Which party will bring troops back from Afghanistan?

[PoliticalCitizen]

Recent polls show more than half of Canadians want the troops back now but it doesn't appear to be on any major party's agenda.

Are they going to promise that before elections or are they all afraid?

[Smallc]

Recent polls show more than half of Canadians want the troops back now but it doesn't appear to be on any major party's agenda.

Are they going to promise that before elections or are they all afraid?

We already know that the troops will be withdrawn in 2011. At that point, someone else will (hopefully) take our place. We have NATO obligations to fulfill. We can't just up and leave. We also have to do our part in making the world a better place and upholding the principles of democracy, freedom, and security.

[PoliticalCitizen]

We already know that the troops will be withdrawn in 2011. At that point, someone else will (hopefully) take our place. We have NATO obligations to fulfill. We can't just up and leave. We also have to do our part in making the world a better place and upholding the principles of democracy, freedom, and security.

By invading and occupating and killing the citizens of sovereign countries?

What exactly was the mandate of our troops and what NATO obligations do we have to fulfill?

[M.Dancer]

"occupating"?

[AngusThermopyle]

By invading and occupating and killing the citizens of sovereign countries?

Most certainly, when those citizens are Taliban. we should just keep occupating until the Afghan government is ready and able to take over the job.

Of course they won't have to occupate anything as they're already citizens of Afghanistan, unlike a great many of the Taliban who are actually trying to occupate Afghanistan.

[White Doors]

^^

[Moonbox]

By invading and occupating and killing the citizens of sovereign countries?

What exactly was the mandate of our troops and what NATO obligations do we have to fulfill?

Yeah first off the Taliban was and is largely supported by northern Pakistanis. Calling Afghanistan a sovereign country in the sense of Canada, Greece or Cuba is fallacious at best. It was a territory occupied by warring tribes prior to the USSR occupying it and the Taliban after it was hardly a legitimate government. The country's primary source of income is opium and the whole place was quite factually a nest of drug smugglers, political and religious extremists and murderous warlords.

NATO's mandate was to stabilize the country, support the creation of a working government capable of defending itself and the interests of Afghans and to put an end to the Taliban there. The Taliban were not there to govern Afghanistan. They were there to make money and exploit.

[Keepitsimple]

Recent polls show more than half of Canadians want the troops back now but it doesn't appear to be on any major party's agenda.

Are they going to promise that before elections or are they all afraid?

Is that what you really want? Do you also want all the other NATO countries to withdraw their troops - or just Canada? If you want everybody out right now, that would mean you are in favour of the Taliban taking over Afghanistan again - because without fail, that's what would quickly happen. If you just want Canada out, what is your reasoning for abandoning our NATO obligations and our allies? Think it through and tell us how you rationalize the consequences of your "promise" to "Bring the troops home now".

[Ontario Loyalist]

NATO's mandate was to stabilize the country, support the creation of a working government capable of defending itself and the interests of Afghans and to put an end to the Taliban there. The Taliban were not there to govern Afghanistan. They were there to make money and exploit.

That's a sham argument. The British were involved in these kinds of ventures in the region for centuries and by now it should be clear that these kinds of things only compound problems and sows the seeds for future ones. Afghanistan is not post-war Europe; the region has a different history, culture, and political (or lack there of) tradition. NATO is simply there to get Osama al Qaeda because one of its members was attacked; but now they're embroiled in a war against an ill-defined enemy that includes pissed-off local warlords and bands of foreign fighters. A hundred years from now Afghanistan will still be a mess and what Canada did there either forgotten or reviled, just as some now revile Britain's empirialist ventures.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Yeah first off the Taliban was and is largely supported by northern Pakistanis. Calling Afghanistan a sovereign country in the sense of Canada, Greece or Cuba is fallacious at best. It was a territory occupied by warring tribes prior to the USSR occupying it and the Taliban after it was hardly a legitimate government. The country's primary source of income is opium and the whole place was quite factually a nest of drug smugglers, political and religious extremists and murderous warlords.

I definitely agree with that part.

NATO's mandate was to stabilize the country, support the creation of a working government capable of defending itself and the interests of Afghans and to put an end to the Taliban there. The Taliban were not there to govern Afghanistan. They were there to make money and exploit.

Was it really? Since when NATO took on the task of "Stabilizing" defunct countries?

And if that would be true, how come we're not "Stablizing" Somalia? It needs that sorely...

Last time I looked at the results of NATO's interventions in the world "De-stabilizing" would describe the results much more accurately...

[PoliticalCitizen]

Is that what you really want? Do you also want all the other NATO countries to withdraw their troops - or just Canada? If you want everybody out right now, that would mean you are in favour of the Taliban taking over Afghanistan again - because without fail, that's what would quickly happen. If you just want Canada out, what is your reasoning for abandoning our NATO obligations and our allies? Think it through and tell us how you rationalize the consequences of your "promise" to "Bring the troops home now".

Yes, I want Canada to "BRING TROOPS BACK NOW!"

I am ashamed that we allowed ourselves to become involved in USA's "War on Reason".

We're chasing a gost of Bush's past...

The other NATO countries have and will decide for themselves (once they get some brains or balls or both).

[AngusThermopyle]

Yes, I want Canada to "BRING TROOPS BACK NOW!"

Of course you do, doing so would seriously undermine Canada's position in NATO. This in turn would cause a weakening of NATO and as such a weakening of the only force that curbs Russia's aggressive tendencies.

Of course that would make it possible for Russia to spread its long standing policy of peace and cooperation with greater ease.

Anyway, sarcasm aside. You see no problem with abandoning the average Afghani to the tender mercies of the Taliban?

[PoliticalCitizen]

That's a sham argument. The British were involved in these kinds of ventures in the region for centuries and by now it should be clear that these kinds of things only compound problems and sows the seeds for future ones. Afghanistan is not post-war Europe; the region has a different history, culture, and political (or lack there of) tradition. NATO is simply there to get Osama al Qaeda because one of its members was attacked; but now they're embroiled in a war against an ill-defined enemy that includes pissed-off local warlords and bands of foreign fighters. A hundred years from now Afghanistan will still be a mess and what Canada did there either forgotten or reviled, just as some now revile Britain's empirialist ventures.

Now this version I agree with the most.

We went in as part of NATO, but the NATO cause was false and therefore we should be free of further obligation.

If memory serves me right the cause was to defeat Taliban who was ALLEGEDLY protecting Osama bin Laden who was ALLEGEDLY responsible for the 9/11 attacks. This is when Washington's strategists came up with the brilliant idea of punishing countries that protect terrorists by attacking them.

Now this "Osama" figure appears to be a relative of Santa Claus - everybody knows about him but nobody has ever seen him... Hardly a worthy cause for our soldiers to die in a foreign country while killing local population.

US can continue their "War on Truth" until their voters smarten up...

But we have to have our chance to vote against this senseless struggle...

I have said it before and I'll say it again: there's nothing to be found in Afghanistan but pain, suffering and death for all who go there... just check the country's history... no railroads... barely any roads... they are as far from "Democracy" or even from any form of western civilization as can possibly be... and they will fight any attempts to bring "Civilization" and "Democracy" to them by force to the death... kids at 7 handle AKs professionally... AKs are on their national rug ornaments... you get the picture.

[Argus]

Recent polls show more than half of Canadians want the troops back now but it doesn't appear to be on any major party's agenda.

Are they going to promise that before elections or are they all afraid?

How odd that you, a very strong supporter of Russia sending troops to intervene against Georgia, don't want Canadian troops intervening in Afghanistan.

[Argus]

By invading and occupating and killing the citizens of sovereign countries?

But you are a fervent suppoter of this in Georgia! In post after post defending Russia's right to send troops anywhere it wants to!

What exactly was the mandate of our troops and what NATO obligations do we have to fulfill?

To fight against the forces of evil, you know, like the people you support.

[blueblood]

But you are a fervent suppoter of this in Georgia! In post after post defending Russia's right to send troops anywhere it wants to!

To fight against the forces of evil, you know, like the people you support.

Once again PC has been proven a hypocrite... Immigrating to the evil west and then spewing hatred of it. Makes me feel sorry for the poor bastard from Africa who is waiting to get into the country and will appreciate it. Only likes the west if he benefits from it.

[Argus]

Last time I looked at the results of NATO's interventions in the world "De-stabilizing" would describe the results much more accurately...

I think it more likely that as a Russian citizen, you're pissed off about NATO wanting to accept Georgia and Ukraine into its ranks, and at its criticism of Russia's invasion, and looking for excuses to snarl about it.

[DrGreenthumb]

Calling Afghanistan a sovereign country in the sense of Canada, Greece or Cuba is fallacious at best.

Yes and the reasons Harper wants to stay there to impress bush are FELATIOUS at best,lol.

I wonder if Harper makes Bush wash it first?

Edited September 9, 2008 by DrGreenthumb

[blueblood]

Yes and the reasons Harper wants to stay there to impress bush are FELATIOUS at best,lol.

I wonder if Harper makes Bush wash it first?

Why does Layton not make Obama wash it?

[Topaz]

How long will it take to kill all the Taliban and other people who are fighting against the US and NATO? When does the US go into Saudi Arabia and deal with those" 19" Saudis that created 9/11 as said by the US? Money came out of SA to support them the terrorist. We will NEVER get OBL for 9/11 because GW knows he didn't do, it was a coverup for who really did. We have nearly 100 soldiers dead, the financial cost , Harper is not releasing until election day , so you know its up in the BILLIONS. I remember last year I saw a report that we were spending 100 million per month not counting buying military equipment and we are giving 1.2 Bil in reconstruction. I feel the cost is getting to high on both fronts and thre's no guarantee that the Taliban won't be there sometime in the future. Of course, like the US congress and the senators, how many of our politicans are making money off the war through investments.

[Moonbox]

That's a sham argument.

Hey, I'm not going to argue with you about the intelligence of going there in the first place. I'm arguing as to the intelligence of a Liberal government sending troops there in the first place but then wanting to bring them back with the country worse off than it was before they came. The Americans invaded Afghanistan unilaterally. NATO was then called in for a peace effort. Is it going incredibly well? Not amazingly. Is there progress? Sure.

Afghanistan is not post-war Europe; the region has a different history, culture, and political (or lack there of) tradition...................now they're embroiled in a war against an ill-defined enemy that includes pissed-off local warlords and bands of foreign fighters.

You're right in that Afghanistan is a mess of a country. It's culture and people are about as different as they can be to us. With that being said, it also provides the world with the vast majority of illegal opium. It was a whole country devoted basically to illegal drug production for consumption around the world. It was run by murderous warlords who governed outside of local or international law and was a proven training ground for extremist fighters. Basically it needed to be cleaned up regardless. It was a whole country devoted to destabilizing the rest of the world.

A hundred years from now Afghanistan will still be a mess and what Canada did there either forgotten or reviled, just as some now revile Britain's empirialist ventures.

A NATO peace mission is quite a bit different from British Imperialism. Britain's policy was 'make the world England'. They imposed their own laws, their own culture and their own taxes on natives throughout the world and they never had any intention to leave. A NATO peace mission is there to make sure that keeps things stable while a non-dangerous autonomous government repairs the country and asserts itself. Afghanistan is unique in that it has always been broken so NATO is basically starting from scratch.

[Argus]

Yes and the reasons Harper wants to stay there to impress bush are FELATIOUS at best,lol.

I wonder if Harper makes Bush wash it first?

I rather suspect you would be far more familiar with whatever hygienic habits are the norm among homosexuals than Harper would be.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Of course you do, doing so would seriously undermine Canada's position in NATO. This in turn would cause a weakening of NATO and as such a weakening of the only force that curbs Russia's aggressive tendencies.

Of course that would make it possible for Russia to spread its long standing policy of peace and cooperation with greater ease.

Anyway, sarcasm aside. You see no problem with abandoning the average Afghani to the tender mercies of the Taliban?

Angus, I'm a Canadian, not a Russian.

In the other thread I took a hardline pro-Russian stance only because of how unilateral Western media was presenting the conflict.

As to the weakening of the NATO - I do believe European Countries can get a EU military alliance that would better defend their interests instead of subserving USA's.

I also believe Canada's and Mexico's places are with US. But that doesn't mean that we should agree to any military action no matter how poor the justification.

[Army Guy]

That's a sham argument. The British were involved in these kinds of ventures in the region for centuries and by now it should be clear that these kinds of things only compound problems and sows the seeds for future ones. Afghanistan is not post-war Europe; the region has a different history, culture, and political (or lack there of) tradition. NATO is simply there to get Osama al Qaeda because one of its members was attacked; but now they're embroiled in a war against an ill-defined enemy that includes pissed-off local warlords and bands of foreign fighters. A hundred years from now Afghanistan will still be a mess and what Canada did there either forgotten or reviled, just as some now revile Britain's empirialist ventures.

Yes what a sham, for centuries Man has attempted to fly, go to the moon, walk on water, time after time year after year it was proven that man was not meant to do none of the above...and yet today were flying in huge double decker planes, walked on the moon, and have walked on water...History has shown us alot of things but is no means the end all to be all in what things can be accomplished by man if he sets his mind to it.

We went in as part of NATO, but the NATO cause was false and therefore we should be free of further obligation.

Enlighten us PC, what cause is false...

I have said it before and I'll say it again: there's nothing to be found in Afghanistan but pain, suffering and death for all who go there... just check the country's history... no railroads... barely any roads... they are as far from "Democracy" or even from any form of western civilization as can possibly be... and they will fight any attempts to bring "Civilization" and "Democracy" to them by force to the death... kids at 7 handle AKs professionally... AKs are on their national rug ornaments... you get the picture.

Yes there is alot of pain in Afganistan, but things have changed since mother Russia's sudden departure....The country now has major Hyways, major Dams, and a long list of other improvements...and even a form of Democracy, all given to them not by force, but rather open arms, perhaps you can give me one source, proving NATO is forcing Democracy or for that matter anything down the throats of the majority....

As for the kids handling wpns professionally got to love mother russia for giving them that oportunity, heck they even provided the arms to do it but this is not about providing a people with a chance at some of the rights and freedoms and things we take for granted everyday. This is about "bringing our troops home right now" because PC and others think it is wrong, or can't be done....

So while we all are sitting down here talking about this lets just ask ourselfs what is it costing us, i mean every Canadian tax payer, a quick est would say about 20 dollars out of your entire tax bill....Ya to some it's alot of money but come on it's not even a case of beer....for what a chance at giving some nation of millions a decent chance of peace.....other than that what else does it cost the avg tax payer....nothing, our soldiers are picking up the heavy end, and glad to do it as well, there is no bitching or moaning or shouts for debates....Tell ya what send me your name and address and i'll send you your 20 bucks. if it would mean carrying on with something more important it would be worth it....

[Foxer]

Was it really? Since when NATO took on the task of "Stabilizing" defunct countries?

When the defunct countries were used as a platform to launch major attacks against us

This isn't iraq, or some situation where the threat is 'questionable' - this was a clear threat that had already cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars.