Maternal Healthcare and funding for Abortions

[myata]

They change it in secret behind the closed door so that:

- the aspiration of their socially conservative wing are satisfied;

- it wouldn't create a broad resonanse and discussion in the society;

- while making an inderect implication that something isn't right with that fundamental freedom;

- and creating a precedent for gradual repatriation of these policies back home, if opportunity arises;

[waldo]

from the Lancet Medical Journal:

The Canadian Government does not deprive women living in Canada from access to safe abortions; it is therefore hypocritical and unjust that it tries to do so abroad.

Although the country's decision only affects a small number of developing countries where abortion is legal, bans on the procedure, which are detrimental to public health, should be challenged by the G8, not tacitly supported.

Canada and the other G8 nations could show real leadership with a final maternal health plan that is based on sound scientific evidence and not prejudice.

Funding foreign abortions is a cunard...the topic is a wedge issue and nothing more because there ain;t a hope in hell that women who want or need abortions and can't afford/get access to them will ever get help, funding or no funding.

Abortion is illegal or restricted in 90% of Africa...and where it is legal, they don't need the funding.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/africa/africas-deadly-backroom-abortions/article1564162/

a canard? Or offering tacit Harper Conservative support for the continued ban on abortions in a significant number of developing countries... a support, an ideological pinning, that the Harper Conservatives are more than willing to evoke in a back-door manner, rather than address the issue head on within Canada. No hidden agenda to see here now... move along now - no, wait... just STFU, hey?

[Molly]

You can't have it both ways. Either they're exploiting the issue to please their rabid right wing base or they're trying to change the policy in secret. Which is it now?

Nor can you. By altering the policy, they have either raised the issue, or tried to sneak it by.

I don't believe our government is so stupid as to expect not to be challenged on such a policy change... so in my opinion, it's a sop to satisfy the wing-nuts. If you would prefer to call it the implementation of the hidden agenda, that's your choice.

[M.Dancer]

a canard? Or offering tacit blah blah blah?

That is a varient of the "either you're with us or against us" ...it doesn't hold water.

The Lancet is being disinguous...we are not depriving anyone abroad of anything. We have no say in the matter, end of story.

Edited May 11, 2010 by M.Dancer

[waldo]

a canard? Or offering tacit Harper Conservative support for the continued ban on abortions in a significant number of developing countries... a support, an ideological pinning, that the Harper Conservatives are more than willing to evoke in a back-door manner, rather than address the issue head on within Canada. No hidden agenda to see here now... move along now - no, wait... just STFU, hey?

That is a varient of the "either you're with us or against us" ...it doesn't hold water.

The Lancet is being disinguous...we are not depriving anyone abroad of anything. We have no say in the matter, end of story.

the prestigious Lancet Medical Journal... disingenuous? Really? How so... what's its motivation... what's it's end game?

from the

Lancet Medical Journal

:

The Canadian Government does not deprive women living in Canada from access to safe abortions; it is therefore hypocritical and unjust that it tries to do so abroad.

Although the country's decision only affects a small number of developing countries where abortion is legal, bans on the procedure, which are detrimental to public health, should be challenged by the G8, not tacitly supported.

Canada and the other G8 nations could show real leadership with a final maternal health plan that is based on sound scientific evidence and not prejudice.

[M.Dancer]

the prestigious Lancet Medical Journal... disingenuous? Really? How so... what's its motivation... what's it's end game?

These days the Lancet is more often described as discredited than prestigious...but what ever floats your boat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8493753.stm

What is their motivation, I don't know...maybe you should ask Soros...

Edited May 11, 2010 by M.Dancer

[waldo]

These days the Lancet is more often described as discredited than prestigious...but what ever floats your boat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8493753.stm

What is their motivation, I don't know...maybe you should ask Soros...

no - the Lancet is still one of the most respected medical journals... typically compared with the New England Journal of Medicine in terms of prestige and influence... and neither Journal has been isolated from problems related to fabricated research or peer-review failings.

in another currently running MLW thread, you're the one that's just boldly proclaimed editors (not owners/management), maintain exclusive influence over content/direction/position of Canadian newspapers/news-magazines... and yet you have the balls to suggest that private citizen George Soros maintains an influence over the Lancet Journal... based on the much publicized/criticized Iraqi War death toll study published by the Lancet - a study Soros' institute helped partially fund (to the tune of a measly $45K figure). It would seem you need to widen your sights to include MIT (that commissioned the study) and John Hopkins School of Public Health and Columbia University (whose researches were involved in the study). Clearly... you have difficulty in accepting the Lancet's criticism of the Harper Conservatives... I'm sure you could have done much better in attempting to discredit the Lancet than to have reached for the proverbial boogeyman go-to, George Soros.

[waldo]

speaking of Stephen Harper's refusal to fund abortion as part of his G8 initiative:

From Stephen Harper's refusal to fund abortion as part of his G8 initiative to the outcry that forced the cancellation of Ontario's sex ed curriculum, the religious right is making its growing muscle felt on the political landscape.

When Harper came to office, he adopted an electoral script crafted by his ideological soulmates in the Republican Party, nurturing a religious-right constituency that had never before enjoyed such attention or access to government. But unlike George W. Bush’s evangelical base, Harper’s theo-conservative constituency is not large enough to guarantee him a clear majority. He cannot win without it, but he cannot win with theo-cons alone. That conundrum leaves him, in some ways, a prisoner of his own electoral calculations, consigned to tread an uneasy tightrope between the social- and economic-conservative wings of his party. In scrambling to present policies that appeal to both camps, he has often ended up pleasing neither.

For those hard-core believers who expected him to roll back same-sex marriage and enshrine fetal rights, he has been a major disappointment. Even the Evangelical Fellowship has noted the “lack of policy gains” on his watch. More importantly, because those measures he did proffer seemed born of calculation, not conviction, many came across as awkward and opportunistic, executed under a veil of secrecy and withdrawn at the first sign they might exact too high a price at the voting booth.

What he has accomplished, however, may be less obvious and more lasting. Without putting forth a single piece of provocative legislation, he has used the enormous patronage powers of his office to shift the ideological leanings of key institutions, from the federal courts to federal regulatory agencies, toward a more socially conservative worldview. At the same time, he has eliminated many of the forces that opposed such a policy drift. With the stroke of a budgetary pen, he has defunded agencies such as the Status of Women Canada and the Court Challenges Program, leaving both feminists and gay activists without resources to take on hostile government policies, while his cutbacks to scholarly granting bodies have helped silence environmental critics in academia and science.

Some in the Christian right have also been agitating for another, more contentious shift in foreign policy, which has already found a champion in a Conservative backbencher. Only a few months after Obama ended George Bush’s ban on congressional funding for overseas aid groups that counsel abortion, Saskatchewan MP Brad Trost circulated a petition among religious-right groups to drum up support for a move in the opposite direction — one that may be a sign of things to come. In the letter, signed by thirty like-minded MPs, Trost demanded that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) end its $18 million in annual grants to overseas programs run by the International Planned Parenthood Federation. That initiative may be useful to keep in mind in the wake of Harper’s proposal to the Group of Eight to focus on maternal health care.

But in keeping with that increasing Americanization, Harper has also altered the terms and tone of the debate, thrusting God into the centre of the national conversation. Whether signing off his throne speeches with a blessing or lavishing invitations on the leaders of the Christian right, he has brought religion out of the closet and into the public square for the first time in recent memory. “We’re talking about things in a different way than we did three years ago,” says Brian Rushfeldt, Harper’s old ally from the Canada Family Action Coalition.

Much of that new spiritual consciousness comes from the increasing presence of conservative Christians in the capital. As Harper has gradually unmuzzled his evangelical Christian MPs, allowing them a higher profile and letting them test public sentiments with private members’ bills, he has emboldened the religious right as a whole. “They’re more brazen and confident,” says Joyce Arthur, director of the Abortion Rights Coalition. “That’s the big change. Being in power has given them legitimacy.”

On talk radio and in the pages of the National Post, the best source of news on the religious right, a new stridency has emerged: critics of the government’s efforts to pander to its theo-conservative constituency are dismissed as god-hating secular zealots and opponents of its pro-Israel policy are routinely branded anti-Semites. In the blogosphere, the rhetoric has become even more shrill, fuelling an angry strain of faith-based intolerance. Scarcely three decades after Brian Stiller, of the Evangelical Fellowship, recoiled at the mix of religiosity and righteous patriotism spouted by Falwell and his fellow televangelists in the U.S., the Prime Minister now sends his public blessings to prayer rallies where Christian nationalists brandishing Canadian flags are calling for a Bible-based theocracy.

[WIP]

I've been scoffed at for the last year or so every time I mention the Conservative's increasing embrace of the social conservative agenda, but the evidence now is clear that we have the northern outpost of the Republican Party. I've heard it many times that the religious right is not big enough to be a controlling force here in Canada, as it is south of the border, but these people are missing the whole point. When the Republicans started courting evangelicals over 30 years ago, it wasn't for their votes as much as they seen them as the group that could provide the Republican Party with grassroots activists to counter the union-organized activists that the Democratic Party had available.

So it doesn't matter how big a segment of the population the theocons are, Harper's Conservatives will throw bones to them like cutting funding for abortion, feminist groups, and gay pride parades, because that's what gets these people motivated to do the groundwork for the party at election time.

[Keepitsimple]

I've been scoffed at for the last year or so every time I mention the Conservative's increasing embrace of the social conservative agenda, but the evidence now is clear that we have the northern outpost of the Republican Party. I've heard it many times that the religious right is not big enough to be a controlling force here in Canada, as it is south of the border, but these people are missing the whole point. When the Republicans started courting evangelicals over 30 years ago, it wasn't for their votes as much as they seen them as the group that could provide the Republican Party with grassroots activists to counter the union-organized activists that the Democratic Party had available.

So it doesn't matter how big a segment of the population the theocons are, Harper's Conservatives will throw bones to them like cutting funding for abortion, feminist groups, and gay pride parades, because that's what gets these people motivated to do the groundwork for the party at election time.

The term Evangelical is a broad one and means different things to different people. In general, it denotes someone who is a Conservative Christian and includes among others Baptists, Mennonites, and Pentacostals. Apparently, they make up about 10% of the population. Here in Canada, we might be led to believe that the catch-all term Evangelism means that everyone one of Conservative Christian faith is a born-again Christian in the Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham tradition - anxious to "convert" everyone. In fact, most Canadian Conservative Christians have been embarrassed by televangelists like Falwell and like many other countries, they are adamant that Church and State be separate. I think we owe it to ourselves to not paint with such a broad brush those people who are simply private and passionate about their religion. Here's an article that is somewhat relevant:

Bombastic televangelist Jerry Falwell revolutionized the U.S. Republican party and shaped the religious right across North America, but many Canadian evangelicals found him an embarrassment, say specialists in politics and religion.

Falwell, who died Tuesday in Virginia at age 73, was more politically extreme than the vast majority of Canadian evangelicals, who make up almost 10 per cent of the population, say three Canadian scholars, two of whom are evangelical.

Falwell's strident defence of Christian conservative values had the most influence on Canadian evangelical groups such as Focus on the Family, Real Women and the Defend Marriage coalition, says Prof. Bruce Foster, a B.C.-trained political scientist now at Mount Royal College in Calgary.

But Foster said he believes Falwell's undying determination to equate God with hyper patriotism didn't fly well among most Christians in Canada or other industrialized countries, where he says evangelicals tend to support the strict separation of religion and state.

However, Stackhouse says Canada's moderate evangelicals have had to struggle to counter the harsh image Falwell created of evangelicals -- the stereotype that all evangelicals support a package of beliefs -- including being virulently anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, anti-stem-cell research, and pro-capital punishment.

"Falwell is looked at askance by most Canadian evangelicals," says Stackhouse.

Stackhouse argues members of the Canadian media and some political parties have unfairly smeared Canadian evangelicals by acting as if they're all the same as Falwell, whom he described as a militant, separatist fundamentalist.

"Falwell was a bogeyman of political and social liberals," Stackhouse says, adding Falwell received more media attention in Canada than he deserved in large part because Canada's conservative Protestants have never been able to create their own "evangelical celebrities."

Link: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=eb3b2802-0614-4d89-bc3d-f5782dec59c6

Edited May 12, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[M.Dancer]

The term Evangelical is a broad one and means different things to different people. In general, it denotes someone who is a Conservative Christian

While many self descibed evangelicals are conservatives, not all are. In Canada, many Baptists and Lutherens are quite liberal and would shock an american pentacostal....and the Sally Ann, one of the original "Evangelicals", their entire ethos surrounds prolestizing through active ministry to the needy.

I think we should be mindful that the term Evangelical is used differently in different places, and the definition that you mention is a predominately American one.

[M.Dancer]

... and yet you have the balls to suggest that private citizen George Soros maintains an influence over the Lancet Journal... based on the much publicized/criticized Iraqi War death toll study published by the Lancet - a study Soros' institute helped partially fund (to the tune of a measly $45K figure).

The "private citizen" funded 50% of the study....

The study itself was lead by a person who was openly biased.

I would be negligent that the prestigious New England Journal Of medicine also did a study and while it is true they did not have Soros funding...which might explain why they couldn't find the extra 400,000 dead iraqis....

But more importantly, Lancet did not conduct a study about Canadian policy, they wrote an opinion, and not a very honest one either.,...but again, that's the Lancet.

[M.Dancer]

An analysis of the Lancet Iraqi war study...

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

[Keepitsimple]

While many self descibed evangelicals are conservatives, not all are. In Canada, many Baptists and Lutherens are quite liberal and would shock an american pentacostal....and the Sally Ann, one of the original "Evangelicals", their entire ethos surrounds prolestizing through active ministry to the needy.

I think we should be mindful that the term Evangelical is used differently in different places, and the definition that you mention is a predominately American one.

You're right - I actually didn't mean Conservative Christian in relation to the Party but more to the issue of core values such as Family, helping the less fortunate, personal responsibility......and yes, many may be inclined to vote other than Conservative with the Salvation Army being a good example. Regardless of my mis-speak, our combined argument is that Canada is not the US.

[waldo]

no - the Lancet is still one of the most respected medical journals... typically compared with the New England Journal of Medicine in terms of prestige and influence... and neither Journal has been isolated from problems related to fabricated research or peer-review failings.

in another currently running MLW thread, you're the one that's just boldly proclaimed editors (not owners/management), maintain exclusive influence over content/direction/position of Canadian newspapers/news-magazines... and yet you have the balls to suggest that private citizen George Soros maintains an influence over the Lancet Journal... based on the much publicized/criticized Iraqi War death toll study published by the Lancet - a study Soros' institute helped partially fund (to the tune of a measly $45K figure). It would seem you need to widen your sights to include MIT (that commissioned the study) and John Hopkins School of Public Health and Columbia University (whose researchers were involved in the study). Clearly... you have difficulty in accepting the Lancet's criticism of the Harper Conservatives... I'm sure you could have done much better in attempting to discredit the Lancet than to have reached for the proverbial boogeyman go-to, George Soros.

The "private citizen" funded 50% of the study....

[waldo: no - the private citizen George Soros' institute funded ~half of that Iraq War study... to the ~amount I mentioned... a measly $45K; a monetary amount from which you extend to state George Soros should be questioned as to the Lancet's motivations for its editorial position against the Harper Conservatives G8 maternal health position. Or do you have something other than a $45K figure to presume to link Lancet motivations to George Soros? Anything else... anything?]

The study itself was lead by a person who was openly biased.

[waldo: whether the case, or not, the study was not funded by the Lancet, it was not commissioned by the Lancet (MIT commissioned it), it was not undertaken by the Lancet (researchers from John Hopkins and Columbia University undertook the study). The Lancet published the study, based on it's peer review process.]

But more importantly, Lancet did not conduct a study about Canadian policy, they wrote an opinion, and not a very honest one either.,...but again, that's the Lancet.

[waldo: yes, that's right - the Lancet wrote an editorial opinion, one critical of the Harper Conservatives. You stated the journal was disingenuous, you've now stated it was dishonest... and, of course, you presumed to attempt to denigrate it by association as to it's motivation in printing the editorial. In actuality, the Lancet motivation behind the editorial critical of the Harper Conservatives, would appear to exist within the very

G&M article

you previously linked to... apparently, your selectivity in drawing from that article failed you...

apparently, you missed the articles direct reference to a study within this months Lancet Journal.

Other than the timing to G8, we can surmise the Lancet editorial also draws reference from the very study it published this month. I guess you took another path, a deflection path, with your Soros reference - hey?]

Unsafe abortions, especially those done covertly or illegally, are one of the leading causes of maternal deaths in Africa, killing at least 25,000 women annually and injuring a staggering 1.7 million every year. Many are maimed or killed by horrific “home remedies” that include catheters, roots or herbs placed in their vaginas to induce bleeding.

One-seventh of African deaths in pregnancy and childbirth, and nearly one-fifth in Tanzania, are caused by complications from unsafe abortions. Yet governments in Africa – and Canada – are reluctant to discuss the problem, even as Ottawa puts maternal health on top of the agenda for the G8 summit next month.

For decades, Africa’s crisis of maternal deaths has remained stubbornly intractable, even as the death rate has declined sharply in most Asian countries. More than half of the world’s maternal deaths are now occurring in sub-Saharan Africa, compared with fewer than a quarter in 1980, according to a new study in this month’s Lancet, the British-based medical journal. Of the 20 most dangerous countries for women to give birth in, all but one (Afghanistan) are in Africa.

perhaps... you could highlight the passages within the following relevant portion of the Lancet editorial... those you would presume to use to support your statements to the Lancet's dishonesty and disingenuous position.

from the

Lancet Medical Journal

:

...Improving access to safe abortion services is also absent from the plan. Sadly, this omission is no accident, but a conscious decision by Canada's Conservative Government not to support groups that undertake abortions in developing countries.

This stance must change. 70,000 women die from unsafe abortions worldwide every year.

The Canadian Government does not deprive women living in Canada from access to safe abortions; it is therefore hypocritical and unjust that it tries to do so abroad. Although the country's decision only affects a small number of developing countries where abortion is legal, bans on the procedure, which are detrimental to public health, should be challenged by the G8, not tacitly supported. Canada and the other G8 nations could show real leadership with a final maternal health plan that is based on sound scientific evidence and not prejudice.

[M.Dancer]

The Canadian Government does not deprive women living in Canada from access to safe abortions; it is therefore hypocritical and unjust that it tries to do so abroad. Although the country's decision only affects a small number of developing countries where abortion is legal, bans on the procedure, which are detrimental to public health, should be challenged by the G8, not tacitly supported. Canada and the other G8 nations could show real leadership with a final maternal health plan that is based on sound scientific evidence and not prejudice.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... Regardless of my mis-speak, our combined argument is that Canada is not the US.

Well, hell, I've been saying that for years! But that doesn't stop 'em from invoking the US to make their case.

[waldo]

You're right - I actually didn't mean Conservative Christian in relation to the Party but more to the issue of core values such as Family, helping the less fortunate, personal responsibility......and yes, many may be inclined to vote other than Conservative with the Salvation Army being a good example. Regardless of my mis-speak, our combined argument is that Canada is not the US.

crikey... you were quick off the mark to presume to draw contrasting reference to U.S. religious fundamentalism...

c'mon... our guy Harper is no where as extreme as that Falwell guy... see, here's an article that says Canadian evangelicals found Falwell an embarrassment. See, it says so... right here! Read it, damnit - read it!

or...

Why Stephen Harper keeps his evangelical faith very private

Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons

and in keeping with your rush to distance Harper from Falwell

U.S. Religious Right pushing into Canada

[WIP]

The term Evangelical is a broad one and means different things to different people. In general, it denotes someone who is a Conservative Christian and includes among others Baptists, Mennonites, and Pentacostals. Apparently, they make up about 10% of the population. Here in Canada, we might be led to believe that the catch-all term Evangelism means that everyone one of Conservative Christian faith is a born-again Christian in the Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham tradition - anxious to "convert" everyone. In fact, most Canadian Conservative Christians have been embarrassed by televangelists like Falwell and like many other countries, they are adamant that Church and State be separate. I think we owe it to ourselves to not paint with such a broad brush those people who are simply private and passionate about their religion. Here's an article that is somewhat relevant:

Specifically, what I'm referring to is the group described as 'Conservative Evangelical.' This segment of evangelicals has been mobilized to fight for conservative social causes (such as stopping abortion and gay rights) in the U.S., and has submerged the traditional Christian concern for social justice to form the alliance with right wing economics.

A couple of generations ago, the few fundamentalist activists who pushed religion into the public arena such as William Jennings Bryant, were Democrats, and railed against greed. Bankers and businessmen were suspect because their wealth was assumed to be ill-gotten gains at the expense of people living in poverty. And, more importantly, their devotion to storing up treasures here on Earth was a sign that they did not devote enough attention to treasures in heaven.

By the time the Prosperity Gospel and similar themes penetrated fundamentalist thinking, the traditional Christian social gospel was turned upside down: today, the many viewers of Pat Robertson's 700 Club will hear a message that wealth is a sign of God's blessings, and poverty is a sign of judgment or that the person is lazy....amazing how theology can be shaped and twisted when political alliances are formed.

Link: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=eb3b2802-0614-4d89-bc3d-f5782dec59c6

Since Harper started out as a political strategist, I doubt that he dipped his toe into the water of social conservatism without checking reams of polling data to determine what messages to use to win the support of religiously-motivated voters.

About the differences between Canadian and U.S. evangelicals and fundamentalists, the article mentions the resistance to chest-thumping nationalism that's a constant theme of American politics, but I've noticed a change in Canadian thinking since we've been sucked into the War in Afghanistan. Most of the people who have supported these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are doubling down rather than admit that we've joined a foreign venture that we knew nothing about going in, and have no exist strategy. Since Harper was elected and began a more aggressive Canadian role there to match the Obama Strategy, questioning the War is an attack on the troops and unpatriotic, just as the U.S. warhawks try to shout down opposition to pulling out. I'm sure this new found Canadian nationalistic chest-thumping is finding its way into the thinking of those conservative church leaders.

The most important name in the creation of conservative Christian political activism in the U.S. is missing from that article. Falwell could not have built the Moral Majority on his own. For that he needed the credibility of Francis Schaeffer, who was one of the only major Evangelical leaders of the 70's who did not profit financially from the creation of the Republican Evangelical alliance. A couple of years ago his son - Frank Schaeffer, wrote the book: "Crazy For God" detailing much of the chronology of events that led to the present reality.

[bush_cheney2004]

About the differences between Canadian and U.S. evangelicals and fundamentalists, the article mentions the resistance to chest-thumping nationalism that's a constant theme of American politics, but I've noticed a change in Canadian thinking since we've been sucked into the War in Afghanistan. Most of the people who have supported these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are doubling down rather than admit that we've joined a foreign venture that we knew nothing about going in, and have no exist strategy.

Well that's pretty stupid....and all with no mention of PM Chretien and those righteous Grits saving Afghanistan for future hockey playoffs!

The most important name in the creation of conservative Christian political activism in the U.S. is missing from that article. Falwell could not have built the Moral Majority on his own. For that he needed the credibility of Francis Schaeffer, who was one of the only major Evangelical leaders of the 70's who did not profit financially from the creation of the Republican Evangelical alliance. A couple of years ago his son - Frank Schaeffer, wrote the book: "Crazy For God" detailing much of the chronology of events that led to the present reality.

...and so ends another update on US, not Canadian relevance.

[waldo]

Well that's pretty stupid....and all with no mention of PM Chretien and those righteous Grits saving Afghanistan for future hockey playoffs!

...and so ends another update on US, not Canadian relevance.

yawn!

[Sir Bandelot]

There are those that seem to think that anyone of the female persuasion that gets pregnant are women and should not be counselled by men,sperm donater, Father ,brother grandfathers should all keep their collective wisdom to themselves. It is my conclusion that girls get pregnant too. This does not make them a women. They can still be little girls . Mentally! I think kind and loving family can give better advice for the childs future mental health than some abortion rights fanatic who thinks they know better than family. It is imperative that young women ,girls, know the long term repercussions of abortion before committing themselves.This is not a tooth being pulled. I am not completely against abortion but I certainly think counselling and knoledge is imperative. .

That's a very reasonable and considerate point of view. I agree with it. In certain cases, a brief round of counselling should be necessary before the final decision is made.

[WIP]

Well that's pretty stupid....and all with no mention of PM Chretien and those righteous Grits saving Afghanistan for future hockey playoffs!

At least Chretien was smart enough to stay away from going on the attack against the Taleban. Right now, the few Westerners who understand what's going on there say that the Americans can't distinguish between Afghanis trying to keep outsiders out of their valleys, and the remnants of Mullah Omar's army -- which is about the same bloody mess of not knowing who to shoot at in Vietnam.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... -- which is about the same bloody mess of not knowing who to shoot at in Vietnam.

Well that's easy enough....you just shoot 'em all and let God Allah sort 'em out.

[M.Dancer]

At least Chretien was smart enough to stay away from going on the attack against the Taleban.

So the CDN special forces and snipers were sent by Chretien there to... ummm...????

Right now, the few Westerners who understand what's going on there say that the Americans can't distinguish between Afghanis trying to keep outsiders out of their valleys, and the remnants of Mullah Omar's army -- which is about the same bloody mess of not knowing who to shoot at in Vietnam.

The few who understand? I think that judgement call must be seen in light of the 1st part of your post..