongly object that the practice exists.

Yes, it is convient to piont the finger at NATO and say "YOU"VE FAILED" in providing this girls safety, and techically you are right, and as a soldier i'm have to live with that every time i close my eyes, our battle group patrols the area the size of PEI, with just over 700 combat troops........

My point wasn't that though. If you promise something to which majority isn't ready (if they're ready, they'll simply have it on their own), you become responsible, at least in part for the fate of those who believed you. Is it a wise thing to barge into foreign societies and press them into something they don't know and aren't ready for? Your say.

but wait theres more, Soldiers have continuely reported that there is not enough combat troops in our area, that we needed to boast "our" numbers drastically, along with long lists of other problems that need to be addressed to provide security....those reports have always been made public, so the majority of Canadians know about them, but because this mission can not be completed in the time it takes to go thru the drive thru at our favorite micky dees it has become very unpopular....making getting anything additional extremily hard.... So while i learn to live with my nightmares, perhaps the Canadian people can share in them, because as with me ,you've failed this little girl as well....

Why? To suppress the part of population that isn't ready to accept our way of life? You think it's a worthy undertaking for our military? Wouldn't the same resources be better spend saving little girls and boys (need references??) here, in our land, where we at least supposed to understand what's going on in our own country?

[AngusThermopyle]

Angus, you might want to defer to Army Guy as to why we went in the first place. He was actually there.

What do you mean "might want to". I agree 100% with him, he is correct. what I do not agree with is your broad sweeping generalizations as to why the forces engage in the missions that they do. If one were to listen to you and several other uninformed posters one would believe our sole purpose is to go to foreign countries and kill people. I have stated repeatedly that this is never our mandate. Further to that I have asked you to show me one single instance of such a mandate. You always seem to conveniently miss or forget to answer this question.

I will repeat, never once in recent history, post WWII, or even prior has our mandate ever been to go and indiscriminately kill the populace of a foreign country. In all instances in fact our primary mandate has been to assist and protect the populace with emphasis placed on avoidance of conflict and peacefull resolutions to situations deemed hazardous.

Obviously Afghanistan is different in some respects, however there is still emphasis placed on avoidance of civilian casualties and also, when stable enough, a shift of focus from combat to assistance and civil projects. Therefore, even in regards to Afghanistan, all those who frequently go off about going to other countries to kill people are in fact incorrect. The use of force is never the reason in and of itself that we go to these countries, it is just a means that must be employed in order to accomplish the broader and more encompassing factors of the the mission mandate.

So, once again, I am in 100% agreement with AG, perhaps you should take your own advice and defer to AG since he knows more about it than you could ever hope to comprehend.

P.S. Why we went in the first place? We went because a Liberal government sent us, something many people seem to forget quite conveniently.

[eyeball]

What do you mean "might want to". I agree 100% with him, he is correct. what I do not agree with is your broad sweeping generalizations as to why the forces engage in the missions that they do. If one were to listen to you and several other uninformed posters one would believe our sole purpose is to go to foreign countries and kill people. I have stated repeatedly that this is never our mandate. Further to that I have asked you to show me one single instance of such a mandate. You always seem to conveniently miss or forget to answer this question.

I will repeat, never once in recent history, post WWII, or even prior has our mandate ever been to go and indiscriminately kill the populace of a foreign country. In all instances in fact our primary mandate has been to assist and protect the populace with emphasis placed on avoidance of conflict and peacefull resolutions to situations deemed hazardous.

Obviously Afghanistan is different in some respects, however there is still emphasis placed on avoidance of civilian casualties and also, when stable enough, a shift of focus from combat to assistance and civil projects. Therefore, even in regards to Afghanistan, all those who frequently go off about going to other countries to kill people are in fact incorrect. The use of force is never the reason in and of itself that we go to these countries, it is just a means that must be employed in order to accomplish the broader and more encompassing factors of the the mission mandate.

So, once again, I am in 100% agreement with AG, perhaps you should take your own advice and defer to AG since he knows more about it than you could ever hope to comprehend.

P.S. Why we went in the first place? We went because a Liberal government sent us, something many people seem to forget quite conveniently.

The mandate is secondary to the primary issue I've raised which is who should give the army that mandate. I say the people not the politicians. Why the armed forces should go should be simple, because the people, in their wisdom have voted to go. As I said earlier this vote should be of a higher standard than 50%+1 (much higher) because there is far too much at stake.

Put your money and your vote where your mouth is, I dare you.

[Smallc]

The mandate is secondary to the primary issue I've raised which is who should give the army that mandate. I say the people not the politicians. Why the armed forces should go should be simple, because the people, in their wisdom have voted to go. As I said earlier this vote should be of a higher standard than 50%+1 (much higher) because there is far too much at stake.

Put your money and your vote where your mouth is, I dare you.

We elect politicians so that they can make decisions. We shouldn't be taking votes on everything.

[jbg]

Then "freely elected" government can defend itself. If it was really and freely elected that is. There'd be nothing for NATO to do, except may be sharing information and training. That this freely elected government cannot control its own territory, means very simple that it's not even an independent government per se, but a puppet of foreign powers. If not, you'll be able to tell me how long it'd stand on its own, if NATO were to withdraw. Please give a direct answers without ifs and buts.

No, it means it's being challenged by Saudi-funded insurgents.

[Topaz]

Since Afghanistan is about war, I decide to put the following here because if this comes true, Afghanistan will be brought into another war. The Russians are fighting in Georgia and I heard last night, that Israel has sent people there to help in the fighting and to protect...guess what....the Caspian Sea and its OIL. The discussion also stated that with Israel involved that if the US decide to involve itself, we could have the attacks on IRAN.

[eyeball]

We elect politicians so that they can make decisions. We shouldn't be taking votes on everything.

I thought we elected them to represent us.

In any case, I'm not talking about voting on everything I'm talking about a very specific thing, a very important thing, like how we elect governments for example but even more so. Why is a referendum before committing ourselves to foreign military engagements such a scary proposition? Are people afraid they might not get the support they'd like everyone to imagine is there?

Its only democracy I'm proposing folks. Why are so many people afraid to represent themselves for a change? Isn't this what we're fighting for abroad? I can't think of anything more corrosive to authoritarian and totalitarian governments that refuse to get with the program than a real shining beacon of hope - an example of a government that is actually under its people's control.

[Smallc]

I thought we elected them to represent us.

In any case, I'm not talking about voting on everything I'm talking about a very specific thing, a very important thing, like how we elect governments for example but even more so. Why is a referendum before committing ourselves to foreign military engagements such a scary proposition? Are people afraid they might not get the support they'd like everyone to imagine is there?

Its only democracy I'm proposing folks. Why are so many people afraid to represent themselves for a change? Isn't this what we're fighting for abroad? I can't think of anything more corrosive to authoritarian and totalitarian governments that refuse to get with the program than a real shining beacon of hope - an example of a government that is actually under its people's control.

1. We do elect them to represent us. We elect them so that they can become educated on the issues and make informed decisions for us.

2. Whats important to you isn't important to everyone. If we have to make an exception for you, then we have to do it for all things that people consider to be very important and soon we will be voting on everything.

3. The government is under our control, but it doesn't mean you always agree with what they are doing.

Edited August 10, 2008 by Smallc

[jbg]

I thought we elected them to represent us.

In any case, I'm not talking about voting on everything I'm talking about a very specific thing, a very important thing, like how we elect governments for example but even more so. Why is a referendum before committing ourselves to foreign military engagements such a scary proposition? Are people afraid they might not get the support they'd like everyone to imagine is there?

Its only democracy I'm proposing folks. Why are so many people afraid to represent themselves for a change? Isn't this what we're fighting for abroad? I can't think of anything more corrosive to authoritarian and totalitarian governments that refuse to get with the program than a real shining beacon of hope - an example of a government that is actually under its people's control.

On the surface your approach sounds appealing. The problem is that in democratic countries going to war is neer popular since it entails financial sacrifice by all and loss of loved ones for some. The dictatorships who wage war face no such constraints. To "vote" on going to war would fatally hamstring the democracies.

[Army Guy]

Then "freely elected" government can defend itself. If it was really and freely elected that is. There'd be nothing for NATO to do, except may be sharing information and training. That this freely elected government cannot control its own territory, means very simple that it's not even an independent government per se, but a puppet of foreign powers. If not, you'll be able to tell me how long it'd stand on its own, if NATO were to withdraw. Please give a direct answers without ifs and buts.

Your opinion, is flawed, "Freely elected" has nothing to do with being able to defend ones nation...Shit Canada has a freely elected government but it could not defend this nation without serious help from other nations....Hence why we decided to join NATO, and other defense pacts....

According to your own opinion that would make us a puppet of foreign powers....along with a very long list of other nations in the same situation...

They sure may be. We'll see it when they'll define these rights and protect them on their own, without foreign meddling. Why have you decided that they need us speaking for them?

Once again you showing just how little you know about this subject, if you just took a few seconds to read the Afgan constitution you'd see they already have defined these rights, and they are protecting them...As for foreign meddling goes it seems that it only applies to NATO assistance, not to other muslim nations who fund and back radical terrorist groups operating again'st the government of Afganistan.

I have not decided anything, that was our government that chose to offer a newly freely elected afgan government assistance....after they requested it...thats the key here....

You're saying. They grew up and lived their lives there. You - here. Who appointed you to decide who's doing what? Tell who should be doing what?

OK one more time, The events of 9/11 pretty much sealed the fate of the Taliban government along with Bin Ladin and his merry band of thugs. NATO removed them from power, took control of the country, set up conditions so that the people of Afganistan could freely vote in thier next government to lead them....once done, and elections were over, they asked NATO to stay and assist with thier defence and the rebuilding....

SO it was the majority of Afgans ( meaning millions) that have decided they no longer wanted anything to do with the Taliban ( meaning a few thousand), And while you have this problem understanding that the country is under control of the Afgan government, and NOT NATO, it is the Afgan governmant that controls the entire mission there, and it is them that decided who is doing what...... Unless you can prove something else, you can provide a link right.....

Peace that means dropping bomds. Paradoxes...

Yes, that is exactly what it means, your going to have to get over that fact, if everything could be worked out via the round table, a few pints of beer then there would be no need for militaries would there, and since every nation has one, guess we arn't very good at discussing things are we...

My point wasn't that though. If you promise something to which majority isn't ready (if they're ready, they'll simply have it on their own), you become responsible, at least in part for the fate of those who believed you. Is it a wise thing to barge into foreign societies and press them into something they don't know and aren't ready for? Your say.

Stop, i've explained this dozens of times, we promised nothing, we answered the Afgan government call for assistance. NATO is not pressing anyone into anything.....The Afganistan government is running the show, it is them that makes all the decisions, and they have decided what they want and they are ready for it.... .....You seem to have this picture already set out .....that some magical fairy comes along and grants you what ever wish you want "IF your ready"....that may work out in BC after a few mushrooms but that is not how the real world works....

Why? To suppress the part of population that isn't ready to accept our way of life? You think it's a worthy undertaking for our military? Wouldn't the same resources be better spend saving little girls and boys (need references??) here, in our land, where we at least supposed to understand what's going on in our own country?

WHY....I'll tell you why, because when this mission was in the start up phases the Majority of Canadians believed in it, supported it, could'nt wait to send our military over to Afganistan to kick some ass....It was our military that said "gear down", we are not ready for this type or size of commitment....our reply from our mnasters was "pack your bags"....so like good soldiers thats what we did....and thats what we are still doing....But now heres the twist....the mission is unpopular, and the majority don't support it, But our soldiers don't have that opition do they....we are still slogging in 50 plus degree heat, thru mountains and valleys lugging over 120 lbs on our backs....WHY is that, because Canadians are to fuking lazy to do anything about it, sure they sent us over there without blinking an eye....but don't have the energy to get us back....

My piont is The majority of Canadians asked us to do a job, they sent us to Afganistan, they waved the flags and banners as we left, then they forgot about us, Thats right FORGOT ABOUT US, we no longer are involved in a popular mission, so getting anything done is next to impossiable, and it does not matter what it is, new equipment, that saves lives...it does not matter, if it has anything to do with Afganistan it is dragged thru all the red tape....mean while our soldiers, are fighting and dying under our nations Banner, without the support of the majority of Canadians

You think it's a worthy undertaking for our military?

You don't think assisting a nation who has suffered 30 plus years of war, is a worthy undertaking....

Wouldn't the same resources be better spend saving little girls and boys (need references??) here, in our land, where we at least supposed to understand what's going on in our own country?

You make it sound like i run this nation, i do know this that as a nation once you commit to something you complete it and see it thru to the end...you exhaust all opitions before throwing in the towl.....Problem with Canadians is they like to whine about thier problems, they just can't find the energy to solve them, or do anything about them.....let me ask you this what are you doing about saving our little girls and boys.

Because every year each base gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to united way, blind childrens fund and many more groups out of our own pockets, as well as donating time and assistance to canadian groups in need....on top of all that the dozens of charities in Afgan.....

That is when we are not surpressing them with brute military force.

[AngusThermopyle]

Put your money and your vote where your mouth is, I dare you.

The arrogance is mind boggling. Not only have I put both my money and my vote where my mouth is to use your rather prosaic phrase, I have also put my life where my mouth is. How about you? Rather than just downplay the contributions others make, why don't you make a contribution of worth? How about something that actually requires you to make some sort of self sacrifice, something all Forces members are very familiar with.

[eyeball]

On the surface your approach sounds appealing. The problem is that in democratic countries going to war is neer popular since it entails financial sacrifice by all and loss of loved ones for some. The dictatorships who wage war face no such constraints. To "vote" on going to war would fatally hamstring the democracies.

There is a difference between going to war and having a war come to you. I'm only talking about a vote in the case of the former.

There are lots of other ways we can check the power of dictatorships, such as severing or restricting our trade with them. We can also encourage others to do the same or treat others the same if they continue to support dictatorships.

Edited August 11, 2008 by eyeball

[Alta4ever]

There is a difference between going to war and having a war come to you. I'm only talking about a vote in the case of the former.

There are lots of other ways we can check the power of dictatorships, such as severing or restricting our trade with them. We can also encourage others to do the same or treat others the same if they continue to support dictatorships.

Trade embargos do nothing as their are always other countries willing to trade with the rouge nations.

[Army Guy]

OH i think you hit a soft spot there Angus....but that would mean climbing down that BC pine, leaving the safety of thier arm chairs, not to mention that large baggy of musrooms......

[myata]

Trade embargos do nothing as their are always other countries willing to trade with the rouge nations.

This is not in the least due to our very flexible approach to international justice, which is all about "rights" there and see no evil here. Others are just doing the same. If, instead of bucketload of spandex "rights", we came with a small set of truly fundamental rights, like rights to life and individual freedom; if instead of hopeless Security Council, torn this way and that by conflicting interests, we came with an independent and impartial justice system to monitor these rights around the globe (to which, to mention, one of the greatest champions of "rights" in the histroy continues to object vehemently); there would be much more credibility to calls to stop massive violations of rights, whenever and wherether they may occur; more willingness to contribute to maintaining the rights, and decisively stop their violations; much less desire to cooperate with those who do not observe or violate these rights.

This is now the task for the next age. After Iraq, Palestine, Kosovo, and so on, Western (US, specifically) standards of international justice (or lack of them) have lost all credibility.

Edited August 11, 2008 by myata

[eyeball]

Trade embargos do nothing as their are always other countries willing to trade with the rouge nations.

Yep, notice how Harper is softening on China.

[eyeball]

OH i think you hit a soft spot there Angus....but that would mean climbing down that BC pine, leaving the safety of thier arm chairs, not to mention that large baggy of musrooms......

Angus appears to have a high regard for sacrifice alright. I can't think of a greater sacrifice than asking all of Canada to suffer the economic cost of standing by our principles and not engage with tyrannies or countries that do.

Put your money where your mouth is. I dare you. I'd vote yes for that if a Prime Minister asked me too, would you?

[Army Guy]

Angus appears to have a high regard for sacrifice alright. I can't think of a greater sacrifice than asking all of Canada to suffer the economic cost of standing by our principles and not engage with tyrannies or countries that do.

Yes he does, but i think your missing his piont what is it that your doing right now to make changes, other than whinning or complaining ?

Thats a pretty big sacrifice to ask a whole nation to accomplish, for a guy who's done little for his own principles.

Put your money where your mouth is. I dare you. I'd vote yes for that if a Prime Minister asked me too, would you?

I think you should start a little smaller don't you....considering this sacrifice is new to you....

[AngusThermopyle]

Angus appears to have a high regard for sacrifice alright. I can't think of a greater sacrifice than asking all of Canada to suffer the economic cost of standing by our principles and not engage with tyrannies or countries that do.

Indeed I do hold self sacrifice in the highest regard, there is no greater measure of honesty or commitment than the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the good of others. Your contention that economic sacrifice is the highest indicator of sacrifice is false and merely points toward your own unwillingness to make a truly meaningfull sacrifice.

Or is it your contention that giving up a couple of bucks is equal to the act of giving ones life? If so I truly feel sorry for you as you obviously do not understand the true value and meaning of sacrifice.

Could you perhaps explain to me how giving a few bucks trumps the act of giving years of ones life and sometimes ones very life itself?

[myata]

Your opinion, is flawed, "Freely elected" has nothing to do with being able to defend ones nation...Shit Canada has a freely elected government but it could not defend this nation without serious help from other nations....

Indeed, I have to be very careful with terminology to avoid any possibility of confusion; or one'd think we need serious military help from other nations to deal with our internal issues, like e.g. biker gangs, or Toronto snowfalls.

Once again you showing just how little you know about this subject, if you just took a few seconds to read the Afgan constitution you'd see they already have defined these rights, and they are protecting them...As for foreign meddling goes it seems that it only applies to NATO assistance, not to other muslim nations who fund and back radical terrorist groups operating again'st the government of Afganistan.

Kudos for writing, the difference between real constitution and the paper one though, is that the former actually means something. To the people, not the government to show off. And if it means something to the people, if they understand rights and freedoms it's all about, they'll be able to defend it. That's one thing you can't seem to grasp. The freedom, rights, etc, it comes from within. It's either there, or it's not. Can't be planted from outside.

I have not decided anything, that was our government that chose to offer a newly freely elected afgan government assistance....after they requested it...thats the key here....

The comment only applied to branding the local people into good (i.e those who support us) and evil (everybody else). Army isn't responsible for political decision to get involved in this conflict. This decision, taken by the Liberals, and particularly, the later one to get involved in active combat operations, was wrong. Even more, because it was taken without serious public discussion. Whatever role some top ranking members may have played in that decision, it was still exclusive responsibility of the government, government that is elected by us. So, indeed we all bear some responsibility for what's going on there, as well as future consequences of our actions.

OK one more time, The events of 9/11 pretty much sealed the fate of the Taliban government along with Bin Ladin and his merry band of thugs NATO removed them from power, took control of the country, set up conditions so that the people of Afganistan could freely vote in thier next government to lead them....once done, and elections were over, they asked NATO to stay and assist with thier defence and the rebuilding....

I don't want to do it once again, I think we already established, that Al Qaeda and Taleban were two different things. US and NATO had options to deal with Al Quaeda without regime change. They could have brought charges for Taleban's alleged crimes against humanity to the international justice. If confirmed and condemned, it would give them cause to take actions to force Taleban stop crimes against humanity. And that's it. That's as far as anybody should go. There would be no need to assist anybody against anybody else, because there would be already a government in the country. The government that would stand or fall based on traditions and ways of local people, and not some foreign ideas, like elections. We already discussed it, election is the final manifistation of democracy, not it's beginning. There's no point in running an election where population does not understand what it means. And again, to avoid possibility of confision, the meaning of representative democracy is not in where to put a cross in the poll, but understanding full well the role and operation of responsible government, and will to obey and defend it, if necessary. How much of that was in Afghanistan before NATO's arrival? Had it miraculously changed, overnight, with the arrival of Bush's glorious demorcacy project?

SO it was the majority of Afgans ( meaning millions) that have decided they no longer wanted anything to do with the Taliban ( meaning a few thousand), And while you have this problem understanding that the country is under control of the Afgan government, and NOT NATO, it is the Afgan governmant that controls the entire mission there, and it is them that decided who is doing what...... Unless you can prove something else, you can provide a link right.....

You don't need a link for every step in your life, some basic math skills will do instead. 15 million of adult male Afghans who can bear arms... against "a few thousand" <sic> Taleban ... (that's over 1,500 of locals per one Taleban) and they still need 50,000 foreigners armed to the top of their heads and more .... (that's 5+ foreign soldiers per one Taleban) and that's not enough (by your own admission). Something doesn't connect... What? Population's support for the democracy project? Taleban numbers? Both?

Stop, i've explained this dozens of times, we promised nothing, we answered the Afgan government call for assistance.

Why do we need answer these calls of assistance against internal opposition? Why do we need to get involved in their internal problems? Because we like this side better than that? The result is rarely a triumph of democracy; more like friendly dictatorship as long as they keep in the line. That's being our policy so far; whach resulted in occasional blowbacks, a la Iran, Taleban, Al Quada; that necessitated more of the same policy. And so on. Looks like you won't be out of job anytime soon (sorry to say that, but it's just a quite likely direction these policies tend to develop into).

.....You seem to have this picture already set out .....that some magical fairy comes along and grants you what ever wish you want "IF your ready"....

Really? Sorry, can't take the credit, after all that's what the idea of the masterminds of this adventure (Bush & Co). It's enough to descend upon them in our glory, and they'll abandan the ways and traditions they followed for generations, embrace us and praise and cheer.

Which isn't at all what I was saying.

WHY....I'll tell you why, because when this mission was in the start up phases the Majority of Canadians believed in it, supported it, could'nt wait to send our military over to Afganistan to kick some ass....

Can speak for majority but I thought of it more as of our traditional peacekeeping mission. The combat part in Kandahar was a complete surprise and I didn't like it at all precisely for the reason that it mires us in the internal conflict of a faraway country that we barely understand.

WHY is that, because Canadians are to fuking lazy to do anything about it, sure they sent us over there without blinking an eye....but don't have the energy to get us back....

I emphasize.. but there're problems when nothing can be done; i.e. not right away, which only time will sort out. We can make it worse by our clueless meddling; or we can go with the time, and hope that with good policies, and open and honest dealing, things would eventually turn to the better.

My piont is The majority of Canadians asked us to do a job, they sent us to Afganistan, they waved the flags and banners as we left, then they forgot about us, Thats right FORGOT ABOUT US, we no longer are involved in a popular mission, so getting anything done is next to impossiable, and it does not matter what it is, new equipment, that saves lives...it does not matter, if it has anything to do with Afganistan it is dragged thru all the red tape....mean while our soldiers, are fighting and dying under our nations Banner, without the support of the majority of Canadians

I really think that you guys should come home, the sooner, the better. For everybody. What I don't know is how it can be brought about.

You don't think assisting a nation who has suffered 30 plus years of war, is a worthy undertaking....

I think it is; only the matter of what "assistance" means. Assistance in more fighting (and we do foster more fighting, even unwillingly, by our very presence there, and by artificially propping an underdog who wouldn't stand on their own) is certainly not.

You make it sound like i run this nation, i do know this that as a nation once you commit to something you complete it and see it thru to the end...you exhaust all opitions before throwing in the towl.....

No, some options must be out of question, because they go against our principles. Fighting in our people's wars should be one of them.

Problem with Canadians is they like to whine about thier problems, they just can't find the energy to solve them, or do anything about them.....let me ask you this what are you doing about saving our little girls and boys.

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be offensive; or presumptious; only a response to the request for more firepower to turn somebody to democracy sooner; it may not happen anytime soon, and much could be wasted in the process; wouldn't it be better to use where there's a better chance of success?

[Oleg Bach]

Indeed, I have to be very careful with terminology to avoid any possibility of confusion; or one'd think we need serious military help from other nations to deal with our internal issues, like e.g. biker gangs, or Toronto snowfalls.

Kudos for writing, the difference between real constitution and the paper one though, is that the former actually means something. To the people, not the government to show off. And if it means something to the people, if they understand rights and freedoms it's all about, they'll be able to defend it. That's one thing you can't seem to grasp. The freedom, rights, etc, it comes from within. It's either there, or it's not. Can't be planted from outside.

The comment only applied to branding the local people into good (i.e those who support us) and evil (everybody else). Army isn't responsible for political decision to get involved in this conflict. This decision, taken by the Liberals, and particularly, the later one to get involved in active combat operations, was wrong. Even more, because it was taken without serious public discussion. Whatever role some top ranking members may have played in that decision, it was still exclusive responsibility of the government, government that is elected by us. So, indeed we all bear some responsibility for what's going on there, as well as future consequences of our actions.

I don't want to do it once again, I think we already established, that Al Qaeda and Taleban were two different things. US and NATO had options to deal with Al Quaeda without regime change. They could have brought charges for Taleban's alleged crimes against humanity to the international justice. If confirmed and condemned, it would give them cause to take actions to force Taleban stop crimes against humanity. And that's it. That's as far as anybody should go. There would be no need to assist anybody against anybody else, because there would be already a government in the country. The government that would stand or fall based on traditions and ways of local people, and not some foreign ideas, like elections. We already discussed it, election is the final manifistation of democracy, not it's beginning. There's no point in running an election where population does not understand what it means. And again, to avoid possibility of confision, the meaning of representative democracy is not in where to put a cross in the poll, but understanding full well the role and operation of responsible government, and will to obey and defend it, if necessary. How much of that was in Afghanistan before NATO's arrival? Had it miraculously changed, overnight, with the arrival of Bush's glorious demorcacy project?

You don't need a link for every step in your life, some basic math skills will do instead. 15 million of adult male Afghans who can bear arms... against "a few thousand" <sic> Taleban ... (that's over 1,500 of locals per one Taleban) and they still need 50,000 foreigners armed to the top of their heads and more .... (that's 5+ foreign soldiers per one Taleban) and that's not enough (by your own admission). Something doesn't connect... What? Population's support for the democracy project? Taleban numbers? Both?

Why do we need answer these calls of assistance against internal opposition? Why do we need to get involved in their internal problems? Because we like this side better than that? The result is rarely a triumph of democracy; more like friendly dictatorship as long as they keep in the line. That's being our policy so far; whach resulted in occasional blowbacks, a la Iran, Taleban, Al Quada; that necessitated more of the same policy. And so on. Looks like you won't be out of job anytime soon (sorry to say that, but it's just a quite likely direction these policies tend to develop into).

Really? Sorry, can't take the credit, after all that's what the idea of the masterminds of this adventure (Bush & Co). It's enough to descend upon them in our glory, and they'll abandan the ways and traditions they followed for generations, embrace us and praise and cheer.

Which isn't at all what I was saying.

Can speak for majority but I thought of it more as of our traditional peacekeeping mission. The combat part in Kandahar was a complete surprise and I didn't like it at all precisely for the reason that it mires us in the internal conflict of a faraway country that we barely understand.

I emphasize.. but there're problems when nothing can be done; i.e. not right away, which only time will sort out. We can make it worse by our clueless meddling; or we can go with the time, and hope that with good policies, and open and honest dealing, things would eventually turn to the better.

I really think that you guys should come home, the sooner, the better. For everybody. What I don't know is how it can be brought about.

I think it is; only the matter of what "assistance" means. Assistance in more fighting (and we do foster more fighting, even unwillingly, by our very presence there, and by artificially propping an underdog who wouldn't stand on their own) is certainly not.

No, some options must be out of question, because they go against our principles. Fighting in our people's wars should be one of them.

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be offensive; or presumptious; only a response to the request for more firepower to turn somebody to democracy sooner; it may not happen anytime soon, and much could be wasted in the process; wouldn't it be better to use where there's a better chance of success?

War is buisness...all this other stuff is drivel..so maybe it's time to invest in war supplies - providing they extend the mission to the year 2050 - that way my grand children will be rich while other grand children will never be born - very unfair making money on death - and barbaric to say the least.

[Oleg Bach]

Indeed, I have to be very careful with terminology to avoid any possibility of confusion; or one'd think we need serious military help from other nations to deal with our internal issues, like e.g. biker gangs, or Toronto snowfalls.

Kudos for writing, the difference between real constitution and the paper one though, is that the former actually means something. To the people, not the government to show off. And if it means something to the people, if they understand rights and freedoms it's all about, they'll be able to defend it. That's one thing you can't seem to grasp. The freedom, rights, etc, it comes from within. It's either there, or it's not. Can't be planted from outside.

The comment only applied to branding the local people into good (i.e those who support us) and evil (everybody else). Army isn't responsible for political decision to get involved in this conflict. This decision, taken by the Liberals, and particularly, the later one to get involved in active combat operations, was wrong. Even more, because it was taken without serious public discussion. Whatever role some top ranking members may have played in that decision, it was still exclusive responsibility of the government, government that is elected by us. So, indeed we all bear some responsibility for what's going on there, as well as future consequences of our actions.

I don't want to do it once again, I think we already established, that Al Qaeda and Taleban were two different things. US and NATO had options to deal with Al Quaeda without regime change. They could have brought charges for Taleban's alleged crimes against humanity to the international justice. If confirmed and condemned, it would give them cause to take actions to force Taleban stop crimes against humanity. And that's it. That's as far as anybody should go. There would be no need to assist anybody against anybody else, because there would be already a government in the country. The government that would stand or fall based on traditions and ways of local people, and not some foreign ideas, like elections. We already discussed it, election is the final manifistation of democracy, not it's beginning. There's no point in running an election where population does not understand what it means. And again, to avoid possibility of confision, the meaning of representative democracy is not in where to put a cross in the poll, but understanding full well the role and operation of responsible government, and will to obey and defend it, if necessary. How much of that was in Afghanistan before NATO's arrival? Had it miraculously changed, overnight, with the arrival of Bush's glorious demorcacy project?

You don't need a link for every step in your life, some basic math skills will do instead. 15 million of adult male Afghans who can bear arms... against "a few thousand" <sic> Taleban ... (that's over 1,500 of locals per one Taleban) and they still need 50,000 foreigners armed to the top of their heads and more .... (that's 5+ foreign soldiers per one Taleban) and that's not enough (by your own admission). Something doesn't connect... What? Population's support for the democracy project? Taleban numbers? Both?

Why do we need answer these calls of assistance against internal opposition? Why do we need to get involved in their internal problems? Because we like this side better than that? The result is rarely a triumph of democracy; more like friendly dictatorship as long as they keep in the line. That's being our policy so far; whach resulted in occasional blowbacks, a la Iran, Taleban, Al Quada; that necessitated more of the same policy. And so on. Looks like you won't be out of job anytime soon (sorry to say that, but it's just a quite likely direction these policies tend to develop into).

Really? Sorry, can't take the credit, after all that's what the idea of the masterminds of this adventure (Bush & Co). It's enough to descend upon them in our glory, and they'll abandan the ways and traditions they followed for generations, embrace us and praise and cheer.

Which isn't at all what I was saying.

Can speak for majority but I thought of it more as of our traditional peacekeeping mission. The combat part in Kandahar was a complete surprise and I didn't like it at all precisely for the reason that it mires us in the internal conflict of a faraway country that we barely understand.

I emphasize.. but there're problems when nothing can be done; i.e. not right away, which only time will sort out. We can make it worse by our clueless meddling; or we can go with the time, and hope that with good policies, and open and honest dealing, things would eventually turn to the better.

I really think that you guys should come home, the sooner, the better. For everybody. What I don't know is how it can be brought about.

I think it is; only the matter of what "assistance" means. Assistance in more fighting (and we do foster more fighting, even unwillingly, by our very presence there, and by artificially propping an underdog who wouldn't stand on their own) is certainly not.

No, some options must be out of question, because they go against our principles. Fighting in our people's wars should be one of them.

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be offensive; or presumptious; only a response to the request for more firepower to turn somebody to democracy sooner; it may not happen anytime soon, and much could be wasted in the process; wouldn't it be better to use where there's a better chance of success?

War is buisness...all this other stuff is drivel..so maybe it's time to invest in war supplies - providing they extend the mission to the year 2050 - that way my grand children will be rich while other grand children will never be born - very unfair making money on death - and barbaric to say the least.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Can speak for majority but I thought of it more as of our traditional peacekeeping mission. The combat part in Kandahar was a complete surprise and I didn't like it at all precisely for the reason that it mires us in the internal conflict of a faraway country that we barely understand.

This exemplifies a poor understanding of what "peacekeeping" has actually entailed for Canadian Forces over many years. General Hillier spelled it out, but some people wish to continue belief in a fantasy mission.

[Army Guy]

Kudos for writing, the difference between real constitution and the paper one though, is that the former actually means something. To the people, not the government to show off. And if it means something to the people, if they understand rights and freedoms it's all about, they'll be able to defend it. That's one thing you can't seem to grasp. The freedom, rights, etc, it comes from within. It's either there, or it's not. Can't be planted from outside.

Oh, i grasp it just fine, it is you that has the problem....These members of the Freely elected government put alot of work and effort into drafting all the documents that make up thier constitution, It is what the people of Afganistan wanted, not just some paper they drafted up, to appease NATO or the western world....They've had these same rights and freedoms in the past, and wanted to have them back....so it is there, and our media has reported on this topic before....Just that you refuse to believe it or understand it...

This decision, taken by the Liberals, and particularly, the later one to get involved in active combat operations, was wrong.

Another misconception, Day one of Afganistan was a combat mission, more so then than now, day one involved removing the Taliban from power, in which we assisted US and other coalition forces in a ground Campaign, Sorry but there was no peacekeeping....this fact was reported in our media extensivily, no handing out blankets and teddy bears, but rather hunting the taliban and Al Quaida down in the mountains and destroying them....

Even more, because it was taken without serious public discussion.

Don't fall back to that postion, the mission has been and was debated all to hell, Canadians lined up in record numbers to cheer us on and wave good bye, only to read about our combat expliots the next day.....Canadians are not that stupid they knew exactly what our mission was and what we were doing there....to say they did not understand or where mislead into thinking we were there on a humanitary mission is false....

Whatever role some top ranking members may have played in that decision, it was still exclusive responsibility of the government, government that is elected by us. So, indeed we all bear some responsibility for what's going on there, as well as future consequences of our actions.

Our government actions will mimick the peoples will,( if they want to stay in power,) hence why it is so difficult to get things done in Afganistan, because it is not popular....as far as consequences go the Average Canadian does not give a rats ass, about consquences , they want us out and they want us out now....and screw what is going to happen if we leave...

US and NATO had options to deal with Al Quaeda without regime change.

Yes they worked out well did'nt they....yes we'll hand over Bin Ladin, oppps we can't find him, but when we do we'll let you know...The Taliban had no intention of cooperating, it would have cost them most of thier support for other muslim countries...No they were going to take on the great satin....

They could have brought charges for Taleban's alleged crimes against humanity to the international justice. If confirmed and condemned, it would give them cause to take actions to force Taleban stop crimes against humanity.

You do know that the UN did just that, it sanctioned military action to be taken in Afganistan, for numerous reasons, crimes again'st humantiy was one of them....

We already discussed it, election is the final manifistation of democracy, not it's beginning. There's no point in running an election where population does not understand what it means.

Again stop painting them out to be goat hearders or cavemen, they are well aware of what elections are and what the mean.....to the piont most traveled great distances Many days by foot just to get the chance to vote.....try getting Canadians to do that....

You don't need a link for every step in your life, some basic math skills will do instead. 15 million of adult male Afghans who can bear arms... against "a few thousand" <sic> Taleban ... (that's over 1,500 of locals per one Taleban) and they still need 50,000 foreigners armed to the top of their heads and more .... (that's 5+ foreign soldiers per one Taleban) and that's not enough (by your own admission). Something doesn't connect... What? Population's support for the democracy project? Taleban numbers? Both?

Sorry i'm alittle slow, and it helps me to follow your thought process, and where your getting your info from....We've discussed this before many times...you seem to think that if everyone wants these rights and freedoms badly enough they will fight for them....and you refuse to take into account other factors ....30 years of war has left most of the country in ruins, and it's people are very poor....leaving to fight would mean to most families that no one would be able to provide for thier families....if you don't eat you don't poop, don't poop and you die.....providing for your family is the number one priority as it is here in Canada....and in a country where most families don't eat regularly it's a major problem....those that can fight are involved most are working to rebuild the nation, the remaining are involved in thier military or police...

Fear is another major issue, the Taliban regularly execute very publicly those that do assist, once again it boils down to protecting your family, another popular trait here in Canada....and without troops on the ground in every village or town, these roving gangs of taliban are free to spread thier terror on large areas....You'd be surprise at the effect of stripping every bit of skin off a person, and letting him bake in the sun can have on a village....it paralyzes them with fear, as it would do with anyone....

So yes your numbers don't add up, and in a perfect world it would mean something, but it does not mean they don't want peace, rights, or they are not willing to give something up for them...remember they have survived 30 plus years of war, they are extremily poor, and most have nothing to give up, and doing so would mean lossing thier families to either starvation, or death by roving taliban...Can would sit here and tell me that you are willing to give up that for some rights and freedoms that may or may not last....

Can speak for majority but I thought of it more as of our traditional peacekeeping mission. The combat part in Kandahar was a complete surprise and I didn't like it at all precisely for the reason that it mires us in the internal conflict of a faraway country that we barely understand.

Then you were either mislead or did'nt pay attention to what was going on....your statement proves that COMBAT was a complete surprise....Day one was full of combat, and so was our Kabul experiance, full of IED's ,rocket attacks, ambushes, chasing down bad guys, airstrikes, it was all printed in the media...it was on the nightly news....it was the source of many, many debates....you just did'nt hear, or refused to....we just did'nt get to the number 90 deaths in Kanadar....Canadian soldiers have been in combat for years....It is this that is a source of frustration to us soldiers, Canadian forget rather quickly about everything...liberals taught us that, quick lets forget about that scandal.....well Canadian soldiers are fighting and killing under our nations banner, not because we like it , but because you and the majority of Canadians sent us there....

I emphasize.. but there're problems when nothing can be done; i.e. not right away, which only time will sort out. We can make it worse by our clueless meddling; or we can go with the time, and hope that with good policies, and open and honest dealing, things would eventually turn to the better.

I wish you did, but you don't understand, 90 of my comrads and friends have died carring out our nations policy, don't just one day stand up and shout OK we were wrong, lets quit....soldiers don't understand quit....we don't understand failure....During our time in Afganistan we have seen thier strugle with our own eyes , and for short periods we lived it, we've faught side by side with good afgan soldiers and police, bonded with them, got to understand thier problems, and for us it is not honorable to just one day wave good bye, because the majority of Canadian refuse to see what we see, hope , progress, and a chance for a new, and improved afganistan grow up out of the ashes....

Soldiers can't stand by the side lines and watch as women and children and young men, are killed by a group of thugs, bullies, scumbags....we 've done that to many times before in Bosina, Rwanda, Somolia and the many many other UN missions....For us it is a chance to actually get involved in making the peace, to stop the bad guys from doing wrong....to let the little guy have a chance , a small chance of living with just a few of the freedoms we take for granted....

I really think that you guys should come home, the sooner, the better. For everybody. What I don't know is how it can be brought about.

So you don't have any solutions, but your willing to imped our solution, by not supporting it , or denounceing it as worthless....In the army we have a saying if your not part of the solutuion then get the F out of the way, as your part of the problem....Can't figure a way to get us out , then atleast support us in getting the equipment and gear we need to finish our job here safely.....

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be offensive; or presumptious; only a response to the request for more firepower to turn somebody to democracy sooner; it may not happen anytime soon, and much could be wasted in the process; wouldn't it be better to use where there's a better chance of success?

At the end of this month i'll find myself back in Afgan, for my third tour, i did take offense to your remarks, only because i see our soldiers give everything of themselfs to this mission and the Majority of Canadians piss all over thier accomplishments....

you have to acknowledge thier frustrations, No nothing is happening on the home front to get you home, No the addtional equipment and troops you've asked for , screamed for, is slow in coming because the mission is unpopular, ...

We listen to "WE support you, just not the war", .....But "the soldiers " are stuck in the middle, it is "WE" that are wearing the consquences everyday it is "we" that have to line up on the tarmac and watch as one of our comrads coffins are loaded onto a herc....it is "we" that spill our blood, shed our tears, ....but when we ask you to listen, were told to suck it up it's your job, or it's our tax dollars your spending, or my favorite what do you know of foriegn policy....Thier right, i'm just one of the "forgotten we"...remember the next time one of the "we" comes home in a herc, that we are still waiting for you to do something, anything.....Maybe even let us do our jobs....