Debate over Afghanistan

[Melanaszomos]

POST DELETED by moderator

This post was an entire reproduction of the following:

NATO in Afghanistan: From Bad to Worse – The wrong role for Canada

Jack Layton's speech at the University of Ottawa

http://www.ndp.ca/page/6134

Edited February 11, 2008 by Charles Anthony
plagiarism; re-copied article without citation

[Keepitsimple]

You're a new poster - so you may not be aware of the forum rules. If you are not Jack Layton - please issue your posting as a "quote" and provide a link to the source.

If you are Jack Layton, I would ask that you speak with Stephen Harper and ask him if you can fly over to Afghanistan to negotiate with the Taliban. Since the NDP represent about 15% of Canada's voters, I'm sure that 85% of Canadians would be willing to chip in for airfare and Hotel/Cave expenses. The NDP voters would want you to go as well - but they would want the Government to pay for it. I look forward to your report detailing how the Taliban have accepted your gracious path to peace and how they have promised to participate in Afghanistan's democratic government, embrace education for females, not kill anyone opposed to them, and rebuild all the Budha statues that they demolished with rockets. We wish you the best of luck.

Edited February 9, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[August1991]

www.ndp.ca

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Canada's role in this conflict is under intensive political review. The government has some decisions to make that could trigger an election. I find ity interesting that we have come to this point by the means that we have. It is a sad commentary on where we now find ourselves.

The Afgan nation has severe problems, we were part of some of the causes of those problems. That leaves us responsible for some of the solutions. As a nation we need to realize our place in this world. We need to define what our political position should be in terms of international affairs. We can either take an active partnership role with the UN and or the USA, the two have conflicting agendas and we need to realize that. There is another alternative, that is going it alone. That would be my first choice. Canada should be a neutral influence providing humanitarian assistance but avoiding political positioning that would see us entrapped in the mistakes of others. We should reserve the right to act of our own interests.

In my view Canada should withdraw from military combat operations and return to our role of peace keepers. The only way to find peace for the Afgan people is to quit killing them and start helping them to rebuild. I think we should pick a place in that nation to call our own sphere of influence and begin a process of providing defensive and economic aid to the citizens. Mark out some territory and defend its perimeter. Rebuild or create infrastructure in the centre of this territory and begin to create an acceptable standard of living. Canada can provide "our living standards" in terms of creating a health care system and an educational system. Governance is a matter left to their own citizens, which we sure support and assist within our defined sphere of influence.

[Keepitsimple]

In my view Canada should withdraw from military combat operations and return to our role of peace keepers. The only way to find peace for the Afgan people is to quit killing them and start helping them to rebuild. I think we should pick a place in that nation to call our own sphere of influence and begin a process of providing defensive and economic aid to the citizens. Mark out some territory and defend its perimeter. Rebuild or create infrastructure in the centre of this territory and begin to create an acceptable standard of living. Canada can provide "our living standards" in terms of creating a health care system and an educational system. Governance is a matter left to their own citizens, which we sure support and assist within our defined sphere of influence.

Jerry - that's the crux of the problem. How do you "defend the perimeter"?. If you do not go out on patrols to find where the enemy is and keep them at bay....then you end up surrounded by the enemy who simply lob rockets and grenades and kill soldiers and civilians - you actually put our soldiers at grave risk. The Afghans are not yet ready to do all the fighting so we have to teach them by fighting along side them until they are ready.....and that's why you cannot provide security without combat. The Liberals are trying to make a disingenuous argument. Don't fall for it. The motion introduced by the Conservatives clearly states that we will be continuing to transition to training and mentoring and as the Afghans get up to speed, we will reduce and evfentually eliminate our combat role.

[Melanaszomos]

The war in Afganistan despite being an enormous burden for us tax payers its a disaster for the local population. Thousands of civilians have died , tens of Canadian soldiers have died and injured and the fight is still going. Canada has stopped a tradition of peace keeping and commences a new era of combat! Canadians are actually fighting every day against the evil Talibans. But if we take another aproach to the issue maybe the Taliban are fighting for the UN charter right of national independence which was violated by the NATO forces. Maybe this is the reason that thousants of youth every year join the ranks of the "evil terrorists".

But no, this is another lie by the NDP . The Good NATO forces invaded Afganistan to fight the evil Taliban just as the good NATO forces invaded Iraq not because of the oil but because of the evil terrorist.

-Oh my God a terrorist!

-Don't worry mom it was just a cat!

This is how we are going to end up!

[August1991]

The Good NATO forces invaded Afganistan to fight the evil Taliban just as the good NATO forces invaded Iraq not because of the oil but because of the evil terrorist.

NATO did not invade Iraq. You are entitled to your wonky opinions but at least get your basic facts straight.

[fellowtraveller]

Absolutely f***ing delusion analysis by Jack Layton, starting with this premise:

To date, not only has this approach failed to achieve these goals, it has had the opposite effect.

He conveniently overlooks the rather important fact that nearly four million ordinary Afghanis have returned to their lives in the last few years. Many if not a majority are women and children.

Now why would they do that?

Unfortunately for Layton but luckily for Canada, few Canadians have much interest in what he thinks or says.

And fortunately for Afghanistan, the NDP and Liberals have invested everything in believing the polls. IMO, the support from Canadians for our polciy in Afganistan is much stronger that the polls indicate. Harper thinks so too, witness his willingness to fight an election over it. Looks like Dion is also now getting the drift, witness his major backtracking this morning.

[Army Guy]

I do hope that a compromise does not drastically change the mission.

liberals

Here is the take from Retired general Mackenize

liberals

[Army Guy]

Something for the NAY sayers to read...

comment,

[Jerry J. Fortin]

With all due respect, the decision to go into this operation was a political one. The rules of engagement as designed by the political decision makers are the authority under which the military operates.

Therefore it is the civilian political authority that is undertaking the responsibility for the operation. The military role is defined by political decision. Front line commanders operate only through the provisions of the rules of engagement. The entire thing is a foreign policy response to international obligations defined by our treaties and alliances which were designed by political means. In short, we are there because we decided to go there.

The real question is not Canada's participation in hostile aggressive military operations, that is defined through political decisions made by the Prime Minister and his cabinet, but instead Canada's foreign policy in general. What is it that Canada as a nation does in response to specific situations where our military may become involved, depends upon not military nature of the situation but instead the political consequences of that action. The question should perhaps be viewed as one in which whether or not the civilian authorities are able to design a mission for the military without first determining desired goals and objectives, viable entrance and exit strategies, strategic and tactical consequences being defined as a prerequisite for conducing operations.

Once the political decision has been made to involve the nation in a conflict the mission must be administered by military authority with sufficient means to accomplish the task. Going into a war being unprepared is one thing, and deciding to go into somebody elses war is another altogether. It is a matter of choice in this particular case because the conflict does not in fact have any strategic or tactical consequence to this nation beyond that of a threat. Knowing this the political decision makers are ultimately accountable for their decisions. Had we been forced into conflict and the military was calling the ball, then civil authority would be off the responsible hook, but sadly this is not the case. We made a political decision to go in, and we did so under specific rules. The rules in place are not that of a peace keeping mission they are of a peace making nature instead.

It is my opinion that this was a mistake. We should not have become part of this conflict without a far different set of rules for engagement. Half hearted attempts cause needless deaths in conflicts. This nation should either prosecute this war with the full might and intent of the people of Canada or it should remove itself from the field of operations. The decision not to do so is an act of cowardice on the part of the government who seems intent to risk the lives of our own citizens as an act of international politics.

[Army Guy]

Sorry jerry not sure whom you are addressing , not sure which post your refering to.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I was responding to the link you posted.

In my opinion we need to either start spending money on our armed forces or stop putting them in harms way. My preference would be to start spending some money by developing some internal manufacturing capacity, I know the risks of that path but I see it as the only plausible way to go if we decide to spend some money. Otherwise I would advocate going to the UN and trying to make a very large change in how things are being done.

[Topaz]

I do hope that a compromise does not drastically change the mission.

liberals

Here is the take from Retired general Mackenize

liberals

Let's be fair, didn't Mackenzie run for office under the PC's a while back?

[eyeball]

Something for the NAY sayers to read...

comment,

That's a nice bit of fluff alright.

Our effort - military and civilian - is substantial and yet, as our panel report has indicated, it is hobbled by a collective effort - military and civilian - that is highly fragmented, under-resourced and ineffectively co-ordinated. These shortcomings contribute to understandable unease among Canadians about the utility of what we are doing and about the prospects for success.

I think most of the unease stems from the lack of any attention being paid to the root causes (military and economic imperialism) and subsequent blowback (9/11), that embroiled Canada in Afghanistan in the first place.

To the critics who say fundamentally that we should not be in Afghanistan, I ask the following question: If we are not willing to commit our military resources when asked to do so by the United Nations, for a mission co-ordinated by NATO, in a country whose democratically elected government wants us and whose citizens desperately need us, then precisely where and when would Canada be prepared to do so?

Some have suggested that we would be better in Darfur, forgetting presumably that Sudan is not favourably disposed to such involvement by Canada. In any event, do we go to Darfur only to get out when the going gets tough? To what Canadian tradition or value would that speak?

Yes lets talk about Darfur for a second...

Mass rape has been a weapon of warfare in Darfur and in Burma, also known as Myanmar, another Chinese-backed regime.

“In Darfur and in the case of Burma, China is the eight-jillion-ton elephant in the room and needs to use some of its weight in a positive way,”

http://chinaaid.org/2008/02/13/spielberg-q...-over-darfur-2/

...of course wherever there's one eight-jillion-ton elephant there's usually another. It takes Two to Tango after all...

Merchants of death

The United States, acting through surrogate allies in Chad and neighboring states has trained and armed the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Army, headed until his death in July 2005, by John Garang, trained at US Special Forces school at Fort Benning, Georgia.

By pouring arms into first southern Sudan in the eastern part and since discovery of oil in Darfur, to that region as well, Washington fuelled the conflict that led to tens of thousands dying and several million driven to flee their homes. Eritrea hosts and supports the SPLA, the umbrella NDA opposition group, and the Eastern Front and Darfur rebels.

Source

Oil...it figures. The toughest slog of all is standing up to friends and saying, stand down. This is really no different than saying "look, friends don't let friends...fill-in-blank-here".

History has too many examples of what can happen when the international community chooses not to engage in the face of aggression.

Yes, and this is a text book case. My question to the YEA-sayers is, what is the point of going to places like the ME and Africa if we're not going to engage the super-rogues that ignite and fuel the conflicts there? To what Canadian tradition or value would cringing from this duty speak, the one's my grandfather's fought for? I don't think so.

We could engage both the US and China tomorrow. I'd start by telling China to stuff their Olympics and tell the US the price of oil exports just went up. Way up. Then lets take a measure of Canada's NAY sayers.

[bush_cheney2004]

...We could engage both the US and China tomorrow. I'd start by telling China to stuff their Olympics and tell the US the price of oil exports just went up. Way up. Then lets take a measure of Canada's NAY sayers.

You could, but you won't, because it would be meaningless. The Olympics would go on as planned sans Canada and the price of oil exports, including those going to Canada, is set by market forces. There seems to be no telling foreign investors to "stuff" their capital when Canada wanted it.

[eyeball]

I know, its just to bad the race to the bottom wasn't a moral one. Oh well, we can't lose them all I guess.

So you truly believe economics trump;

Rightousness

Generosity

Gratitude

Contentment

Humility

Kindness

Courtesy

Good speech

Respect

Wisdom

Tolerance

Justice

Mercy

Abstinence

Dignity

Courage

Frankness

Hope

Patience

Perseverance

Discipline

Self-restraint

Balance

Moderation

Prudence

Unity

Frugality

Sincerity

Responsibility

Loyalty

Trustworthiness

Honesty

Fair-dealing

Repentance

Spirituality

Did I miss anything?

Edited February 14, 2008 by eyeball

[Army Guy]

That's a nice bit of fluff alright.

Is it fluff, i think it a legimate question, one that the majority of Canadians need to ask themselfs.

Unlike yourself the majority of Canadians don't believe in the "star trek philosphy of net nature take it's course...most believe that our military forces should be used in peacekeeping and peace making roles...

Hence why the majority of Canadians were willing to help the Afganis people in thier hour of need.

And if this is true, and we as a nation decide we have had enough, what implications does this have on future missions, and our reputation as a ligimate military force, that has the fortitude to see the mission thru....not to mention what it damage it does to our NATO standing or other alliances we have such as with the US....

[M.Dancer]

You could, but you won't, because it would be meaningless. The Olympics would go on as planned sans Canada and the price of oil exports, including those going to Canada, is set by market forces. There seems to be no telling foreign investors to "stuff" their capital when Canada wanted it.

Eyeball is somewhat Stalinist...he would have no problem dictating to private companies to whom and for what price they could sell their commodities. He would have no problem with the 10s of 1000s who would inevitably lose their jobs and cease becoming tax payers. And when the economy tanks and the country teeters on fiscal ruin, Marshall Eyeball who fly to Caracas and join hands with Chavez to blame the west.

[eyeball]

Eyeball is somewhat Stalinist...he would have no problem dictating to private companies to whom and for what price they could sell their commodities. He would have no problem with the 10s of 1000s who would inevitably lose their jobs and cease becoming tax payers. And when the economy tanks and the country teeters on fiscal ruin, Marshall Eyeball who fly to Caracas and join hands with Chavez to blame the west.

Morris is somewhat Bushian...he would have no problem dictating to other countries to whom and for what price they could sell their freedom. He would have no problem with the 10s of 1000s who would inevitably lose their lives and cease being free people. And when their resources were stolen and his gas tank was running dry, President Dancer would prop up the next dictatorship before attacking it for not being with him.

[eyeball]

i think it a legimate question, one that the majority of Canadians need to ask themselfs.

What is the point of going to places like the ME and Africa if we're not going to engage the super-rogues that ignite and fuel the conflicts there? To what Canadian tradition or value would cringing from this duty speak?

Edited February 14, 2008 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

Morris is somewhat Bushian...he would have no problem dictating to other countries to whom and for what price they could sell their freedom. He would have no problem with the 10s of 1000s who would inevitably lose their lives and cease being free people. And when their resources were stolen and his gas tank was running dry, President Dancer would prop up the next dictatorship before attacking it for not being with him.

The difference of course is:

While your proposed action is state controlled and stalinistic and grounded in history, your take on Bush is grounded in Tinfoil and moon-bat conspiracy theories.

While you have just said you would effect controls over what free enterprise would do, you would be on a fools errand trying to find where I have said that X should sell their freedom or to steal any one's resources.

I understand that imitation is a sincere form of flattery...but it is also a sign of a bankrupt mind.

[eyeball]

Actually my proposal does have a historical precedent. This is to simply apply a moral premium, a sanction in other words, on exports to international shit-disturbers, ofcourse we should apply it to their imports as well. This is a principle that is routinely applied to smaller countries that get out of line and I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to bigger one's or even our friends if need be.

My take on Bush surrounds what Chretien was hinting at when he had the courage as Tony Blair pointed out, to voice what was on everyone's mind. The thing that you and most of the West is still in very deep denial about. The deeper you try to bury this under your standard bullshit the more it stinks. This little Stalinesque diversion you've embarked on this morning...correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what you would call putting up a strawman argument? That's something I recall you're usually pretty sharp about spotting when others commit it. It doesn't suprprise me in the least that you'd stoop to doing what you routinely accuse others of. Bush does this all the time too.

[M.Dancer]

Actually my proposal does have a historical precedent.

You're correct. It's the state meddling and dictating the economy. Historically you find that in the soviet union. It is the antithesis of a free market.

This little Stalinesque diversion you've embarked on this morning...correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what you would call putting up a strawman argument?

I'm calling a spade a spade. Whether it's telling somone to whom and what price they can sell to, or demanding that they stack their boards with people chosen by government, it stinks of Soviet economic engineering....fit for the dustbin of history

[eyeball]

Speaking of spades...how many other people think Tony Blair was correct to praise Chretien's courage to say aloud what a lot of the West's leaders were thinking but didn't dare to say? What were all these leaders so afraid of do you think?

The same thing on the minds of "A vast majority of Canadians" perhaps?

Source

I know its fashionable to claim we can't talk about why we're at war after troops have been committed, that doing so would somehow demean our soldiers and that the deaths and injuries of the fallen were all in vain. I don't buy it myself. The fact our biggest ally is still pursuing the same sorts of polices that led to 9/11 and the mess we're in today has done more to dishonour our soldiers than anything.