Harper's resolute on ending mission in Afghanistan

[Topaz]

Harper has made vow to bring home the troops in 2011 and by some miracle, he'll keep it. BTW, After listening to a new report this morning, I wonder how this government is taking care of the troops that come home with disabilities. This one soldier said he had both legs blown off and now he finds he doesn't get a pension from the military. He was quite angry because he said he didn't about this rule and from I could find searching the vets website, is they get a lum-payment about 250,000. In this day and age, that amount really doesn't go far, if its true. These guys put their lives on the line and I hope that the government will treat them better then they treat themeselves! Thoughts? http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20100630/afghanistan-harper-countdown-100001/

[Muddy]

Sadly, not much has changed for those soldiers that are disabled after doing their duty since the beginning of time.Every remembrance day we sometimes stop for a few minutes and swear we will not forget. But we do and have. For every freedom and democratic right that each generation enjoys was won on the battlefield in blood .This should be taught in our schools so that children will grow up knowing where their rights and responsibilities come from. No Virginia ,your rights were not granted to you by Santa,Teacher or Politician. It was the veteran. Lest we forget!

[Argus]

Harper is wedded to practicality now - meaning whatever seems likely to be popular and get votes is what he's going after. I'm not sure he has any other standards these days.

The Afghan mission has been a millstone around his neck for years. He'll be glad to get rid of it.

Frankly, it's kind of hard to care. I see zero likelihood of affecting real change in that misbegotten shithole of a land. Even after all these years the Afghan police and military are hopelessly incompetent and have zero motivation. The so-called president barely rules his own capital city, with only corrupt, bribed cronies, warlords and tribal leaders, some of whom operate on their own agenda, scattered through the country and sometimes taking orders from him - and sometimes not.

It's hard to argue Afghanistan is even a country to begin with, as no one seems to care about the central government and each separate tribe seems to command the loyalty of all its members, regardless of what the government thinks or says or wants or does.

Everyone in the entire region is mad, frankly, religious fanatics who care about nothing and no one but their zealous pursuit of what they think of as Allah's truth - though since most are illiterate that's a rather difficult pursuit.

Best thing the world could do is seal the whole area off, including the border regions of Pakistan, and simply kill anything that tries to leave.

[Sir Bandelot]

I think what the government does concerning the plight of wounded soldiers is completely disgusting. I don't support the war but I can't fathom the idea of not giving full support, medically, psychologically and financially to any soldier who has gone over there to fight in the name of this country.

TO say that we should remember more than on remembrance day is useless. We the people cannot do very much, as individuals but we pay our taxes and expect the government to do what's right with the money. And in this case, what's right is looking after our troops. Anything less, is shameful.

[bloodyminded]

Everyone in the entire region is mad, frankly, religious fanatics who care about nothing and no one but their zealous pursuit of what they think of as Allah's truth - though since most are illiterate that's a rather difficult pursuit.

This is profoundly ridiculous.

[Topaz]

I did find the news article on the net and here is the ex-soldiers said. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100703/national/afghan_cda_mission_wounded

[TheLastCanadian]

I was against Afghanistan. I thought it was a mess the Americans needed to fix, lord knows they caused it.

But it's bigger than that. It is the liberation of a people from the single most dangerous force on this planet today: Theocracy.

It combines the unequalled oppression of millions with the unequalled cruelty of the divine scriptures towards its enemies. It combines the worst religion has and gives man the power to act on it.

We must fight Afghanistan, and we must win. We must destroy Iran as well, and any other religious state.

Otherwise, it will consume us for the cancer it is. A fanatic has no inclination than to die for his God, a nuclear holocaust means nothing to them.

That Harper would cower from continuing the most important moral crusade of the modern age is sickening.

We fight nothing less than what Nazism represented in the earlier half of the twentieth century, and what communism represented in the later half.

We fight a force which could mean the total destruction of all that is good in this world and all that is good in man.

Afghanistan has come at a cost. But leaving comes at a toll far greater than we could imagine.

It's not like it's impossible either. We need only three things for Afghanistan:

Proper government support, military mobilization, and total suspension of the laws of war.

The former are easy to comprehend. As for the third, it is simple: Our ignorant westernised "chivalry" is everything the Taliban and radical religion could ask for. Our unwillingness to fight them gives them total reign to destroy what we will not fight for in the name of their God, and our distaste for "unethical" means of carrying on a war works perfectly for a guerilla movement.

If we capture these people, destroy them. Drive them mad with pain, and throw them in a cellar to starve. The Taliban relies on recruiting. Let's see how many recruits they'll have once this gets out. If we destroy their support base, we destroy the Taliban. Until then, they are invulnerable to any weapon man has yet to draw upon.

They will give us no mercy. It is naive to do anything other than return the favour.

_____________________________________________________________

As for government treatment of the injured, it is disgusting. These men have incurred these injuries to protect us from the single greatest evil we have yet known. They deserve everything to ease their pain.

Edited July 4, 2010 by TheLastCanadian

[Sir Bandelot]

our distaste for "unethical" means of carrying on a war works perfectly for a guerilla movement.

But what about the cvilians. Some of them, I don't know how many but some actually prefer islamic law and theocratic rule to democracy. For them, that's what they truly believe in their god and their culture.

And if we were to remove the rules of war that makes us become like savages too. We would kill more of the innocent civilians, than would have died if we never went there in the first place! How is that right!

Edited July 4, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[TheLastCanadian]

Why could we have been so vain as to fight something that wants to destroy our way of life?

If you want to fight a war, you cannot fight it piecemeal and expect and hope of success. Yes, civilians might die, yes, some might suffer. But it is ultimately for the greater good. If we kill a couple civilians, we can work around it. If we surrender to them, we will be destroyed. Maybe not now, maybe not even in 50 years, but religious fascism will grow out of the middle east as a cancer and begin to consume the nations of the world.

Look what it has already done to Britain and Spain! What it is doing in Somalia!

We fight against our very destruction in Afghanistan. It's sad, but Afghanistan is them or us. They have no mercy for us, nor does the God they fight for. They will kill every last one of us if given the chance.

To leave Afghanistan is to subject ourselves to an evil even greater than Nazism.

____________________________________________________________________

If the civilians believe in a God so heartily that they will kill for it, they are no less a combatant than the Taliban. I have no respect for religion, especially one that seeks to destroy everything I hold dear in this world.

If not for the liberty of the free people of the world, see it for what it is: The front-line in defending Canada and all that we hold dear.

If they believe in theocracy, they are insane. We must save them from themselves.

Edited July 4, 2010 by TheLastCanadian

[Remiel]

To leave Afghanistan is to subject ourselves to an evil even greater than Nazism.

The more often you repeat this the quicker you will lose any credibility you may have had with most of the people on these boards.

[Moonbox]

But what about the cvilians. Some of them, I don't know how many but some actually prefer islamic law and theocratic rule to democracy. For them, that's what they truly believe in their god and their culture.

And if we were to remove the rules of war that makes us become like savages too. We would kill more of the innocent civilians, than would have died if we never went there in the first place! How is that right!

I don't advocate the killing of civilians, but the only way theocracy as a system of government can be sustained is through oppression.

[Jack Weber]

The more often you repeat this the quicker you will lose any credibility you may have had with most of the people on these boards.

Where exactly do you think the Islamofascists got their warped ideology?Part of it is an extremely strict interpretation of the Koran...Part of it is learnt behaviour from living under Ba'Athist regimes.

Where do you think some of the influences of Pan-Arab Ba'Athism come from?

[Sir Bandelot]

I don't advocate the killing of civilians, but the only way theocracy as a system of government can be sustained is through oppression.

I agree but I am not convinced that war, bombing them and inevitably killing innocent people is a means toward solving that problem.

[Moonlight Graham]

We must fight Afghanistan, and we must win. We must destroy Iran as well, and any other religious state.

Looks like we have a new addition to the "nut club" on this board. Lictor would be proud.

Otherwise, it will consume us for the cancer it is. A fanatic has no inclination than to die for his God, a nuclear holocaust means nothing to them.

It seems like anti-theocracy is your God. You will kill and start vast wars in your fanaticism.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[eyeball]

To leave Afghanistan is to subject ourselves to an evil even greater than Nazism.

Get a grip.

[GostHacked]

I think what the government does concerning the plight of wounded soldiers is completely disgusting. I don't support the war but I can't fathom the idea of not giving full support, medically, psychologically and financially to any soldier who has gone over there to fight in the name of this country.

TO say that we should remember more than on remembrance day is useless. We the people cannot do very much, as individuals but we pay our taxes and expect the government to do what's right with the money. And in this case, what's right is looking after our troops. Anything less, is shameful.

You've explained my definition of supporting the troops. They need support over in the battlefield yes, but the real support starts when they return home, where support is most effective.

[Remiel]

Where do you think some of the influences of Pan-Arab Ba'Athism come from?

Since when were the Taliban Ba'Athists? Since when are they Arabs? The only Ba'Athist regimes were not even theocracies!

[ToadBrother]

Where exactly do you think the Islamofascists got their warped ideology?Part of it is an extremely strict interpretation of the Koran...Part of it is learnt behaviour from living under Ba'Athist regimes.

Where do you think some of the influences of Pan-Arab Ba'Athism come from?

As someone else pointed out, Baathists aren't overtly religious. Quite the opposite, they are the most secular political movement in the Arab World. As well, Pan-Arabic notions are largely similar to other such movements like Pan-Slavism, ultimately supra-nationalistic movements. Religion plays its part, of course, but not in the way you think.

Neither Saddam Hussein or the Assad dynasty in Syria are overtly religious (in fact the Assads are Alawis, a Shiah sect who many/most other Muslims consider heretical). I'm not defending them, but pointing out that the history of the movement was in many ways a departure from the Wahabism adopted in Saudi Arabia, which is the true fountainhead of most of the Islamic extremism in the Arab world. As for Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, I think you'll find the source of Islamic Fundamentalism is a considerably different creature. There are links between it and the mutated forms of Wahabism, but the mistake you seem to make is that the Islamic world is some sort of homogeneous entity. There's lots of interplay, but the Taliban, for instance, owe a lot more to the tribal organizations of eastern and southern Afghanistan and neighboring areas in Pakistan, and probably owe their current existence as much to the severe alterations of the Indian sub-Continent which is much more their sphere of influence than distant Arab states.

Edited July 5, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Army Guy]

I did find the news article on the net and here is the ex-soldiers said. http://ca.news.yahoo...mission_wounded

Our current disability coverage was a cost cutting adventure by our government of the time, it is much cheaper to pay a one time payment (maximum 250,000) (very rare) than it is to pay out a monthly payment until coverage ceases or death occurs.

It is a very lengthy process just getting this coverage, A soldier must prove it happened on military time, he must have all the proper medical/ Admin paper in order, along with witiness statements etc etc...Once he has all this then off to see Veterns affairs, which will take a look at your case send you to see a independant doctor, be reassesed ,fill out more paper work, all of this is then shipped to a Veterns affairs board, which will in most cases low ball the first offer, in which a soldier can accept or redress, which opens up another lenghty paper war, in which involes lawyers, and another board, which will once again hear the entire case , only this time with the soldier present, this board does have the powers to change the offer, but it works both ways lower or higher...

Some examples of awards already given out 25,k for a soldier who has loss of arm movement, severe back problems , 60 k for a soldier with loss of arm, and limited use of other arm...

120 k for soldier suffering PTSD. 85k for soldier suffering PTSD. as you can see they are all over the map, and each case is different....

It should be noted that a soldier can be reassesed after 5 years time if the condition can be proven to be worse a new settlement can be arranged...never heard of this being done yet, nor could i find any examples....

A large majority of the forces are not in favor of this new contract....and while it is nice to get a large chunk of money it is soon gone and the soldier left to cover himself...

The old, more expensive system was based on the same sort of set up, only payment was monthly, tax free, and easier to get reassesed...this is the system that the NDP ( stoffer)was trying to return to with a private members bill....but is being side tracked by the cons....that being said it was not the cons that put this into place but the liberals....

[William Ashley]

10 years too late.

Tons of wasted money and resources on a pointless mission.

Is there a reason why NATO couldn't learn from the USSR's mistakes.

Edited July 6, 2010 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

....Is there a reason why NATO couldn't learn from the USSR's mistakes.

Yes...the USSR was a mistake that no longer exists.

[M.Dancer]

Yes...the USSR was a mistake that no longer exists.

Not to mention that by any metric you wish to use, Nato is operating much more effectively than the USSR did at any point in the USSR's experiance in Afghanistan.

[segnosaur]

10 years too late.

Tons of wasted money and resources on a pointless mission.

Is there a reason why NATO couldn't learn from the USSR's mistakes.

How about the fact that the U.S. (and other NATO countries, due to the alliance) had justification to go in to Afghanistan because it was used as a base to launch terrorist attacks against American targets? (I don't recall anyone in Afghanistan attempting to attack the USSR.)

And I rather suspect that the majority of Afghan citizens probably prefer a democratic system of government rather than the communist system that was implemented in the 70s/80s. Granted, I haven't seen any opinion polls, but the large number of refugees (plus those killed) during the soviet invasion suggest strong opposition to the Russians. On the other hand, almost 70% of Afghan people want the U.S. there, and only a small fraction actually support the Taliban. (See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/11/poll-7-in-10-afghans-supp_n_418252.html). So, the fact that the Afghani people want NATO troops there increases the chance of success.

[dre]

How about the fact that the U.S. (and other NATO countries, due to the alliance) had justification to go in to Afghanistan because it was used as a base to launch terrorist attacks against American targets? (I don't recall anyone in Afghanistan attempting to attack the USSR.)

And I rather suspect that the majority of Afghan citizens probably prefer a democratic system of government rather than the communist system that was implemented in the 70s/80s. Granted, I haven't seen any opinion polls, but the large number of refugees (plus those killed) during the soviet invasion suggest strong opposition to the Russians. On the other hand, almost 70% of Afghan people want the U.S. there, and only a small fraction actually support the Taliban. (See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/11/poll-7-in-10-afghans-supp_n_418252.html). So, the fact that the Afghani people want NATO troops there increases the chance of success.

The problem is that the mission is ill defined.

I keep hearing people define success there as the creation of a stable government that wont allow terrorists to set up camp there. The problem of course is that there is no revenue stream to support a government capable of policing the entire country and keeping it free of anti-western militants. We would have gotten better results by just bribing the dozens of regional warlords that actually run various parts of the country.

Then theres the other problem which is that our response to terrorism has damaged us and particularly the US more than terrorism itself ever could.

A bunch of low tech rag tag dirt farmers with a budget of a few million dollars has managed to trick the US and other countries into taking on two massively expensive nation building projects that have already cost trillions of dollars and will be costing us money for many decades to come. No to mention the US has created the largest new government department in modern history (the 40 billion dollar DHS).

All this has been done with borrowed money and according to most western intelligence agencies the trillions of dollars we have spent has done nothing to reduce the threat of terrorism and in fact may have made it worse.

The anti-western terrorist groups will likely move on to another country... lots of people say theyve already left for Pakistan, North Africa etc, but were still in Afganistan picking sides in what at this point is basically a civil war.

So then what? Are we gonna follow them from country to country building nations with borrowed money, that we have to permanently support?

It seems like the medicine is 1000 times worse than the disease.

If our enemies are smart, they will our kneejerk reactionism against us, and set up symbolic presenses in as many countries as possible, knowing that well go rushing in, blow the fuck out of everything, then rebuild it... all with borrowed money.

In fact...

That seems to be what Binladen is alluding to here.

The Bush policy of mounting a global war on terror has made it easy for al-Qaeda to ``bait'' the U.S. government, bin Laden said.

``All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies,'' bin Laden said, according to the al-Jazeera transcript.

Edited July 6, 2010 by dre

[segnosaur]

The problem is that the mission is ill defined.

I keep hearing people define success there as the creation of a stable government that wont allow terrorists to set up camp there. The problem of course is that there is no revenue stream to support a government capable of policing the entire country and keeping it free of anti-western militants.

Well, a more accurate statement would be to say there hasn't been a reliable revenue stream. However, the fact that the country has been a pariah state for the previous 2 decades might have something to do with it.

They have discovered some significant natural resources in the area...natural gas, copper, gold, precious minerals, etc. Even without those resources, Afghanistan could have exported handwoven rugs, and agriculture could be significant. (It might be feasible to also use their opium crop legally in order to make pharmecuticals.)

So there are possible resources that could provide a decent living (even if they won't be 'wealthy') and support government programs, if wide scale violence is eliminated, and if they are allowed to produce and export goods without any sort of sanctions.

Then theres the other problem which is that our response to terrorism has damaged us and particularly the US more than terrorism itself ever could.

That's a "what if" game that I don't think has any real answer.

Yes, the government has spent more in Afghanistan than it lost as a direct result of the 9/11 attacks. However, there is no guarantee that simply ignoring terrorism won't cause even greater losses, or that the elimination of terrorism won't have positive side effects to the economy.

No to mention the US has created the largest new government department in modern history (the 40 billion dollar DHS).

I could be wrong about this, but I believe the majority of the Department of Homeland Security came from multiple smaller departments (i.e. it wasn't new spending, but simply amalgamated multiple smaller organizations under one umbrella.)

All this has been done with borrowed money and according to most western intelligence agencies the trillions of dollars we have spent has done nothing to reduce the threat of terrorism and in fact may have made it worse.

Again, another "what if" question that really can't be answered.

I suppose it all depends on what you think the ultimate cause of terrorism is. If you believe that it is due to "western agression" then fine, it may have made it worse. However, I'm under the opinion that the ultimate cause of terrorism is the oppression and lack of free speech inherent in certain societies.

The anti-western terrorist groups will likely move on to another country... lots of people say theyve already left for Pakistan, North Africa etc

If you are talking about islamic terrorists, keep in mind that its likely that in order for them to be accepted in another country they probably need to find countries with like-minded individuals. I can't think of too many places where a government would actually welcome groups who could either A: result in military actions by the Americans, or B: destabilize the government.