Shady Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 And for sovereign territory, if it really is so sovereign I guess we should pack up our bases and move back to Canada. That's for the Afghan people and Afghan government to decide. Quote
eyeball Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 We were. Until terrorists from that particular area decided to stick their nose in business on this side of the world. When terrorists retaliated and brought the conflict to their enemy's homeland you mean. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Alta4ever Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 Coming from a person who only posts according to the daily talking points. Classic. What talking points? If you would use a little common sense instead of repeating your social study teacher you might be able to understand what this is all really about. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
waldo Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 it was signed dec 18 2005 so who negotiated it since at that time conservatives were sitting in the opposition benches. Since this rhetorical and you have trouble with these, it was the martin government, and was done this way since the martin government did not want to turn prisoners over to the americans. man up - take responsibility for it's deployment - for it's failure. The agreement was negotiated by the Canadian Armed Forces under authorization received from Liberal Defence Minister Graham (May 2005). The Liberal government fell in Jan 2006... the agreement was effectively deployed during the transitions of government. As I said, Conservatives had full ability to stop the deployment or to amend the agreement... Conservatives had full ability to revert to the previous arrangement with the U.S. and send prisoners directly to the U.S. The Conservatives, the governing party, accepted the deployment of the agreement as signed by Hiller and Karzai. C'mon, man up and take responsibility for your party's action... or lack of. Certainly, your Conservative party isn't accepting any responsibility - any accountability. Quote
Shady Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 When terrorists retaliated and brought the conflict to their enemy's homeland you mean. Yep. And now we're bringing the conflict back to the terrorist enemies. Quote
nicky10013 Posted March 8, 2010 Author Report Posted March 8, 2010 That's for the Afghan people and Afghan government to decide. Couldn't agree more. But there are already holding cells in Canadian bases. They hold people, interrogate them and then send them to Afghan authorities. Why couldn't it be expanded until we leave? If we really want to teach these people about the value of democracy, having them torture people for us isn't exactly the right message to send. Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 (edited) The first who was thought to be captured was actually killed in a firefight. Incorrect. The second, of the person that was actually captured, is in good health and still being held by the taliban. So, their SOP isn't what you say it is. How do you know whether he is dead or alive? Soldiers knew that there was torture going on. There is no doubt that it got up the chain of command to Natynczyk. They were still obliged to turn them over. Now it comes out that CSIS not only interrogated those prisoners but tortured a person in Egypt? Incorrect on both counts. Please, these people knew what was going on. If that's not complicity, then tell me what is. There is little proof they know of or there is widespread torture. So far we have 1 (one) case of a man being insulted (beaten with a */gasp* shoe The proof is in the article that you apparently never read. CSIS interrogated and then turned over prisoners to Afghan authorities. You mean the article that doesn't make that claim? gotcha Edited March 8, 2010 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 Bah garbage, this just a scandal witch hunt. I know, by right's this should be an outright revolution and purge of the moral ambivalence that's infected the entire federal government. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
nicky10013 Posted March 8, 2010 Author Report Posted March 8, 2010 What talking points? If you would use a little common sense instead of repeating your social study teacher you might be able to understand what this is all really about. What social studies teacher? Democratic values are what they are. You either have them and are a democracy or don't. If this war really is about that, we need to get back to the basics. Wouldn't you agree? Quote
Alta4ever Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 When terrorists retaliated and brought the conflict to their enemy's homeland you mean. retaliated against what, the US helping the afgans in the 80's? Us sending peace keepers to Bosnia, or was it Somalia? The retaking of Kuwate? Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
nicky10013 Posted March 8, 2010 Author Report Posted March 8, 2010 Incorrect. It's actually in the article I first posted. You just actually have to read it How do you know whether he is dead or alive? The taliban occaisionally releases videos Incorrect on both counts. Link? There is little proof they know of or there is widespread torture. So far we have 1 (one) case of a man being insulted (beaten with a */gasp* shoe Link? You mean the article that doesn't make that claim?gotcha Read the entire article. Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 No I think it's Canada's place to stay home and mind it's own Goddamn business. Of course you do. Except those times when you say we should be in Nepal... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Alta4ever Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 (edited) What social studies teacher? Democratic values are what they are. You either have them and are a democracy or don't. If this war really is about that, we need to get back to the basics. Wouldn't you agree? What the hell does this have to do with a liberal witch hunt? This whole issue is politicians playing politics on the back of Canada and its armed forces credibility. If these politicians really cared they would be asking the UN to investigate the actions of the Afghanistan government in the treatment of it's prisoners. Where are the calls from the opposition MPs? This is all about finding an issue to get better polling numbers and it is sickening. Edited March 8, 2010 by Alta4ever Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
nicky10013 Posted March 8, 2010 Author Report Posted March 8, 2010 retaliated against what, the US helping the afgans in the 80's? Us sending peace keepers to Bosnia, or was it Somalia? The retaking of Kuwate? How about US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia? The plundering of oil wealth in the middle east? The support for Israel? These may not be big reasons for you, but that's the whole point. To understand the conflict we have to understand them. "Lets just kill them" isn't the answer to winning this "war." If we're honest with ourselves anyway, this isn't even really a war. We're basically using the army to invade countries to fight organized crime. Quote
eyeball Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 We are a member of NATO and attack on one is an attack on all. We are also human beings and signatory to human rights agreements that trump these. Our allies have been abusing and undermining these agreements for decades. We've been defending them by saying little if anything about this and the fact is a good number of our multi-national corporations have been hip deep alongside our allies corporations and military for decades now. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
M.Dancer Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 Becoming speaks to the future, .... Actually it speaks of a changing...as in I am becoming sadder and sadder with mealy mouthed apologies.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 retaliated against what, the US helping the afgans in the 80's? Us sending peace keepers to Bosnia, or was it Somalia? The retaking of Kuwate? In a word, blowback. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
nicky10013 Posted March 8, 2010 Author Report Posted March 8, 2010 What the hell does this have to do with a liberal witch hunt? If you can't understand what I said, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. This isn't a "liberal witch hunt." This is not only about what we're doing in Afghanistan but what our parliament means to us. There's no real doubt about what actually happened. Everyone except for the goverment (everyone including the military) has fessed up to the fact that the military has been handing people over who have been tortured. Now the govenrment is vainly trying to cover it up. The documents have been witheld from parliament even though parliament, which is supreme, has expressly asked for them. So now, this debate becomes about what our democratic values are and how we should represent those values abroad. If we really are fighting for freedom, then why undermine it? If we're fighting for freedom, then why censor information? This goes way beyond the liberal conservative divide. Both parties are to blame along the timeline. The questions we now face are much bigger than that. We'll see how it turns out. Quote
Shady Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 They hold people, interrogate them and then send them to Afghan authorities. What's wrong with holing terrorists and interrogating them? Holding and interrogating doesn't automatically equal torture. And unless you're championing Canadian imperialism, it's up to the Afghan people and government to decide how they wish to treat their own domestic terrorists. You're being quite ethnocentric. Quote
Alta4ever Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 How about US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia? The plundering of oil wealth in the middle east? The support for Israel? These may not be big reasons for you, but that's the whole point. To understand the conflict we have to understand them. "Lets just kill them" isn't the answer to winning this "war." If we're honest with ourselves anyway, this isn't even really a war. We're basically using the army to invade countries to fight organized crime. Last I check the Saudi's were being paid fair market value for their oil by the world, and are you unfamiliar with the term OPEC? What is wrong with supporting Israel? They have not been the aggressors in any war. Lets just kill them? Where the hell does this come from? Or is it that you can't comprehend that you fight the enemy until they surrender? That is how wars are won. Terrorism is not organized crime. You need to find yourself a different teacher. I can recommend some very good books on 19th and 20th century history, if you care to understand world conflicts. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
nicky10013 Posted March 8, 2010 Author Report Posted March 8, 2010 What's wrong with holing terrorists and interrogating them? Holding and interrogating doesn't automatically equal torture. And unless you're championing Canadian imperialism, it's up to the Afghan people and government to decide how they wish to treat their own domestic terrorists. You're being quite ethnocentric. Nothing. I think that's what we should be doing. However, we shouldn't be handing them over knowing that they're going to be tortured. That's wrong no matter how you want to spin it. Quote
Shady Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 How about US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia? As agreed to by the Saudi Arabia government? The plundering of oil wealth in the middle east? Plundering? Do you mean buying of oil? What's wrong with America, and the rest of the world buying oil from countries that are selling it? The support for Israel? So what? We're suppose to not support Israel because some terrorist thugs don't like it? They can have their beliefs, but we shouldn't be capitulating to them, especially when we're doing the right thing. Quote
Shady Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 However, we shouldn't be handing them over knowing that they're going to be tortured. I don't think we have a right to demand that they treat their domestic terrorists in any particular fashion. We can suggest, but we shouldn't force. It's their country, with their values, and their history, and their beliefs. Stop being ethnocentric. Quote
Alta4ever Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 Nothing. I think that's what we should be doing. However, we shouldn't be handing them over knowing that they're going to be tortured. That's wrong no matter how you want to spin it. Then you will admit the liberal government made a mistake by negotiating the transfer of detainees to afganistan? Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
eyeball Posted March 8, 2010 Report Posted March 8, 2010 Of course you do. Except those times when you say we should be in Nepal... Not any more. It's clear to me the fickle almost whimsical nature of our government means it cannot be trusted to maintain it's focus and simply do what it said it was going to do and finish what it started. I mean Afghanistan is a perfect example. We've changed our reasons for being there as often as you probably change your underwear and now we're fast approaching our cut and run date after saying we'd never cut and run. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.