Our Role in Afghanistan

[Nocrap]

I’ve read with great interest the recent unofficial debates over our involvement in

Afghanistan; and feel that as Canadians, we need to revisit our role as Peacekeepers.

After the attack on the World Trade Centre, we joined an international effort to capture

Bin Laden, dismantle al-Qaida and remove the Taliban. However, when soon after 911,

George W. Bush; capitalizing on the renewed patriotism and global sympathy; launched

his assault on Iraq; many of us took a step back. This was not what we’d signed on for.

We are now in a position where we have a new, untested government, and despite efforts

to hide behind a Tory blue smoke screen; Stephen Harper’s party is still the

Reform/Alliance with a Reform/Alliance platform, and it was his party that was so

adamant that we join the American led invasion.

Then we have as our new Minster of Defense; retired Brigadier-General Gordon

O’Connor; who plans on touring Canada to sell his party’s foreign policy. I have the

utmost respect for his credentials; but after retiring from the Canadian military, he took a

job as a lobbyist for the PR firm Hill and Knowlton. Many Canadians may remember, or

can certainly verify, that Hill and Knowlton was engaged by both the Reagan and Bush

administrations to sell the justification of war to the American people.

Now that Mr. Harper is stating that his decision to stay the course is not open for

discussion, and Peter McKay is looking at a commitment of up to ten years; we need to

force the issue. This is not about being cowards, and most Canadians, including myself,

fully support the men and women of our armed forces. However, we have no desire to

put them in harm’s way, if the initiative is just to support more American aggression. We

need to force our government to stick to our original mandate or bring our people home.

Promoting Democracy is fine; but not at the expense of our own

[Wilber]

A: The United States was attacked by a group based in Afghanistan and supported by its government. The Americans are not the aggressors in Afghanistan. It was not the US that blew up an Embassy in Nairobi and a night club in Bali. It was an organization based in Afghanistan and supported by its government.

B: There is no peace to be kept in Afghanistan.

C: Why do you want to bring the troops home? Iraq is not the same as Afghanistan, that is why we are not in Iraq.

Democracy is worthy of promoting but not defending. Interesting.

[politika]

I for one agree with our role in Afganistan and I think that we should definatly change our tactics. I strongly agree that we should follow American agression in Afganistan it would help out a lot more than trying to commit to a lost cause such as peace keeping. Right now we should have more soldiers worrying about Taliban and Alqueida insurgents than building a relationship with the Afgans, and we DEFINATLY should not be puting down our weapons when we meet with villagers as we learned a few days ago in the axe attack we should suspect everyone.

[Argus]

I’ve read with great interest the recent unofficial debates over our involvement in

Afghanistan; and feel that as Canadians, we need to revisit our role as Peacekeepers.

No, we don't. And your poll, like your statement, is crap.

[margrace]

I’ve read with great interest the recent unofficial debates over our involvement in

Afghanistan; and feel that as Canadians, we need to revisit our role as Peacekeepers.

No, we don't. And your poll, like your statement, is crap.

Canada has had a long and honourable role as a world peace maker. People who hate this role are undercover warmongers. Bush has one object in mind, world domination and people in Canada and on this site who want to join him should do so. We will not stop them from joining the US.

[Wilber]

I’ve read with great interest the recent unofficial debates over our involvement in

Afghanistan; and feel that as Canadians, we need to revisit our role as Peacekeepers.

No, we don't. And your poll, like your statement, is crap.

Canada has had a long and honourable role as a world peace maker. People who hate this role are undercover warmongers. Bush has one object in mind, world domination and people in Canada and on this site who want to join him should do so. We will not stop them from joining the US.

Margrace

Let me explain something. Canada does not have a reputation as a peace maker. We used to have a reputation as a peace keeper. In order to be a peace keeper there has to be a peace to keep. In almost all of our missions as peace keepers it has been someone else who has made the peace we have tried to keep.

Now we are trying to assume the roll of peace makers and that is why we are having so much trouble. Too many Canadians can't seem to grasp the difference.

[margrace]

Canada had a great reputation as a peace keeper but there are so many war mongers "capitalists" in this world including Chreitien and Martin that it had to be destroyed. Harper is no different, his distain for the ordinary citizen is very obvious.

How would the rich maintain their dominance if peace keeping was allowed to continue, how would we be able to prove that we are superiour to others if we promote peace, Terrible thought aye

[geoffrey]

Canada had a great reputation as a peace keeper but there are so many war mongers "capitalists" in this world including Chreitien and Martin that it had to be destroyed. Harper is no different, his distain for the ordinary citizen is very obvious.

How would the rich maintain their dominance if peace keeping was allowed to continue, how would we be able to prove that we are superiour to others if we promote peace, Terrible thought aye

Afghanistan was promoting peace. It was protecting us from al-Qaeda who was holed up there, and yes, believe it or not but 'innocent' Canada was on Osama's hit list (we're the only ones that haven't been attacked). We were protecting the rights of the women that regularly were stoned in the streets, and had no right to leave the house without a man's protection. Stuff like that. Afghanistan is a considerably better place now than it was two years ago.

Chretien was not a war mongerer, he committed us to our obligations under NATO and the UN. We have committments to the world, and only by honouring those commitments do we get protection from our allies.

[tml12]

This thread lost all credibility when it referred to the U.S. acts as aggression.

Canada is in Afghanistan to help the Americans build a democratic country and topple a corrupt anti-western government.

Canada can't sit back and promote peace unless there is peace in Afghanistan. There won't be peace in Afghanistan until the U.S. and Canada work our asses off to ensure we build a strong Afghani democracy.

[Argus]

This thread lost all credibility when it referred to the U.S. acts as aggression.

This thread was childish flame bait from the get go, and would have been deleted if Greg were around.

[Argus]

I’ve read with great interest the recent unofficial debates over our involvement in

Afghanistan; and feel that as Canadians, we need to revisit our role as Peacekeepers.

No, we don't. And your poll, like your statement, is crap.

Canada has had a long and honourable role as a world peace maker.

Well, I suppose to young people who know nothing of history 20 years might seem like "a long and honourable role". But in truth Canada's military reputation over the last century has been as extremely capable warriors and fighters - not gentle, peace loving peacekeepers - which is what I believe you were attempting to refer to.

We had a couple of decades of being peacekeepers before the Liberals reduced our army to such a size we had to largely forego them. That's all you're referring to. And even that included some pretty violent incidents, such as in Cyprus.

[no1important]

Our troops need and should get the hell out of there. America can fight their own dam wars, all us non american countries are doing is freeing US troops up for another illegal invision and occupation. I would say either Syria or Iran.

[geoffrey]

Our troops need and should get the hell out of there. America can fight their own dam wars, all us non american countries are doing is freeing US troops up for another illegal invision and occupation. I would say either Syria or Iran.

America comprises our entire national defense strategy, we are not a soverign country without full American support. Canada does not have the ability to defend itself against any attack whatsoever.

[uOttawaMan]

Our troops need and should get the hell out of there. America can fight their own dam wars, all us non american countries are doing is freeing US troops up for another illegal invision and occupation. I would say either Syria or Iran.

America comprises our entire national defense strategy, we are not a soverign country without full American support. Canada does not have the ability to defend itself against any attack whatsoever.

Apparently neither does the US.

[geoffrey]

Our troops need and should get the hell out of there. America can fight their own dam wars, all us non american countries are doing is freeing US troops up for another illegal invision and occupation. I would say either Syria or Iran.

America comprises our entire national defense strategy, we are not a soverign country without full American support. Canada does not have the ability to defend itself against any attack whatsoever.

Apparently neither does the US.

Touche.

[yorkman]

And who are you afraid of geoffrey? Who do you think is going to invade us or is capable of doing so other the the United States? The people the Americans are fighting in Iraq and that we are dealing with in Afghanistan are wielding axes; using car bombs; some grenades; guns; etc. They don't have an air force; they don't have an army with tanks and the all the bells and whistles; they don't have a navy either. So just whow are we so afraid of? And who has invaded the United States, Australia or Great Britain or Europe recently? It seems to be an argument upon which to base huge increases in military spending which seems incapable of dealing with a band of passionate insurgents who have only terrorism to use as a weapon - primarily in their own countries.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Well, I suppose to young people who know nothing of history 20 years might seem like "a long and honourable role". But in truth Canada's military reputation over the last century has been as extremely capable warriors and fighters - not gentle, peace loving peacekeepers - which is what I believe you were attempting to refer to.

We had a couple of decades of being peacekeepers before the Liberals reduced our army to such a size we had to largely forego them.

Very well said. In my opinion, destruction of the Taliban was not only needed, but an imperative. The invasion of Iraq was not.

[JMH]

I’ve read with great interest the recent unofficial debates over our involvement in

Afghanistan; and feel that as Canadians, we need to revisit our role as Peacekeepers.

After the attack on the World Trade Centre, we joined an international effort to capture

Bin Laden, dismantle al-Qaida and remove the Taliban. However, when soon after 911,

George W. Bush; capitalizing on the renewed patriotism and global sympathy; launched

his assault on Iraq; many of us took a step back. This was not what we’d signed on for.

We are now in a position where we have a new, untested government, and despite efforts

to hide behind a Tory blue smoke screen; Stephen Harper’s party is still the

Reform/Alliance with a Reform/Alliance platform, and it was his party that was so

adamant that we join the American led invasion.

Then we have as our new Minster of Defense; retired Brigadier-General Gordon

O’Connor; who plans on touring Canada to sell his party’s foreign policy. I have the

utmost respect for his credentials; but after retiring from the Canadian military, he took a

job as a lobbyist for the PR firm Hill and Knowlton. Many Canadians may remember, or

can certainly verify, that Hill and Knowlton was engaged by both the Reagan and Bush

administrations to sell the justification of war to the American people.

Now that Mr. Harper is stating that his decision to stay the course is not open for

discussion, and Peter McKay is looking at a commitment of up to ten years; we need to

force the issue. This is not about being cowards, and most Canadians, including myself,

fully support the men and women of our armed forces. However, we have no desire to

put them in harm’s way, if the initiative is just to support more American aggression. We

need to force our government to stick to our original mandate or bring our people home.

Promoting Democracy is fine; but not at the expense of our own

Canadian troop deployment in Afghanistan is simply a matter of living up to our NATO obligations........................and it's about bloody time. The U.S. happens to be a part of this organization along with every other ally we have. The forces in the region are comprised of virtually all western societies and their mission is to restore- then maintain order in an otherwise sectarian and oppresive society.

When the "Mullahs" and others, hold power in these cultures, they preach hatred and radical fundimentalism.

The results are obvious. When Nato forces establish calm, there will be an opportunity for all Afghan parents to send their children to school.............to learn SCHOOLASTICS of all things! .........and let them develop their own understanding of the world.

Peacekeeping? why do Canadians always refer to our forces as peacekeepers? As a nation , we have had a very limited role in the world as such. I suspect the media is responsable for this "POPULAR" but ignorant vision of our missions. "FLUFFY" is in tune with the "Kinder, more Gentle Nation" -I guess.

It's time that the Canadian public wake-up to the realities around them. The "West" is not popular in certain circles these days, for reasons that are both justified and otherwise. I personaly have great confidance in NATO as an organization and the mandate they carry forward.