Got Chinooks?

[craiger]

I guess in your case, its because you're the one over there picking a fight with them, not me.

If the Taliban launched a counter-attack against Canada and even if my family were injured or killed I'd hold Ottawa and Washington just as responsible. Does that help?

Sadly, I feel the same.

Canadian soldiers have shed allot of blood of inocent civillians, they have a right to be mad and seek revenge.

[eyeball]

And after the "peoples revolution" they got the Ayatollah who brutally repressed political dissent. So why, if they support governments over them which are brutal dictators, would they resent the Americans because the Shah was a brutal dictator?

What part of violence begats more violence don't you get? Think of a nation as being like a family, once the dysfunction sets in it often passes onto subsequent generations. Once started the cycle can be very hard to break. The reason why America is so resented should be fairly obvious, it started the cycle in this case.

[eyeball]

I take most opposition of this sort as primarily a concern for the well-being of the enemy, who you assume the evil, slavering hordes of the Canadian military will wantonly murder and rape.

I know you do, but there's not much I can do about that.

I think the members of the Canadian military who have volunteered to go to Afghanistan are wrong for doing so. I can cut people some slack for having made a mistake in judgement but if they insist on defending their decision by defending the mission in light of the facts then I can't help how they feel when I voice my opinions. I refuse to subscribe to the idea that my support for the troops be unconditional. Sorry.

Every individual is responsible for the choices they make, especially if they cause harm to other people. This is why I don't support doing things like hijacking planes and flying them into buildings or hijacking other people's countries and flying them into a dictatorship.

[Argus]

The focus of my opposition is the operation because the war is portrayed as being necessary to the defense of Canada but since Afghanistan never attacked we shouldn't be there. This thread as well as being about Chinook helicopters is also about promoting our involvement.

The Taliban sheltered a terrorist group which grew so vast it had a camp south of Kabul with over 10,000 people in it They refused all demands to produce the leaders or force this group to disband, even after the group had attacked the US. The US was entirely within its rights to then move in and attack Al Quaeda and the Taliban.

As for why Canada went there. We are a signatory in NATO, and as the US was attacked we were duty bound to assist them.

As for why we're all still there - it's because the west is far too naive and well-meaning. What we should have done is simply find a brutal strong man, give him sufficient weapons to take over, and let him crush all opponents for us while we went quietly home.

Instead, the West has tried, at huge expense, to make something of that shithole of a country, tried to alleviate the poverty and ignorance and putting a democracy in place. The UN has supported NATO in this, and so NATO is operating under a UN mandate to try and stabilize Afghanistan so they and we can leave.

Now suppose you tell me at what point you felt the West strayed. Was it in responding to the attack on the WTC at all? Was it in not simply putting in a tyrant and then leaving quickly so he could do the dirty work for us? When?

[Argus]

I know you do, but there's not much I can do about that.

I think the members of the Canadian military who have volunteered to go to Afghanistan are wrong for doing so. I can cut people some slack for having made a mistake in judgement but if they insist on defending their decision by defending the mission in light of the facts then I can't help how they feel when I voice my opinions. I refuse to subscribe to the idea that my support for the troops be unconditional. Sorry.

Every individual is responsible for the choices they make, especially if they cause harm to other people. This is why I don't support doing things like hijacking planes and flying them into buildings or hijacking other people's countries and flying them into a dictatorship.

And what do you support? What should the US have done given the attack on the WTC by Al Quaeda? Surrendered?

[jbg]

Only if your definition of democracy is inherintly flawed. Both Lebanon and and the PLA can hardly be called democracies. Not when the parties field armies against each other or when the definition of a democracy might include a free vote, which is dubious in both cases as Hezbolllah does not believe in democracy and neither do Fatah or Hamas.

Elections are a necessary condition for a democracy but not the sole criteria. Especially, as you point out, when the "parties" are armed to the teeth.

And Turkey is a European Nation.

Turkey also has nearly continual army involvement in government, just under the surface. And the crime of "insulting Turkishness" is a veiled form of speech restriction. Turkey is, at best, partly free.

[Wild Bill]

And what do you support? What should the US have done given the attack on the WTC by Al Quaeda? Surrendered?

I think Eyeball and others may be missing the main point. Argus. The West HAD to depose the Taliban for a very simple reason - they had aided and abetted those who broke the rules by attacking America on its own soil with the fall of the Twin Towers!

America at that point had only two choices. She could wimp out with meaningless and ineffective cries for diplomatic solutions, which would GUARANTEE future such attacks by showing a harmless amount of retaliation. The American people would never have stood for that. It would have been political suicide for Bush to have taken that course.

Or, they could identify the source of the attack and strike it back so hard that an overwhelmingly powerful message would have been sent to any and all such fanatic groups that the price for such attacks would be higher than they might be prepared to pay.

The Taliban may not have actively participated in the attack but it is generally agreed that they did aid and abet the attackers with money, resources and protected areas for training camps. Moreover, their regime was particularly odious in their treatment of women and other human rights issues.

So in short order the Taliban was deposed and have become hunted fugitives within their own country. People can nitpick about whether we are "winning the war" in Afghanistan but it can't be denied that the situation for the Taliban is nowhere near as comfortable as it was before. Up till that point terrorist groups often could operate as proxies for such regimes. Since there might be no proof of any official involvement by a particular country it left the victimized country without a formal target for retaliation. Deposing the Taliban removed this shield. If a foreign government sheltered, aided and abetted an attacking terrorist group then it would be made to pay by a massive military strike that would depose such a government.

So far I've never heard any other EFFECTIVE strategy that would have protected the American people (or those of any other nation, for that matter) from such terrorist attacks that they suffered in New York.

People can quibble if it was technically justified or too blunt a response or collateral damage but they are ignoring the forest of realpolitik for the trees.

The first duty of any government is to protect its people, by any means necessary and by any method that WILL WORK! Failure to do so is an immoral dereliction of that duty. That first duty is NOT to abide by every nitpicking international legality that armchair quarterbacks can dream up! It is plain and simply to PROTECT from any further and future attacks, period!

The attempt in Afghanistan today is to totally change its society so that it will have a more civilized government that will likely never again be a threat to western societies. Perhaps it is too ambitious a goal to expect such a primitive people to go from goat herding to modern democracy within a single generation. Still, such a goal is a noble one! Just allowing little girls to have a modern education is enough for me.

If I were a New Yorker I would have a very simple answer to any politician that wanted my vote, after seeing the Towers come crashing down. I would tell them "Protect me in a way that ABSOLUTELY WILL WORK, TODAY AND NOT TOMORROW or I will NOT vote for you, period!"

If they could not convince me that they could accomplish that then I would have nothing to do with them. If we ever find ourselves in a similar situation here in Canada, I would take the same attitude.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The attempt in Afghanistan today is to totally change its society so that it will have a more civilized government that will likely never again be a threat to western societies. Perhaps it is too ambitious a goal to expect such a primitive people to go from goat herding to modern democracy within a single generation. Still, such a goal is a noble one! Just allowing little girls to have a modern education is enough for me...

Right you are...the decision to "invade" Afghanistan also answers critics of the former (failed) policy of stemming Soviet expansion in the 1980's only to abandon Afghanistan afterwards. If "failed states" are a breeding ground for "terrorists", then they shall be fumigated.

Edited November 9, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Kitchener]

Elections are a necessary condition for a democracy but not the sole criteria.

You're right, they are not. The elections are supposed to represent some degree of choice for the electorate; if they don't do that, it's hard to argue that they are democratic. Yet in no case (that I know of) are these choices completely unconstrained. Western democracies tend to place strong limitations on who can run, where, and when, and on who can vote for them. These constraints may seem invisible if you're used to them, but to an outsider they could seem -- and be rhetorically spun as -- substantial impediments to democractic choice.

Especially, as you point out, when the "parties" are armed to the teeth.

Many young democracies emerging after a conflict involve parties that have armed factions or militias. We have to bear in mind that democracy isn't something you either have or you don't. It comes in degrees; and no nation has it in a perfect degree. Elections in a single-party state with only one slate of candidates are a mockery, on one hand, yet elections in paradigmatic democracies are often deeply flawed and generate suspect results (as the paranoia about recounts in Canadian elections on this very discussion board will bear witness). Why the existence of armaments should undermine the judgement that a polity is a democracy is far from obvious. (Indeed, much of the electorate is armed in the US; I doubt that's a major factor in whether the USA is a democracy.)

Turkey also has nearly continual army involvement in government, just under the surface. And the crime of "insulting Turkishness" is a veiled form of speech restriction. Turkey is, at best, partly free.

Every nation is, at best, partly free. The interesting question is the degree. The involvement of the army in Turkish politics vis a vis freedom is not a simple matter, either, since one of its consistent political goals has been (besides upholding the power of the military) upholding Ataturk's secular constitution. Plausibly, women in Turkey are free, relative to at least some other Islamic nations, because the army has, on occasion, prevented an essentially democratic process from imposing a fundamentalist version of Islamic law on the nation. Arguably, this has promoted freedom, in at least one clear sense, at the expense of democracy. Is this good or bad? Only fools think there are simple pronouncements that can settle the matter.

Edited November 9, 2008 by Kitchener

[Kitchener]

Yes the Chinooks sound just dandy for lots of things we might need here at home since they're not here then obviously we don't need them.

As I wrote earlier, my brother flew these helicopters in SAR for years, when they were in service with the CF. Is there any reason to doubt that they will again have humanitarian roles over the longer term? Oppose the Afghanistan mission if you will. (I do.) But it's silly, I think, to make something with obvious and proven non-combat uses a focus of your opposition, rather than the mission itself.

[eyeball]

And what do you support? What should the US have done given the attack on the WTC by Al Quaeda? Surrendered?

I don't think there is anything the US could have done that would work. The attack on 9/11 was absolutely brilliant and utterly devastating in that sense. Facing up to the real root causes has proven to be just as unsurmountable a challenge as avoiding them.

It's what Canada did in the wake of the event and is still doing that concerns me. I'm deeply pessimistic about the future of global relations, I think things will definitely continue get worse and that a nuclear exchange is almost inevitable. I don't think there is anything anyone can do to stop this and I think we need to hunker down, focus on defending our borders and prepare for the post-exchange dark-age that will likely follow.

The world will just have to look after itself the best it can.

[eyeball]

America at that point had only two choices. She could wimp out with meaningless and ineffective cries for diplomatic solutions, which would GUARANTEE future such attacks by showing a harmless amount of retaliation. The American people would never have stood for that. It would have been political suicide for Bush to have taken that course.

Or, they could identify the source of the attack and strike it back so hard that an overwhelmingly powerful message would have been sent to any and all such fanatic groups that the price for such attacks would be higher than they might be prepared to pay.

I think they missed.

By the way, where's Bin Waldo?

[Wild Bill]

I think they missed.

By the way, where's Bin Waldo?

Who cares? It's enough that no Taliban type regime will ever again expect to shelter a Bin Laden without being forcibly deposed.

Osama is on his own. He has fewer options today than before 9/11. What should the main goal be? The symbol of catching Bin Laden or the consequences of doing what he did?