Afghanistan

[madmax]

Where is your anger at the Russian invasion of Georgia?

Its right here

:angry:

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/13/russia19620.htm

High Toll from Attacks on Populated Areas

An attack on the main square in the Georgian town of Gori on August 12, 2008, killed and injured dozens of civilians, Human Rights Watch said today. The attack took place in the morning in front of the Gori Municipality Administration building, where several dozen civilians had gathered to collect food distributed by local officials. Victims of the attack described to Human Rights Watch how they saw numerous small explosions within seconds before they fell to the ground.

According to victims, at least eight people died immediately, including a Dutch journalist. The injured were initially taken to the Gori hospital, but were evacuated to Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, due to the deteriorating security situation. On August 12, the Gudushauri National Medical Center of Tbilisi admitted 23 civilians from Gori, many of them injured in the morning’s attack.

Although the Russian military initially denied that it was involved in military operations in Gori, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov confirmed on August 13 that Russian forces were active in the area. There were also several aerial bombardments of Gori from August 9 through 12 which could only have been carried out by Russian airplanes.

None of which will absolve the Bush Administration from its actions and its incompetence, along with its support for torture.

[capricorn]

4 years later

August 5th, 2007

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

he cops out at the end.

It is doubly interesting that Iggy offered up his change of heart in the foreign press and not through a Canadian medium. I still wrack my brain on that one. I can't help but think his about turn on the merits of the Iraq operation was fueled more in wanting to appeal to the doves of Liberal persuasion than a genuine reversal of belief. I don't trust Iggy and find him opportunistic.

[madmax]

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

Harper.... "We should be there with our allies"

He is a cowardpolitician. Don't trust them.

I am having to work on this, two politicians with similar goals, both cower for the same reasons.

It wasn't a cakewalk.

I have to say, that Harper did come to the conclusion first, even though he is pandering and it did get him out of defending a US military disaster.

Edited August 21, 2008 by madmax

[capricorn]

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

I would add his 30 year hiatus from Canada didn't help.

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

Do you have a link to support this?

[jdobbin]

I would add his 30 year hiatus from Canada didn't help.

Not being involved in the political process can be a painful experience. Even being out of it for a while can be a tough thing. Think of John Turner and Edward Schreyer.

Do you have a link to support this?

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

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

[capricorn]

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

So are you saying if Obama is elected, there will be no war with Iran?

U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama says he and French President Nicolas Sarkozy believe "the world must send a clear message to Iran to end its illicit nuclear program."

After talks between the two men in Paris, the Democratic senator from Illinois told reporters on Friday they agreed the situation in Iran is "extraordinarily grave."

"A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to both our nations. It would endanger Israel and the rest of the region, and could embolden terrorists and spark a dangerous arms race in the Middle East," Obama said outside the presidential Elysee Palace.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/25/obama.html

Obama, a Democrat, has been highly critical in the past of Bush's policies toward Iran and has promised that if elected he would pursue a policy of greater engagement aimed at persuading Tehran to abandon its nuclear enrichment program.

But in a rare signal of solidarity with the current Republican administration, Obama told a news conference in Paris on Friday that Iran should not wait for the next U.S. president to try to reach a deal over its nuclear program.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...741801220080728

If as you claim Harper said the number one reason we didn't join the Iraq operation is our lack of military resources, why would he now think we have the capability to join a war in Iran with McCain...or with Obama? Obama has been very vocal and critical of Iran. Does this make Obama a Bush-like warmonger?

[capricorn]

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

Yeah, I suppose you could try to read between the lines and interpret Harper's words as saying if we had the troops we would have been there.

Edited August 21, 2008 by capricorn

[jdobbin]

So are you saying if Obama is elected, there will be no war with Iran?

Certainly there won't be an occupation of Iran under Obama. McCain seems convinced that his solution worked in Iraq and will now work in Iran.

If as you claim Harper said the number one reason we didn't join the Iraq operation is our lack of military resources, why would he now think we have the capability to join a war in Iran with McCain...or with Obama? Obama has been very vocal and critical of Iran. Does this make Obama a Bush-like warmonger?

Well, after Harper re-introduces conscription and rationing, I'm sure he figures he can go to war all over the world.

[jdobbin]

Yeah, I suppose you could try to read between the lines and interpret Harper's words as saying if we had the troops we would have been there.

Harper is certainly ambiguous about it years after.

He said Canada should be there, would be there if he had been prime minister. Why so demure a few years later?

Edited August 21, 2008 by jdobbin

[Topaz]

Yeah, I suppose you could try to read between the lines and interpret Harper's words as saying if we had the troops we would have been there.

Do you think IF Harper had the power to bring the draft into play he wouldn't? The Canadian military is very low on personnel and Harper would do it for a short time. His son Ben is what 13-14? He have to have the war over before Ben ws 18! Harper is a very self-center person, he would do what made HIM look good to other countries, especially a Republican ruled US!!

[capricorn]

Certainly there won't be an occupation of Iran under Obama.

I wish I was privy to your crystal ball.

Well, after Harper re-introduces conscription and rationing, I'm sure he figures he can go to war all over the world.

That hidden agenda rears its ugly head.

[capricorn]

Do you think IF Harper had the power to bring the draft into play he wouldn't?

No.

The Canadian military is very low on personnel and Harper would do it for a short time. His son Ben is what 13-14? He have to have the war over before Ben ws 18!

Geez. We'd better hope Laureen doesn't get pregnant or Harper's plan is in the toilet.

Harper is a very self-center person, he would do what made HIM look good to other countries, especially a Republican ruled US!!

Well he certainly didn't try to look good in the eyes of China did he. In some 3 months, the US may elect a Democrat President. You really should prepare alternate talking points in the event.

[jdobbin]

I wish I was privy to your crystal ball.

I guess you have to ask who is going to have the more aggressive stand against Iran militarily. My guess is McCain.

That hidden agenda rears its ugly head.

I forgot the War Measures Act as well.

[Wilber]

Do you think IF Harper had the power to bring the draft into play he wouldn't? The Canadian military is very low on personnel and Harper would do it for a short time. His son Ben is what 13-14? He have to have the war over before Ben ws 18! Harper is a very self-center person, he would do what made HIM look good to other countries, especially a Republican ruled US!!

You don't seem to know much about the history of conscription in Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

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

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

I think my point escaped you.....no OBL in Afghanistan either? That would be two "lies".

[bush_cheney2004]

....I have to say, that Harper did come to the conclusion first, even though he is pandering and it did get him out of defending a US military disaster.

Canada had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq by choice.....it is unrelated to the squirming and second guessing of the good fight in Afghanistan. As I've said before, it's truly pathetic when the only salvation for Canadian policy rests with decisions made in the United States. If you can crow about saying no to Iraq, then don't be disappointed for saying yes to Afghanistan.

[bush_cheney2004]

Harper is certainly ambiguous about it years after.

He said Canada should be there, would be there if he had been prime minister. Why so demure a few years later?

This is a non starter...Canada's military is largely irrelevant for any Iranian operation that you shall imagine. Go back and see what Canada's contribution was to Gulf War I. Canada is challenged just sustain ops in Afghanistan.

[bush_cheney2004]

Bush is commander in chief.

As were the previous US presidents who strangled, bombed, and invaded Iraq. So what's the problem? In the immortal words of Madeline Albright, what good is a $500 billion military if you can't use it?

Edited August 22, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Army Guy]

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

The defination for Terrorist is outlined in detailed on the UN web site, and the Government of Canada's web site, both are almost the same...

Not all our enemies in Afgan are terrorists, but you knew that, there are war lords , merc's, drug lords, and the list is long....

We don't decide what is right or wrong for any Afgan, we are there to up hold Afgan law, and to assist them with rebuilding and security....They make the rules and we enforce them....

As for seeing it in the facts, first we need to read the facts, then we can debate them....

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

That has been a big issue for me when posting to you, yes i'm trying to change your doubts, but you've yet to produce any facts or numbers .

In Canada murder is not supported by the general population, our law enforcement depts far outnumber any criminal gang or outfit by huge numbers, and yet we still have it why is that.....it is the same for the Afgan government your opinion is that they outnumber the bad guys , they are not support by the general population and you can not fathom how the Taliban pose a problem....how do the Hells angels pose a problem here in Canada....

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

Is it rational to say we will turn our heads while a few thousand terrorize millions, killing them at thier leasure....because we don't want to change thier way of life.... We lock up murders and rapists because we want to change thier way of life every day....we lock them, take away some of thier freedoms because we have said we do not tolerate this behavior...

Now the Afgan government has said the same thing, only they can not do it themselfs and have asked for assistance....

This ....we have no right to change the taliban is bullshit....and by giving the Taliban rights as you have suggested we take away the rights of the majority of Afgans....by turning our heads and ignoring the problem sends a clear signal to the taliban , we condone thier actions, and will do nothing to interfer with way of life.....

Sorry i can not sit back here with my head in the sand and do nothing....Our Country has done the right thing here stood up and said we will not tolerate the taliban way of life....we will aid the Afgan government in improving the quility of life of thier citizens....

I have really enjoyed our debates Myata, and all the members of this board. I know deep down that i will not change your opinions, but will continue to try, the Army has changed thier plans for me and i'll be leaving for Afganistan this Sunday, so i won't be able to post for a while....i have secured a new laptop and will try to post from afgan when time permits....once again thank you all, for putting up with an old Army guy....

[madmax]

I think my point escaped you.....no OBL in Afghanistan either? That would be two "lies".

Sure. Feel free to explain?

[madmax]

Do you think IF Harper had the power to bring the draft into play he wouldn't?

No, he wouldn't. Nor would any other Prime Minister.

[M.Dancer]

No, he wouldn't. Nor would any other Prime Minister.

Indeed Topaz has the uncanny ability to get moist things ass end backwards.....Harper does have the power to enable conscription like every other PM.

Must be hard to function with the kind of disability that not even heavy duty tin foil will alleviate.

[madmax]

Canada had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq by choice.....it is unrelated to the squirming and second guessing of the good fight in Afghanistan. As I've said before, it's truly pathetic when the only salvation for Canadian policy rests with decisions made in the United States. If you can crow about saying no to Iraq, then don't be disappointed for saying yes to Afghanistan.

DItto. Good points and opinion.

Considering 3 Recent Prime Ministers have all said Yes to Afghanistan, and 2 for missions extensions and the Current Prime Minister and Official Leader of the Opposition support the mission and its extension.

It is the LPC and CPC ducking and weaving regarding the Iraq decision whether against it "Chretian because we don't have capacity" or Harper "for it but can't because we don't have capacity" the results are the same.

I am disappointed with the results in Afghanistan and I am not crowing about saying no to Iraq. I am dissappointed with the complete breakdown and failure of the occupation. The Bush doctrine is twice proven to be a failure.

[madmax]

As were the previous US presidents who strangled, bombed, and invaded Iraq. So what's the problem? In the immortal words of Madeline Albright, what good is a $500 billion military if you can't use it?

Bush Sr, possibly the wisest the decision, able to create a large contingent in the New World Order.

Clinton, low risk, bomb for political points, win elections look tough, keep Iraqis in poverty and the public looking at whats going on in his head not his trousers. Morally bankrupt air assaults, popular at home. Policy loses effectiveness as Iraq wishes to become accepted in the Global community again.

Bush JR. Wreckless. W not up to the job. Bush SRs boy retires to the exclusive restaurant where he dons a smoking jacket and a bib, and maintains he is the war president.

[madmax]

Sorry i can not sit back here with my head in the sand and do nothing....Our Country has done the right thing here stood up and said we will not tolerate the taliban way of life....we will aid the Afgan government in improving the quility of life of thier citizens....

I have really enjoyed our debates Myata, and all the members of this board. I know deep down that i will not change your opinions, but will continue to try, the Army has changed thier plans for me and i'll be leaving for Afganistan this Sunday, so i won't be able to post for a while....i have secured a new laptop and will try to post from afgan when time permits....once again thank you all, for putting up with an old Army guy....

The thread isn't the same without you. Look forward to your posts in the future. You ain't that old yet.