Liberalism and the other lefties led us to Afghanistan.

[Oleg Bach]

What was it that gave popular support to the mission in Afghanistan? I will tell you want - the damned liberal pushy mind set. All liberals perpetuated the concept that we were there so "A young GIRL could go to school" - Their lefty feminist eccentric man hating woman and girly men also convinced Canada that all Afghani males beat the crap out of their wives and sisters for showing an ankle or not wearing the black tank like Berka - This is humanly impossible that ALL husbands were unloving cruel lunitics that abused their wives and children - BUT - the average liberal believes that this is our primary purpose for being their - to give all the tribesmen an anger management course and stick all the woman in shelters.

The liberal mind as far as Afghanistan is concerned can be best describes as a collective group of community colleage social workers with no children and an inability to relate in a natural manner to the opposite sex - Going up into northern Ontario and destroying every last red neck family...simply because they don't like them and the way they live. Even though red neckism is a distinct and intrinsic part of Canadian society that should be protected in a multi-cultural society because it is a culture also - so off the liberals go to free the tribes woman from poverty and abuse ---- If liberals were for real they would have a fund to prosper Afghani families - by sending their own private cash - but that is not going to happen - also - People like MS Klien who works out of the Munk Centre in Toronto - wants to make things real complex in order to perpetuate her lucrative and statusful position - so self serving - you liberals want to help "civilize" what you percieve to be a primative society - well first civilize yourself and bring our courts up into a real justice mode.

ALSO NDPer Jack Layton - I watch a man stand on the roof of his Toronto head quarters - he was threatening to jump because the liberal lefty courts would not let him have his own children - children that also came from his body...This desperate father was surrounded by black swat - it ended well and they talked him down - but - I never heard a damned word out of Layton about it - and he goes on about family values - he has none...He believes that men should have no rights and state husbandry is the ideal - liberals stink! So do the cowardly NDP...where the hell are the men in these parties?

[Topaz]

What was it that gave popular support to the mission in Afghanistan? I will tell you want - the damned liberal pushy mind set. All liberals perpetuated the concept that we were there so "A young GIRL could go to school" - Their lefty feminist eccentric man hating woman and girly men also convinced Canada that all Afghani males beat the crap out of their wives and sisters for showing an ankle or not wearing the black tank like Berka - This is humanly impossible that ALL husbands were unloving cruel lunitics that abused their wives and children - BUT - the average liberal believes that this is our primary purpose for being their - to give all the tribesmen an anger management course and stick all the woman in shelters.

The liberal mind as far as Afghanistan is concerned can be best describes as a collective group of community colleage social workers with no children and an inability to relate in a natural manner to the opposite sex - Going up into northern Ontario and destroying every last red neck family...simply because they don't like them and the way they live. Even though red neckism is a distinct and intrinsic part of Canadian society that should be protected in a multi-cultural society because it is a culture also - so off the liberals go to free the tribes woman from poverty and abuse ---- If liberals were for real they would have a fund to prosper Afghani families - by sending their own private cash - but that is not going to happen - also - People like MS Klien who works out of the Munk Centre in Toronto - wants to make things real complex in order to perpetuate her lucrative and statusful position - so self serving - you liberals want to help "civilize" what you percieve to be a primative society - well first civilize yourself and bring our courts up into a real justice mode.

ALSO NDPer Jack Layton - I watch a man stand on the roof of his Toronto head quarters - he was threatening to jump because the liberal lefty courts would not let him have his own children - children that also came from his body...This desperate father was surrounded by black swat - it ended well and they talked him down - but - I never heard a damned word out of Layton about it - and he goes on about family values - he has none...He believes that men should have no rights and state husbandry is the ideal - liberals stink! So do the cowardly NDP...where the hell are the men in these parties?

Tell me, who is your hero, who do you look up to??

[Alta4ever]

Tell me, who is your hero, who do you look up to??

What does that have to do with the thread?

[Sir Bandelot]

We went to afghanistan adter 9/11 because of our obligations to the united nations. I think it would have been illegal to not participate at least in some way.

That was the first mission.

The current mission was implemented under Stephen Harpers government and changed the role for canadian troops from defending major cities, and protecting development of infrasturcture to hunting for Taliban in remote regions. Many other countries in the UN refused to take this mission for whatever reasons, but that is what we are doing now. I think our government said we will never negotiate with the taliban but we will exterminate them, and now, well, we have politicians saying theres no way to win this kind of war, we need to bring the taliban to the table.

[M.Dancer]

We went to afghanistan adter 9/11 because of our obligations to the united nations. I think it would have been illegal to not participate at least in some way.

That was the first mission.

The current mission was implemented under Stephen Harpers government and changed the role for canadian troops from defending major cities, and protecting development of infrasturcture to hunting for Taliban in remote regions. Many other countries in the UN refused to take this mission for whatever reasons, but that is what we are doing now. I think our government said we will never negotiate with the taliban but we will exterminate them, and now, well, we have politicians saying theres no way to win this kind of war, we need to bring the taliban to the table.

Your premise is incorrect. We went because of our obligation to NATO. The body of the content is incorrect as well. The only thing that changed was the area of deployment. While it is a UN sanctioned mission, the players are NATO.

[Sir Bandelot]

Your premise is incorrect. We went because of our obligation to NATO. The body of the content is incorrect as well. The only thing that changed was the area of deployment. While it is a UN sanctioned mission, the players are NATO.

I looked it up. Heres a bit to read on it-

"Chrétien directed the Crown not to support the US-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. His reasoning was that the war lacked UN Security Council sanction; while not a member of the Security Council, Canada nevertheless attempted to build a consensus for a resolution authorizing the use of force after a short (two to three month) extension to UN weapon inspections in Iraq. (Critics also noted that, while in opposition, he had also opposed the first US-led Gulf War.) Although criticism from right-wing opposition was vocal, the move proved popular with the Canadian public in general. In December 2003, it emerged that the government had prepared plans for Canada to send as many as 800 Canadian troops to Iraq if the UN Security Council had authorized it; however, a UN request for an increased deployment of Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan removed this option from the table. This led some of Chrétien's anti-war critics on the left to accuse the Prime Minister of never really being fully opposed to the war. Nonetheless, Canada was the first non-member of the US-led coalition to provide significant financial aid to the post-war reconstruction effort, relative to Canada's size. This move allowed Canadian companies to bid on reconstruction contracts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Chretien

Maybe its incorrect, I don't know. Its a minor detail. Still, it makes more sense than just saying "the lefties led us to afghanistan". My recollection of these events is that the conservatives were pushing to go into Iraq, follow the US mission there, and also took the mission beyond our obligations in Afghanistan. The Liberals must have voted to support it, or they just didn't show up as they so often have done.

Oh well, time for a new Liberal leader? I think so

Edited October 15, 2008 by Sir Bandelot

[M.Dancer]

I looked it up. Heres a bit to read on it-

"Chrétien directed the Crown not to support the US-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. His reasoning was that the war lacked UN Security Council sanction; while not a member of the Security Council, Canada nevertheless attempted to build a consensus for a resolution authorizing the use of force after a short (two to three month) extension to UN weapon inspections in Iraq. (Critics also noted that, while in opposition, he had also opposed the first US-led Gulf War.) Although criticism from right-wing opposition was vocal, the move proved popular with the Canadian public in general. In December 2003, it emerged that the government had prepared plans for Canada to send as many as 800 Canadian troops to Iraq if the UN Security Council had authorized it; however, a UN request for an increased deployment of Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan removed this option from the table. This led some of Chrétien's anti-war critics on the left to accuse the Prime Minister of never really being fully opposed to the war. Nonetheless, Canada was the first non-member of the US-led coalition to provide significant financial aid to the post-war reconstruction effort, relative to Canada's size. This move allowed Canadian companies to bid on reconstruction contracts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Chretien

Maybe its incorrect, I don't know. Its a minor detail. Still, it makes more sense than just saying "the lefties led us to afghanistan". My recollection of these events is that the conservatives were pushing to go into Iraq, follow the US mission there, and also took the mission beyond our obligations in Afghanistan. The Liberals must have voted to support it, or they just didn't show up as they so often have done.

Oh well, time for a new Liberal leader? I think so

That's Iraq, not Afghanistan. Our obligations in Afghanistan haven't changed since we first went there in 2002 under Chretien.

Although not participating at all in the opening days of the invasion, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced on October 7 that Canada would contribute forces to the international force being formed to conduct a campaign against terrorism. General Ray Henault, the Chief of the Defence Staff, issued preliminary orders to several CF units, as Operation Apollo was established. The Canadian commitment was originally planned to last to October 2003.

Forty Joint Task Force Two (JTF2) operators were sent to Afghanistan in December 2001, two months after then Minister of Defence, Art Eggleton, announced that Canada would be sending troops to Afghanistan to aid the removal of the Taliban.[1]

Once the regular forces were on the ground in January–February 2002 the Canadians were used supporting the war effort until Operation Anaconda began. During the operation, a Canadian sniper team broke, and re-broke, the kill record for a long distance sniper kill set in the Vietnam War by a U.S. Marine, Staff Sergeant Carlos Hathcock. Operation Anaconda was also the first time since the Korean War that Canadian soldiers relieved American soldiers in a combat operation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_...tial_deployment

Right from the start it was a combat mission. Rather than blame the "left" I congratulate the Chretien.

[Sir Bandelot]

That's Iraq, not Afghanistan. Our obligations in Afghanistan haven't changed since we first went there in 2002 under Chretien.

Right from the start it was a combat mission. Rather than blame the "left" I congratulate the Chretien.

That true but the two are very closely linked. It was the UN who made the decisions that enabled NATO mambers to take their actions. I read some more and found that the initial mission was first called Operation Apollo, started right after Sept. 11:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=490

Operation APOLLO

How It Began

September 12, 2001:

The UN Security Council issued Resolution 1368, condemning the attacks of September 11, offering deepest sympathy to the American people, and reaffirming the right of member nations (expressed in Article 51 of the UN Charter) to individual and collective self-defence. It also urged the world community to suppress terrorism and hold accountable all who aid, support or harbour the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of terrorist acts, and stated that the UN was prepared to combat all forms of terrorism.

September 20, 2001:

Minister of National Defence Art Eggleton authorized more than 100 CF members serving on military exchange programs in the U.S. and other allied nations to participate in operations conducted by their host units in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

September 28, 2001:

The UN Security Council issued Resolution 1373, setting out the methods by which member states were to root out terrorists and terrorist organizations, and deprive terrorists of the funds and materials necessary to conduct their operations.

October 4, 2001:

NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson announced that, in response to the terrorist attacks in the U.S., the North Atlantic Council (NATO's senior advisory body) was invoking Article 5 of the Treaty of Washington, which states that any attack on a NATO nation launched from outside that nation shall be interpreted as an attack on all the NATO nations.

October 7, 2001:

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced that Canada would contribute air, land and sea forces to the international force being formed to conduct a campaign against terrorism.

So thats why I remember it being intially authorized by UN, and I remember Chretien explaining his decision to participate was based on that. So I'm not too clear on whether it was actually started by Nato or UN.

Well, thats the official story anyway... we all know there is always more to it than what the government tell us up front. Basic story seems to be that if Canada wanted to be a "World Player", whatever that means, ($$) we had to send our troops to the war.

Edit- I do not believe there ever really was "popular support" in Canada for the war, but if there was, it was from the right-wingers not Lefties. The Left would generally support negotiations or sanctions

Edited October 15, 2008 by Sir Bandelot

[M.Dancer]

That true but the two are very closely linked. It was the UN who made the decisions that enabled NATO mambers to take their actions. I read some more and found that the initial mission was first called Operation Apollo, started right after Sept. 11:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=490

Operation APOLLO

How It Began

September 12, 2001:

The UN Security Council issued Resolution 1368, condemning the attacks of September 11, offering deepest sympathy to the American people, and reaffirming the right of member nations (expressed in Article 51 of the UN Charter) to individual and collective self-defence. It also urged the world community to suppress terrorism and hold accountable all who aid, support or harbour the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of terrorist acts, and stated that the UN was prepared to combat all forms of terrorism.

September 20, 2001:

Minister of National Defence Art Eggleton authorized more than 100 CF members serving on military exchange programs in the U.S. and other allied nations to participate in operations conducted by their host units in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

September 28, 2001:

The UN Security Council issued Resolution 1373, setting out the methods by which member states were to root out terrorists and terrorist organizations, and deprive terrorists of the funds and materials necessary to conduct their operations.

October 4, 2001:

NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson announced that, in response to the terrorist attacks in the U.S., the North Atlantic Council (NATO's senior advisory body) was invoking Article 5 of the Treaty of Washington, which states that any attack on a NATO nation launched from outside that nation shall be interpreted as an attack on all the NATO nations.

October 7, 2001:

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced that Canada would contribute air, land and sea forces to the international force being formed to conduct a campaign against terrorism.

So thats why I remember it being intially authorized by UN, and I remember Chretien explaining his decision to participate was based on that. So I'm not too clear on whether it was actually started by Nato or UN.

Well, thats the official story anyway... we all know there is always more to it than what the government tell us up front. Basic story seems to be that if Canada wanted to be a "World Player", whatever that means, ($$) we had to send our troops to the war.

Edit- I do not believe there ever really was "popular support" in Canada for the war, but if there was, it was from the right-wingers not Lefties. The Left would generally support negotiations or sanctions

NATO doesn't need UN approval or authorization as the right of self defense is implicit.

[Radsickle]

Dude, it's our UN commitments that led us to Afghanistan.

What keeps this war going? Other than the military/industrial complex that Conservatives rely on to drive an economy, it's a silly, romantic notion of war among powerful people, in and outside of the Canadian government, that keeps this war going.

It's time we wake up, throw up, and find enlightened ways to solve the Afghanistan problem without making our own kids sick or dead.

[M.Dancer]

Dude, it's our UN commitments that led us to Afghanistan.

Show me where, anywhere in the UN charter where we are obliged to commit troops....

The UN was nothing more than a rubber stamp

What keeps this war going? Other than the military/industrial complex that Conservatives rely on to drive an economy .......

So besides our economy, the UN and Nato, are there any other subjects you know nothing about that you would like to address?

[Radsickle]

Show me where, anywhere in the UN charter where we are obliged to commit troops....

It was a commitment, not an obligation.

Tell me, how's our economy.... apparently, you know best...

Canada participated in the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force, which was created in late 2001 to help bring stability to the country.

Canada Commits Troops

Edited October 16, 2008 by Radsickle

[Army Guy]

No dancer has it right on the money.

Right after 9/11 the UN was deciding what should be done by each state in regards to terrorism, and how to handle the terrorism question....After it was decided what the world was going to do,and the resolutions where passed,1368, 1373...it was here NATO took it's first steps to action....

Well, thats the official story anyway... we all know there is always more to it than what the government tell us up front. Basic story seems to be that if Canada wanted to be a "World Player", whatever that means, ($$) we had to send our troops to the war.

It was NATO that decided to invoke Art 5, of the NATO Treaty of Washington, Under this treaty Canada was obilgated to commit to this operation....it had no choice if it wanted to remain under the NATO protection umbrella....

Our first contribution was Operation Apollo from October 2001 - October 2003...100 % combat mission, nothing about peacekeeping or UN here.

OP Apollo

And if you read the link carefully you'll find our commitment at this time was under US command,and directly supported Op ENDURING FREEDOM the US operation to free Afgan of the Taliban and bin ladins merry band of terrorists...

Our next contribution came centered around Kabul,Aug 2003 until Jul 2005.... and was named Operation Athena, and while it did start out as a UN mission, by the time we took over it was Under NATO...

Anthena

What keeps this war going? Other than the military/industrial complex that Conservatives rely on to drive an economy, it's a silly, romantic notion of war among powerful people, in and outside of the Canadian government, that keeps this war going.

I'd be curious to know just how much of our GDP is generated by our massive military/industrial complex, or is that those big words that liberal Canadians use to scare us regular folk into thinking we actually do spend to much on the mighty Canadian military machine...

Does it really drive our economy?.

[M.Dancer]

It was a commitment, not an obligation.

Tell me, how's our economy.... apparently, you know best...

Canada Commits Troops

You mean This international Force?

It was and is a NATO operation, rubber stamped by the UN.

[M.Dancer]

I'd be curious to know just how much of our GDP is generated by our massive military/industrial complex, or is that those big words that liberal Canadians use to scare us regular folk into thinking we actually do spend to much on the mighty Canadian military machine...

Does it really drive our economy?.

Easy to answer....

GDP (purchasing power parity):

$1.271 trillion (2007 est.)

Military expenditures:

1.1% of GDP (2005 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...a.html#Military

1.1%...maybe tad higher now....does squat to drive our economy...especially given that the big ticket items are often bought from foreign suppliers.

Exports drive our economy. Energy, automotive parts, aircraft, wheat, timber.....military equipment? not so much.

Military Industrial Comples is a catch phrase used by people who often don't know what they are talking about....case in point.

[M.Dancer]

It was a commitment, not an obligation.

Dude, it's our UN commitments that led us to Afghanistan.

Show me where our commitments made us go...

[Radsickle]

Firstly, the UN's ISAF for Afghanistan was created in 2001. NATO took control in 2003. Look it up.

Secondly, a lot of the bullets being used in Iraq come from a Canadian company.... though you're right, Canada has been more mature in the amount of government money it spends on Defence. Granted, the Liberals might've cut a bit too deeply into this budget but that is being fixed. What we don't want to get into is trying to invent wars with other countries so that we can buy more weapons and equipment and keep more people employed in the bullet business.....

I like Elizabeth May's suggestion: change it from the Department of Defence to the Department of PEACE.

Military Industrial Comples is a catch phrase used by people who often don't know what they are talking about....case in point.

Immature brush-offs like that are used by people who can't even spell the problem, let alone understand it.

[Army Guy]

Firstly, the UN's ISAF for Afghanistan was created in 2001. NATO took control in 2003. Look it up.

I think your getting confused, Yes the ISAF mission was originally a UN mission, however it was centered around Kabul the capital, and consisted of only a few countries...and it was one of many missions in Afgan at the time. Canadian ground forces did not take part in this UN mission, When it took over the ISAF mission, that same day it was switched to a NATO mission.

Secondly, a lot of the bullets being used in Iraq come from a Canadian company

Canada may of supply some of the bullets used in Iraq, and Afgan, but don't make it sound like we are a major player. at least not sitting next to the worlds largest military industrial nation in the world.

though you're right, Canada has been more mature in the amount of government money it spends on Defence

Is that what we are calling it now MATURE, when you gut a dept almost to the point of failure. I call it irresponsible. if most Canadians knew exactly what shape our military was in today they would be sickened.

What we don't want to get into is trying to invent wars with other countries so that we can buy more weapons and equipment and keep more people employed in the bullet business.....

Give us an example when this has ever happened.

I like Elizabeth May's suggestion: change it from the Department of Defence to the Department of PEACE.

Miss May needs to climb down from her BC pine tree, there was a time when our military was called the Canadian Armed Forces, but that was to aggressive for even the liberals, we can't be scaring anyone , shit we're Canadians....the word "Armed" was removed and is now call just Canadian forces, another great use of our tax dollars, as the word Armed had to be removed from all aircraft, vehs , correspondence, manuals everything. Because we didn't want to offend anyone, scare anyone, give me a break....

We defend this country with a big stick, and when doing so, beat people with it....