Afghanistan

[eyeball]

You might want to re check those facts.... perhaps provide a link to where the US assisted the Taliban in anything....the time line is not right, the russia war started in 78 until 89....the Taliban really did not evolve until 94....

mujahideen divides

there was no power sharing between the two groups, and there was no direct US involment or free passes in setting up any form of government...

Mujahadeen/Taliban Taliban/Mujahadeen... in any case if Charlie Wilson's War is anything to go by the US did in fact drop the ball. It didn't follow through.

Wilson follows Avrakotos' guidance to seek support for post-Soviet occupation Afghanistan, but finds almost no enthusiasm in the U.S. government for even the modest measures he proposes. The film ends with Wilson receiving a major commendation for the support of the U.S. clandestine services, but his pride is tempered by his fears of what unintended consequences his secret efforts could yield in the future and the implications of U.S. disengagement from Afghanistan.

Yes I realize this is just a wiki article about a movie but nonetheless the same wiki article goes on to say...

[edit] Governmental criticism and praise

Some Reagan-era officials, including former Under Secretary of Defense Fred Ikle, have criticized components of the film. The Washington Times reported some have claimed the film wrongly promotes the notion that the CIA-led operation funded Osama bin Laden and ultimately produced the September 11, 2001 attacks.[7] Other Reagan-era officials, however, have been more supportive of the film. Michael Johns, the former Heritage Foundation foreign policy analyst and speechwriter to President George H. W. Bush, praised the film as "the first mass-appeal effort to reflect the most important lesson of America's Cold War victory: that the Reagan-led effort to support freedom fighters resisting Soviet oppression led successfully to the first major military defeat of the Soviet Union." "Sending the Red Army packing from Afghanistan," Johns wrote, "proved one of the single most important contributing factors in one of history's most profoundly positive and important developments."

This sort of covert support for Afghanistan against the Soviets goes against the grain of building a sound case for war using referenda for establishing public support for foreign engagements and more importantly the committment to clean up afterwards. This also speaks to the oft repeated references to what-if scenarios critics of referenda cite if we had voted to stay out of WW2. What if Americans had voted not to support the Mujahadeen? Chances are the Soviet Union would still have collpased, I mean if people have any faith in what they say about the uselessness of communism they should have had faith in the likelihood that the Soviet Union would have eventually collpased under the weight of its own inconsistencies and bullshit. Mind you non-interferance wouldn't have made many military contractors rich.

In any case I think Americans should have had a say in their governments policies.

[M.Dancer]

I stand by my opinions, but notice I'm also now willing to go where a clear majority of informed Canadians are willing to lead.

Unless of course it's the opinion of the elctorate and those in Ottawa who have been elected to form the gov't. Okay, maybe you are for democracy, only it has to be the kind of democracy that suits you.

Displays of hysteria and ad hominem attacks are probably not the way to build a case for war...although this did seem to work for that queer little fellow with the temper and a funny little moustache.

Then you don't know what ad hominem means. I haven't attacked you, I have attacked your ideas and used your words and shown in my opinion why they are idiotic. In the past you have shown yourself to be short on history and long on wind. You used to bring up the Swiss as a model until you were made to see their role in the Second World War. Then you went to Sweden and then you had to be shown how that Sweden was not neutral....I suppose if you actually knew what you were talking about, my adjectives describing your content might be more flattering.

[eyeball]

A referendum does have it's merits, but history is full of examples of where they don't work exactly as planned....WWI or WWII was not very in Quebec , in fact the consription crises nearly tore this country apart....and yet it was clearly the majority of the country that wanted to be involved, to support Britain....

MY piont is majority rule is not always the best course of action, someone needs to be able to make a decision based on what is the best for the country....

I agree it may not always be the best course of action but how will we know if we don't try? Perhaps a referendum on a referendum is in order... I just think we need a better process for determining the conditions under which we should go to war and that should involve knowing, in no uncertain terms, what the level of public support actually is. Even if a referendum wasn't binding it would still be a potent factor to reckon with.

[eyeball]

...you don't know what ad hominem means. I haven't attacked you...

You are on record numerous times spouting off childish nonsense

I guess this is praise is it?

You used to bring up the Swiss as a model until you were made to see their role in the Second World War. Then you went to Sweden and then you had to be shown how that Sweden was not neutral....

Yes, as I said earlier I've learned a thing or two by listening...

Okay, maybe you are for democracy,

...so have you, apparently.

[M.Dancer]

I guess this is praise is it?

Yes, as I said earlier I've learned a thing or two by listening...

...so have you, apparently.

You should learn to read past the comma.

[eyeball]

You should learn to read past the comma.

You should write less between the lines.

[Army Guy]

In the case of Afghanistan, the US dropped the ball after helping the Mujahadeen/Taliban defeat the Soviets. The US gave the Taliban/Mujahadeen a free pass to set up a dictatorship in Kabul and the rest is history.

Mujahadeen/Taliban Taliban/Mujahadeen... in any case if Charlie Wilson's War is anything to go by the US did in fact drop the ball. It didn't follow through.

No lets not get facts mixed up with movies....How could the US drop the ball when the Communist government was still in power upto 3 years after the Russians made thier great escape....After the communist government did fall, it was replaced by a Mujahadeen government....still don't how they dropped the ball....

I stand by my opinions, but notice I'm also now willing to go where a clear majority of informed Canadians are willing to lead.

Would you say that the Majority of Canadians are well informed about Afganistan ?....another problem with putting power directly into the people hands, are they willing to educate themselfs on all the issues, or will they just vote to bring about some change in thier own lives....IE i won't vote for that because it is NDP. LIBERAL, regardless if it's good or bad policy.....and why just stop at the real big decisions....where do you draw the line...

I agree it may not always be the best course of action but how will we know if we don't try? Perhaps a referendum on a referendum is in order... I just think we need a better process for determining the conditions under which we should go to war and that should involve knowing, in no uncertain terms, what the level of public support actually is. Even if a referendum wasn't binding it would still be a potent factor to reckon with.

Then instead of a referendum, hold a national poll, i would much rather put my life into the hands of an educated elected offical, than some red neck for my home town any day.... A poll would give those in power just what the nation thought...but like i said before sometimes the right decision is not the popular one....

[White Doors]

I think the House of Commons is a monkey house. It doesn't represent me at all.

Irrelevant

[White Doors]

Yes I realize this is just a wiki article about a movie but nonetheless the same wiki article goes on to say...

He's right you know.

Stephen Harper should take his advice and shape foreign policy from historical events(?) which are gleaned through a wiki article talking about a ficticious hollywood movie.

Afterall, who needs reality?

We have Hollywood damnit!

[jbg]

Keep in mind Eyeball's ill considered stance would have kept Canada from declaring war on Germany in Sept. 1939. In fact, according to eyeball, the only nations that really had a right to declare war on germany were the ones who were conquered, occupied and destyroyed by germany.

With that said, Eyeball's naive blatherskite can be dismissed.

Well, the United States wasn't conquered, occupied and destroyed by Germany (or Japan) but even as the US declaration of war is "Eyeballed" at least part of it would pass muster.

[jbg]

Eyeball's goal isn't democracy, it's keeping Canada out of war. Doesn't matter is the war is necessary or just, cause Eyeball doesn't believe in just war. In this he believe a referendum would produce the results he wants, Eyeball's position is immoral.

Where's Eyeball's outrage at Russia's naked aggression against Georgia? Or Sudan's against Dharfur? Or China against Tibet?

Quite selective aversion to war.

[GostHacked]

Where's Eyeball's outrage at Russia's naked aggression against Georgia? Or Sudan's against Dharfur? Or China against Tibet?

Quite selective aversion to war.

It is what you are exposed to in the media for the most part. If you don't hear about Darfur or Tibet in the news, does it really stop it from happening? No. For the most part, the US and Canadian media focus on the war on terror. Those things get front page news. Darfur and Tibet get page 5, 6... 10...

It is also the countries interest that is showed on the MSM. There is no resources in Tibet or Darfur (as far as I can tell). The only things I see going in in Darfur and Tibet are genocide.

MSM gives us that selective aversion. Mass media packaged for the mass audience.

[eyeball]

He's right you know.

Stephen Harper should take his advice and shape foreign policy from historical events(?) which are gleaned through a wiki article talking about a ficticious hollywood movie.

Afterall, who needs reality?

We have Hollywood damnit!

You have Hollywood too.

Operation Hollywood

Reality and fiction cut both ways.

[myata]

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....

And what you don't seem to understand is that a constitution is simple a record of ways of the land. That's it, no more and no less. Until certain right or freedom is clearly understood by everybody, until it becomes everyday way of life, there's little point of writing it into a constitution. It'll sure look great, but then? I.e one can live without a constitution with wonderful freedoms just fine - or, have a wonderful constitution and still little freedom.

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...

And that was, when? Can you be more precise? Under their king? Or maybe under Soviets?

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....

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....

OK maybe in the first days there was indeed a surge of support for the US, including their (wrong) move to topple Afghan government of the moment. With all its problems, it was still the only stable local government they had in years following Soviet invasion. Decision to go to Kandahar wasn't "debated to the hell", not as far as I can recall.

Anyways; if a wrong decision was taken under the pressure of the moment, it's even worse to persist in it till bitter end.

....and screw what is going to happen if we leave...

Listen, we've been there for six years; if anything good couldn't wait to happen - why didn't happen yet? What is it waiting for? 100,000 NATO troops instead of 50,000 will make Afghanis free and democratic?

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've already been there. That happened after Americans blasted the country out, and a "legitimate" way had to be made to clean up the mess.

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....

Again, democracy is more than putting a cross in a box once every so often. It (an election) is only the very tip of the iceberg, not the whole thing; not even the beginning; a society with reasonable rights and freedoms can exist without popular democracy; and of course, vice versa, a society with no freedoms won't have them simply by the fact that somebody ran an election for them.

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...

I emphasize with their condition; and we should be helping, no question about it. The question is, in what way? We can't be fighting for them, because we won't know for who, and against whom, and we can't build their country for them because we won't know what they want.

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....

You'll then have to explain, how taleban, with their ostensibly 1,500 troops, finds power to create presence on the ground, while government assisted by foreigners, with 100, or 1000 stronger force couldn't. There's a logical contradiction between claims that Taleban enjoys little popular support (needed for home support of the mission, otherwise it'll really look more like we're fighting in the other peoples home conflict), and that they successfully terrorise population in large parts of the country (needed for justification of military mission). Both can't be true; which one isn't? Both?

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....

I understand; but this is a discussion board; to keep open mind, to discuss, is the only way to react before things get out of control - as they did many times in the past - e.g. Vietnam.

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....

And that I understand too. Army should not be used in the reconstruction / society building projects. That's one reason I think that keeping it there is now wrong and counter productive. And you sound like we should now be there forever, just because it's not honourable to say goodbuy.

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....

And that is a good point too. There has to be an efficient, working international mechanism to react to mass right abuses wherever they may happen (note I mean real fundamental rights, not "democratic" rights). The aim of these missions will be restoration of rights, period; rebuilding of the country has to be left to the locals; nobody can do it for them.

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.....

Yeah I know; the problem is, when the proposed solution doesn't work. It happened before. Anyways I do support you getting any necessary equipment you need while there, but I think the right thing would be to get out of there.

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....

Listen I understand; but what should I do? Cheer for the mission that I believe is wrong? That will cost a lot (in lives most importantly), and won't achieve the objective? Simply because the objective, to rewrite entire country to our own image and liking, is, in my view, next to impossible task?

Edited August 13, 2008 by myata

[eyeball]

Where's Eyeball's outrage at Russia's naked aggression against Georgia? Or Sudan's against Dharfur? Or China against Tibet?

Quite selective aversion to war.

Not at all, if you look back more closely you'll find I've made many a reference to super-rogues and not just the US. I'm actually very consistent when it comes to bashing super-powers.

[jbg]

Not at all, if you look back more closely you'll find I've made many a reference to super-rogues and not just the US. I'm actually very consistent when it comes to bashing super-powers.

I shouldn't have personalized it to you. Many "anti-war" types are opposed to wars in which the democracies are the chief actors but say nothing about the more common and more nakedly brutal "super-rogue" atrocities.

[Army Guy]

And what you don't seem to understand is that a constitution is simple a record of ways of the land. That's it, no more and no less. Until certain right or freedom is clearly understood by everybody, until it becomes everyday way of life, there's little point of writing it into a constitution. It'll sure look great, but then? I.e one can live without a constitution with wonderful freedoms just fine - or, have a wonderful constitution and still little freedom.

You make it sound like a useless piece of paper, but in fact it is a written record of the laws that have been passed by vote. it gives the government thier basic guide lines in which to govern, . It outlines to every citizen all of thier basic rights and thier limits....Much more than a piece of paper....It's the operators manual for the country if you will...and while you can live without one, you still need to referance it once and awhile.

And that was, when? Can you be more precise? Under their king? Or maybe under Soviets?

Zahir Shah was able to govern on his own in 1963[9] and despite the factionalism and political infighting a new constitution was introduced in 1964 which turned Afghanistan into a modern democratic state by introducing free elections, a parliament, civil rights, liberation for women and universal suffrage.[12]

Rights

OK maybe in the first days there was indeed a surge of support for the US, including their (wrong) move to topple Afghan government of the moment. With all its problems, it was still the only stable local government they had in years following Soviet invasion

Hilter and Stalin also had stable governments....Dictators that rule with absolute fear normal do have stable governments, does'nt it mean that it is a good thing....unless of course you believe that a stable government trumps having basic human rights.....

Decision to go to Kandahar wasn't "debated to the hell", not as far as I can recall.

Give me a break, goggle it and find out how many hits you get, Canada was debating thier mission 4 or 5 years later....

Anyways; if a wrong decision was taken under the pressure of the moment, it's even worse to persist in it till bitter end.

How do you know it was the wrong mission, your still learning about it, you still do not have all the facts so how can you have already decided "it's the wrong decision" ...do you do that problem solving technique with all your problems or just big inter national ones...

Listen, we've been there for six years; if anything good couldn't wait to happen - why didn't happen yet? What is it waiting for? 100,000 NATO troops instead of 50,000 will make Afghanis free and democratic?

So it's taking to long in your opinion, and just what experiance or knowledge do you base that on ? Bosina 20 years plus, Cyprus 40 years plus, hey just goggle it and find out just how long these mission take....

I'd like to just correct something else while we are here, you said "we" have been there for 6 years, but most of "we" have not been there at all...

I'll explain, That while it is true Canada has sent it's troops into Afganistan to assist the entire peace process, and have paid dearly for thier commitment, in blood, sweat, and tears....it is also true that the minority of Canadians have supported our troops, this mission, and have done many above and beyond things in the process, to show thier support....

It is also true that the Majority has done nothing, other than have a portion of thier tax dollars diverted into this mission, and only because they have no choose in the matter....and they bitch about doing that small part.

I mention this not to demean anyone, but rather to place credit where credit is due. This mssion was suppose to be a Canadian one, which meant all of us, have a role to play, like it or not we still have a role until our government decides we are finished....and for years now that has not been happening....

As for our accomplishments on this mission, I'm hoping you do some research on them, and discover for your self just how much has been done, but also realize how much is left to do...Our nations soldiers work 24 hours a day 7 days a week, with each soldier avg approx 19 to 20 hours a day, in the worse conditions known to man....unless you have a more efficient plan , it is unfair to judge them or thier accomplishemnts...

We've already been there. That happened after Americans blasted the country out, and a "legitimate" way had to be made to clean up the mess.

Really, Is that why they passed a UN resolution on the 12 Sept, number 1368(2001)(below) The US did not start air operations until 7 Oct 2001, and a limited ground presence was'nt until 22 Oct 2001....so the UN was not covering it's tracks or the US after the fact....or creating some sort of legitimate excuse for this whole issue....It is you that are creating false facts....

Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the

perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those

responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and

sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;

There is more if you want to read them all, but that is pretty strong language for the UN....

Un resolutions.

I emphasize with their condition; and we should be helping, no question about it. The question is, in what way? We can't be fighting for them, because we won't know for who, and against whom, and we can't build their country for them because we won't know what they want.

Thats all your doing, on one hand you say we should be helping, just not fighting because we don't know whom it is we should be fighting...we can't build because we don't know what they want....good pionts, all of them, but give those in charge some credit, they are Afgan's and they know whom the bad guys are, and have made that very clear, infact 10 mins in country and you'll know as well....as for the rebuilding it is the Afgan governments that decide what and where is to be built we provide the security, and tech assistance....other than small projects such as schools and wells, etc...we do that on our own...

You'll then have to explain, how taleban, with their ostensibly 1,500 troops, finds power to create presence on the ground, while government assisted by foreigners, with 100, or 1000 stronger force couldn't. There's a logical contradiction between claims that Taleban enjoys little popular support (needed for home support of the mission, otherwise it'll really look more like we're fighting in the other peoples home conflict), and that they successfully terrorise population in large parts of the country (needed for justification of military mission). Both can't be true; which one isn't? Both?

The same way clifford olson, created fear and panick, or allen leger, you don't have to vist every home or every village, they kill randomly leave very public and gruesome messages....word of mouth travels fast, with the tale growing bigger with every passage....History is full of millions of examples how fear can control large numbers of people...

And that I understand too. Army should not be used in the reconstruction / society building projects. That's one reason I think that keeping it there is now wrong and counter productive. And you sound like we should now be there forever, just because it's not honourable to say goodbuy.

Last time i look over my shoulder there was very little NGO's offering to rebuild anything....it was us and the Afgan people....the job needs to get down and where doing it if that is bad or countetr productive please explain....

Forever is a long time but over atleast a 25 year period...in one form or another....It's not honourable to leave someone high and dry, or while still in thier hour of need....

This is not something that is new, or Canada has not been exposed to, check our history and how long a typical peacekeeping mission is....there is no drive thru lane in nation building or peacekeeping....if we as a nation can not afford the time or money to do the job then we have no right in pretending we do....and we should stick our head back up are arses, and call it a day....

Yeah I know; the problem is, when the proposed solution doesn't work. It happened before. Anyways I do support you getting any necessary equipment you need while there, but I think the right thing would be to get out of there.

How do you know that for a fact, Many have said they support us, and believe in us , use to take great pride in calling us peacekeepers, warriors ...but now they have no faith in us, impossiable task, never do it....funney they said the same things in vimy and now it is a great part of our history....i will tell you this if it does not work it won't be for our nations soldiers lack of trying it will be because the Majority of Canadians gave up....thats going to look good in the history books....

And if the the majority of Canadians wanted us to have the equipment and funding we need to do the job it would have already happened....don't fret, we are happy to eat the peanuts we recieve now, and regardless of how much more or less we recieve we will continue to be happy and serve this nation with pride....

Listen I understand; but what should I do? Cheer for the mission that I believe is wrong? That will cost a lot (in lives most importantly), and won't achieve the objective? Simply because the objective, to rewrite entire country to our own image and liking, is, in my view, next to impossible task?

do something anything, but something is alot better than nothing....i'm not trying to change your mind just making sure you got the facts straight so you can make an informative decision.....

[GostHacked]

Army Guy

It is also true that the Majority has done nothing, other than have a portion of thier tax dollars diverted into this mission, and only because they have no choose in the matter....and they bitch about doing that small part.

And if the the majority of Canadians wanted us to have the equipment and funding we need to do the job it would have already happened....don't fret, we are happy to eat the peanuts we recieve now, and regardless of how much more or less we recieve we will continue to be happy and serve this nation with pride....

But you say

mention this not to demean anyone, but rather to place credit where credit is due. This mssion was suppose to be a Canadian one, which meant all of us, have a role to play, like it or not we still have a role until our government decides we are finished....and for years now that has not been happening....

The majority should decide, but then again we should wait untill the government decides? If the Majority wanted to help out they would? I guess the majority does not support the war. The majority want our troops home. Maybe you can clear this up for me?

Not to be a dick but

How do you know it was the wrong mission, your still learning about it, you still do not have all the facts so how can you have already decided "it's the wrong decision" ...do you do that problem solving technique with all your problems or just big inter national ones...

We are all still learning about it. Even you are. You were sent there, but the people who sent you there, many of them have never touched ground in Afghanistan. By your terms they are as clueless as me, because I never went there.

I'd like to just correct something else while we are here, you said "we" have been there for 6 years, but most of "we" have not been there at all...

It was debated to hell only after the fact that Canada went into Afghanistan. The debate should have happened before the deployment. Debate after the fact won't change the course, because once we are in, we won't go untill the job is done. Not much of a debate when the result is going to be the same.

[GostHacked]

Army Guy

It is also true that the Majority has done nothing, other than have a portion of thier tax dollars diverted into this mission, and only because they have no choose in the matter....and they bitch about doing that small part.

And if the the majority of Canadians wanted us to have the equipment and funding we need to do the job it would have already happened....don't fret, we are happy to eat the peanuts we recieve now, and regardless of how much more or less we recieve we will continue to be happy and serve this nation with pride....

But you say

mention this not to demean anyone, but rather to place credit where credit is due. This mssion was suppose to be a Canadian one, which meant all of us, have a role to play, like it or not we still have a role until our government decides we are finished....and for years now that has not been happening....

The majority should decide, but then again we should wait untill the government decides? If the Majority wanted to help out they would? I guess the majority does not support the war. The majority want our troops home. Maybe you can clear this up for me?

Not to be a dick but

How do you know it was the wrong mission, your still learning about it, you still do not have all the facts so how can you have already decided "it's the wrong decision" ...do you do that problem solving technique with all your problems or just big inter national ones...

We are all still learning about it. Even you are. You were sent there, but the people who sent you there, many of them have never touched ground in Afghanistan. By your terms they are as clueless as me, because I never went there.

I'd like to just correct something else while we are here, you said "we" have been there for 6 years, but most of "we" have not been there at all...

It was debated to hell only after the fact that Canada went into Afghanistan. The debate should have happened before the deployment. Debate after the fact won't change the course, because once we are in, we won't go untill the job is done. Not much of a debate when the result is going to be the same.

[Army Guy]

The majority should decide, but then again we should wait untill the government decides? If the Majority wanted to help out they would? I guess the majority does not support the war. The majority want our troops home. Maybe you can clear this up for me?

I actually thought each was pretty clear, The Majority of Canadians don't support the mission when asked, but they won't or are unwilling to do anything about it, unless it is negative towards the mission and requires minimum effort....and with the mission so unpopular without the will of the majority nothing will get done, and if it does it's at a snails pace....

....for example....A professor in Ottawa accuses our troops of mishandling POW's and within days planes fill the Afgan tarmac, with MP's of all shapes and sizes, announcing WE are here to investagate the POW abuses, although proven false, it got a major reaction from the canadian people where demanding something be done....But on the other hand, Soldiers are dying because of improper equipment, lack of numbers , proper funding ....and poof...it gets rear page coverage....

It is in my opinion that the majority of Canadians will not act unless it has a negative effect on the mission and requires minimum effort....not because they strongly believe the mission is wrong, but because they are to damn fuking lazy to do anything else....saying no requires less effort than saying yes.

Heres the catch it was the majoprity that orginally decided to send us over, waving and cheering, shouting kick some ass....OK off we went, only to find out later on that we no longer had that support at home....and things started to slow way down.....This was a Canadian mission, which means all of us, all carrying our wieght ...now it has turned out to be an Armed forces mission with us carring all the weight...

We are all still learning about it. Even you are. You were sent there, but the people who sent you there, many of them have never touched ground in Afghanistan. By your terms they are as clueless as me, because I never went there.

There is a big difference in still learning , and not knowing a thing, and making a decision that does effect others. you don't have to be on the ground as per say, but you can atleast read and view the material brought back from the zillions of government mps that have been there. make a decision based on fact not here say.

[GostHacked]

I actually thought each was pretty clear, The Majority of Canadians don't support the mission when asked, but they won't or are unwilling to do anything about it, unless it is negative towards the mission and requires minimum effort....and with the mission so unpopular without the will of the majority nothing will get done, and if it does it's at a snails pace....

So the majority does not support the war, but our government does. The government works for us right?

....for example....A professor in Ottawa accuses our troops of mishandling POW's and within days planes fill the Afgan tarmac, with MP's of all shapes and sizes, announcing WE are here to investagate the POW abuses, although proven false, it got a major reaction from the canadian people where demanding something be done....But on the other hand, Soldiers are dying because of improper equipment, lack of numbers , proper funding ....and poof...it gets rear page coverage....

This is why we should not have went in the first place.

It is in my opinion that the majority of Canadians will not act unless it has a negative effect on the mission and requires minimum effort....not because they strongly believe the mission is wrong, but because they are to damn fuking lazy to do anything else....saying no requires less effort than saying yes.

It is not lazyiness, it is a matter of willingness. Government turns the deaf ear. Knowing how beurocratic and innefective the government is for the most part, you almost have to overthrow the government. That takes alot of effort. You could be just as lazy to support the mission without looking into the facts. Just as dengerous.

Heres the catch it was the majoprity that orginally decided to send us over, waving and cheering, shouting kick some ass....OK off we went, only to find out later on that we no longer had that support at home....and things started to slow way down.....

Was there a vote or referendum on it? Or do we have various stupid polls to find out what we support?

This was a Canadian mission, which means all of us, all carrying our wieght ...now it has turned out to be an Armed forces mission with us carring all the weight...

I thought it was a NATO mission and Canada was left in charge to lead the NATO mission. Since NATO did not support the Iraq invasion (which seems odd), what is different about the mission in Afghanistan and the mission in Iraq?

There is a big difference in still learning , and not knowing a thing, and making a decision that does effect others. you don't have to be on the ground as per say, but you can atleast read and view the material brought back from the zillions of government mps that have been there. make a decision based on fact not here say.

Yes and most people I talk to, think they know why Canada is there. I quickly find out that most of them really do not know what the mission is. Ignorance is bliss.

I am sure you are privy to the information that those MPs have sent back?

[Fortunata]

At the end of this month i'll find myself back in Afgan, for my third tour,

Give 'em hell Army Guy.

[Army Guy]

So the majority does not support the war, but our government does. The government works for us right?

I'd like to think so, but then again i'm sure our government has ongoings and dealings that we the public are total unaware of....and are making decisions on what is best for the country, not portions of it, or in this case what the majority thinks....

This is why we should not have went in the first place.

I'm assuming you meant because we were unprepared, and not afraid of alittle misconception....

It is not lazyiness, it is a matter of willingness. Government turns the deaf ear. Knowing how beurocratic and innefective the government is for the most part, you almost have to overthrow the government. That takes alot of effort. You could be just as lazy to support the mission without looking into the facts. Just as dengerous.

Is that what were calling it now, lack of willingness, sorry i'm old school....Your argumant holds no water, as the Professor quit clearly showed how one individual made our entire government leap into action....if one Citizen could do it , my question is why not the majority....As for the people who are supporting the mission i don't think so, as i find i'm always defending my postion, always researching and keeping upto date on current facts....

Was there a vote or referendum on it? Or do we have various stupid polls to find out what we support?

If only it was that easy, but you know as well as i do, that it was "not keeping the public informed" that lost the majority support that i blame the governments in charge, as well as the opostion parties for not forcing that issue...and the media for not reporting the news as it happens, and exactly how it happens....to many times i watch teams of reporters get a briefing from the CO, and the next morning hear the news not one station reported it the same, i'll also watched many of the stations report the news and not once leave the base....not becausae they could not leave the base but rather they did'nt want to...

I thought it was a NATO mission and Canada was left in charge to lead the NATO mission. Since NATO did not support the Iraq invasion (which seems odd), what is different about the mission in Afghanistan and the mission in Iraq?

Your right it is a NATO mission , but when our government decided to jump on board, it became a Canadian tasking not just for our soldiers but for all of us.....

Yes and most people I talk to, think they know why Canada is there. I quickly find out that most of them really do not know what the mission is. Ignorance is bliss.

Again same as the above statement getting the public well informed has been our governments downfall on this mission....

I am sure you are privy to the information that those MPs have sent back?

If you mean did i read it before they sent it back, NO....i'm aware only because i was there when some of these events took place and have first person knowledge...but there is still the freedom of info request that is available to every citizen...want to know ask and ye shall recieve....

[bush_cheney2004]

...Heres the catch it was the majoprity that orginally decided to send us over, waving and cheering, shouting kick some ass....OK off we went, only to find out later on that we no longer had that support at home....and things started to slow way down.....This was a Canadian mission, which means all of us, all carrying our wieght ...now it has turned out to be an Armed forces mission with us carring all the weight...

Spot on....this was THE CANADIAN mission, perfectly matched to Canadian values and was held up in stark contrast to the US/UK/AUS invasion of Iraq. It was the political umbrella to stay on-side with the West for the so called War on Terror, and Canadian Forces have pulled far more than their fair share (NATO).

[GostHacked]

I'd like to think so, but then again i'm sure our government has ongoings and dealings that we the public are total unaware of....and are making decisions on what is best for the country, not portions of it, or in this case what the majority thinks....

This is one reason why more transparency in government is needed.

I'm assuming you meant because we were unprepared, and not afraid of alittle misconception....

Is that what were calling it now, lack of willingness, sorry i'm old school....Your argumant holds no water, as the Professor quit clearly showed how one individual made our entire government leap into action....if one Citizen could do it , my question is why not the majority....

Vision without Action is a daydream. Action without Vision is a nightmare.

As for the people who are supporting the mission i don't think so, as i find i'm always defending my postion, always researching and keeping upto date on current facts....

I applaude this.

If only it was that easy, but you know as well as i do, that it was "not keeping the public informed" that lost the majority support that i blame the governments in charge, as well as the opostion parties for not forcing that issue...and the media for not reporting the news as it happens, and exactly how it happens....to many times i watch teams of reporters get a briefing from the CO, and the next morning hear the news not one station reported it the same, i'll also watched many of the stations report the news and not once leave the base....not becausae they could not leave the base but rather they did'nt want to...

By this, we as a population cannot make an informed choice, because for the most part, the real gritty facts are not divulged to us.

Your right it is a NATO mission , but when our government decided to jump on board, it became a Canadian tasking not just for our soldiers but for all of us.....

Again same as the above statement getting the public well informed has been our governments downfall on this mission....

Unprepared and then posibly not reporting things that were wrong and possibly not corrected.

If you mean did i read it before they sent it back, NO....i'm aware only because i was there when some of these events took place and have first person knowledge...but there is still the freedom of info request that is available to every citizen...want to know ask and ye shall recieve....

True, not many people take this course of action.

I had recently talked to an old friend who did a tour in Afghanistan. I asked him if he had killed anyone. Without hesitation, he said yes. He told me he was a tool of the government and has a clean concious about what he has done. I really did not inquire if the supported the mission, he got out because he wanted to stay home with his wife and two daughters.