Harper's resolute on ending mission in Afghanistan

[dre]

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.

I think its both of those things and many other things combined.

And Im not so sure that the question cant be answered, nor do I think the only alternative to a multi trillion dollar GWOT financed with borrowed money is "ignoring terrorism".

I think its a matter of perspective.

If somebody broke into my house and stole my TV set, I could respond to that by launching a "global war on theft". Seems to make pretty good sense... once I kill all the thieves and remove from the world all influences that cause people to steal, my house is going to be secure from theft (this is the GWOT approach). The problem is thats a fools errand. I would bankrupt myself trying to rid the world of theft. Another option would be to put a lock on my front door and possibly buy an alarm. These things would help manage and mitigate the threat but they wouldnt entirely remove it. But at least these are things I can afford to do and I wont be bankrupt. The second approach would be more similar to the way the Europeans have handled terrorism over the last few decades... with common sense security measures.

[dre]

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.

They dont need governments to officially welcome them. They just need to pick countries where the government is unable, or unwilling to actively hunt them down and keep them out. Theres dozens and dozens of those.

[Moonlight Graham]

Probably the biggest thing for me against the CPC & Harper has been the ramp up in Afghanistan and their overall policy there. With the Liberals (Iggy and also Rae i believe) saying they wish to have troops stay in the area after 2011 to train Afghan forces, i'm now less keen on the Liberals.

Way to differentiate yourselves Libs.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Uncle 3 dogs]

This is profoundly ridiculous.

Neither profound nor rediculous. Perhaps a bit extreme, but going in the right direction

[William Ashley]

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.)

Nope, try again. Afghanistan wasn't even recognized by any NATO countries. They weren't fighting and arn't fighting "Afghanistan". Subnational entities normally until 2001 wouldn't even be considered "war" it would be a policing operation, or anti terrorism operation. The premise of NATO was collective security against actual threats.

Also police investigations into 911 wern't linked to the Taliban, nor to Osama - they were linked to a British/American/Pakistani Intelligence agent and military General - who was in the Sentate Intelligence Committee breifs at the time of 911 - he was linked to the wires to the accused agents in 911. NOT Usama. Regardless of all

the propaganda you may have read - the REAL TRUTH is that Usama was wanted for other reasons - but Taliban Afghanistan did not violate international law, it offered to turn Usama over to Pakistan for extradition ( a country

that recognized it at the state level). These are undisputable facts, the TRUTH. US already had war plans for the region stemming to 1988 you likely wont find that plan. Fact is though Afghanistan did not deserve to be invaded, and NATO was not justified in invading on the grounds it did. War on grounds of putting down foreign incursion or insurrection - against the UN recognized leader would be more reasonable - but sadly even he doesn't support the way

the invasion is being conducted - fact is NATO has and is violating the international rules of war - such as the geneva convention multiple times in their operations - it is an illegal and illegitimate invasion based on lies, and false grounds, and contiues to be while innocents die to support the corruption and destablization of the Taliban regime. You can not like them, but you can't deny the premise that it is based on lies, misinformation and baseless

military industrial complex grounds -eg. buy from us, we need war to support our machine - not this war on terror and war in afghanistan is reasonable - CANADA ISN"T EVEN AT WAR - it is ISAF a UN assistence force - or a UN war task force- NATO at war - and the UN at war. It is disgusting - the UN ought to not be at war, it is suppose to keep peace not exercise political powers to install goernments they support. Afghanistan re: the taliban were externally peaceful conducting domestic operations - while you can not like their law - and you can not like their religion, it is genocidal and culturally backward to in any context violate the laws of war such as the geneva convention on humanitarian grounds - when you inforcing a foreign mind to people who actually practice those cultural norms.

IT IS WRONG. and no once again.

And I rather suspect that the majority of Afghan citizens probably prefer a democratic system of government

NATO stated who could run in their elections - it ain't democratic. Likewise the US stated who could govern in Iraq- it ain't democracy it is puppet regimes.

Edited July 7, 2010 by William Ashley

[Sir Bandelot]

They're religos leaders are teaching them democacy is un-islamic.

[M.Dancer]

Seems that ol Will Ashley is a tr00ther...