SORRY, MR PRIME MINISTER, AFGHANISTAN IS NOT OUR WAR

[geoffrey]

Well, it will be perpetual as long as we have terrorists. It takes two to tango. The US won't be invading peace loving democracies for shits and giggles.

[Argus]

Canada did have a terrorist incident every bit as dreadful as 9/11. I refer to the bombing of the Air India flight years ago. Taking account of Canada's size, this event killed proportionately more Canadians than 9/11's American victims. While the outcome of that investigation has been disappointing, Canada never contemplated bombing Sikh communities because of it. America's logic in the war on terror is simply that ridiculous.

INDEED!

That wasn't precisely a Canadian incident. It involved Indians killing other Indians.

[Argus]

Leftists hate America and hate militarism. Rightests tend to be a lot more realistic.

After months away from Mapleleafweb, it's reassuring to find Archie Bunker-style intelligence, absurd generalizations and comic relief masquerading as political comment. It almost makes me want to return to this site more frequently.

Yes, those leftists do indeed have a history of hating militarism.

Leon Trotsky, when he founded the Red Army, was obviously "more realistic" and no doubt a right-winger.

I was speaking of Canadians, or was that not fairly evident?

[Argus]

Any "rogue nation" is only happy to see that the U.S. has chosen to send so much of its military forces outside of its own territory; it makes it easier to perpetrate "terrorist" activities right inside the U.S.

Evidently not.

[Argus]

So this brings to the front of a 'perpetual war' no distinct enemy, no distinct location. This is dangerous ground, this can drag out forever, and when would you know that you are done??

It's called civilization. The constant struggle between us and the barbarian hordes, between those who build and those who tear down.

At this particular point in time the West, unhappily led by the US, are those who build.

Most of those who want to destroy appear to be Muslims. Make of that what you will.

[normanchateau]

Afghanistan has the same rule of law under the new government as they did under the Taliban. And you are saying they are free now? Yes free to do the same thing they HAVE been doing.

True, Afghanistan still has the legal right to execute Muslims who convert to Christianity...a right they had under the Taliban. But thanks to the US invasion, Iraq now also has an Islamic constitution. No weapons of mass destruction were found but at least an Islamic theocracy has replaced a secular dictatorship. And as Iraqi Shi'ites and Sunnis kill each other, terrorists will no doubt cease to exist.

[normanchateau]

I was speaking of Canadians, or was that not fairly evident?

Oh yes, of course those military-hating Canadian leftists did not participate in World War II.

[Guest Warwick Green]

THe only reason people think he is an evil war monger is because he is fighting the war on terror they do the same to Gore if he was the president of the United States today.

If Gore had won in 2000, after 9/11 he would have had to invade Afghanistan too to go after Al Qaeda. But he clearly would not have invaded Iraq.

[fixer1]

The afghanistan conflict is no longer a war, in only that it has alreadt unseated the old Taliban and replaced it with a new government chosen by the people. So while yes there is a part of this that has aggressive tactics and is very dangerous just by nature. It is exactly the type of action Canada is known for. Canadians are so well known that you only have to be wearing the maple leaf flag while in the Netherlands, and people will come and shake your hand thanking you for all those things Canadians did in the WWII. We were a freeing force back then and we had a reputation of being well trained and a trustworthy army. That is what we are once again doing all over the world. Our troops are trained in peace keeping, but you all must think that we never fire a shot in any of this, and that is completely wrong. Our troops have probably the best reputation of any troops when it comes to being an force for rebuilding.

We also have a very prized group of elite soldiers and special ops forces that are well trained and equipped. These when deployed will by there very nature be in hostile areas, and yes they will kill and seek out the enemy. That is why we have these men and women. The forces in Afghanistan are mostly peacekeeping and infastructure rebuilding. About 25% are really battle trained and field ready units, and yes they do their job as well as anybody else. Unfortunately, back here in Canada we have those who just prey on the fact that some of these soldiers pay from their own money to get some things that make them more comfortable and there fore more alert, and may save their or someone else's life. These people will make political hay of any and everything because they can not understand why they did so lousey in the last elections and for them, there is nothing better then this type of garbage to bring up. They could not care anything for those in the field, but they will say different. If there were a large body count, they would be almost euphoric in attacking the present administration. By watch them deny this, almost with enough passion to make it seem that maybe they are not gloating.

I watched Layton today yap about having an emergency debate on this and there is no emergency at hand. He says that the agreement to hand prisoners to the Afghan authorities, could have been misrepresented, and yet he admits he has no evidence or anything even pointing to this direction. He was easily portrayed as an idiot by the newscaster, and he just was not even prepared when he was asked questions about his position. His only plan is to may a public display about how the NDP will force the PC's to make a change in anything good or bad, so he can claim next election that his party has some value. It is so easily seen that it shames me to watch. I must admit I do not watch much anymore when he is on as I have a limit on how much garbage I ingest at one time.

The Liberals have been shaking the bushes as well, trying to paint Harper with the Bush brush. While yes there are many commonalities, there also are just as many differences. The scoop of the day is that Bush will present a prize to Canada this week, when Harper meets him and Fox in Cancun Mx. Of course it must have nothing to do with maybe having a more open releationship, or could it have been for some work that may well have been done to get what ever this Prize as the news calls it.

The Block will not be for the troops in Afghanistan, as they will take money away that could be given to Quebec. It seems that even before the throne speech is done and a speaker appointed. The scrums will have all been started and the battling well in to it. There is no need to discuss what is happening in Afghanistan and there is no need to ask the public's permission to be there.

[Argus]

I was speaking of Canadians, or was that not fairly evident?

Oh yes, of course those military-hating Canadian leftists did not participate in World War II.

Oh of course they participated. First, they participated by demanding we not arm, and not confront anyone, and stay away from the conflict. Then, after the Germans attacked the Soviet Union, they suddenly became downright warlike.

[GostHacked]

So this brings to the front of a 'perpetual war' no distinct enemy, no distinct location. This is dangerous ground, this can drag out forever, and when would you know that you are done??

It's called civilization. The constant struggle between us and the barbarian hordes, between those who build and those who tear down.

At this particular point in time the West, unhappily led by the US, are those who build.

Most of those who want to destroy appear to be Muslims. Make of that what you will.

Cambodia.

Vietnam.

Korea.

Ukraine

Belarus

Kosovo.... ect.

Now that there is no more global threat of communism, there needs to be another enemy to keep the military industrial complex going. And the Muslims are getting the brow beating.

If you want to bring peace you should be nurturing these people. Helping them come into the 21st century. Bringing freedom through military might will not solve those issues, not this time.

The US does alot of tear down as well. The US builds where they see they have the advantage.

[uOttawaMan]

So this brings to the front of a 'perpetual war' no distinct enemy, no distinct location. This is dangerous ground, this can drag out forever, and when would you know that you are done??

It's called civilization. The constant struggle between us and the barbarian hordes, between those who build and those who tear down.

At this particular point in time the West, unhappily led by the US, are those who build.

Most of those who want to destroy appear to be Muslims. Make of that what you will.

Did you say the conflict between "us" as in Western Culture and barbarian hordes.. are did you say the US.

Either way, saying Muslims are the onces destroying while Muslim nations are being invaded is laughable.

[politika]

Politika

Afghanistan has the same rule of law under the new government as they did under the Taliban. And you are saying they are free now? Yes free to do the same thing they HAVE been doing. Liberation ment nothing.

Canada cannot be a country of peace forever

The US cannot be a war mongering country forever.

If you have watched the news lately you would no the war on terror doesn't stop at Afganistan. AFgainistan is just a minor country on the United States terror list. I am just saying if we end the war on terror which INCLUDES Afganistan than the countries we and the US pulls out of we will just see a new terrorist government which will commit terror activites on North American soil.

I am saying a terririst attack was commited on North American soil and its are job to defend it no matter what the costs are.

We would KNOW that the war on terrorism does not stop with Iran either. Yes I did say Iran. The US government (mostly the CIA) IS a terrorist organization.

I don't trust their faulty intelligence at all. Hell I don't even trust our intelligence community.

There is no real world terrorist threat to the US. IF that was the case, alot more 'domestic terrorism' would be going on. But thanks to 9/11 the Patriot Act and the NSA helped to thwart other attacks. America is once again safe.

The US will always be war mongering but thats their job I guess,

I honestly have to admit I do not trust Bush either but he is not an evil terrorist liek the media iis saying. THe only reason people think he is an evil war monger is because he is fighting the war on terror they do the same to Gore if he was the president of the United States today. As for the CIA I trust them they are not going to lie in the name of the president. What is wrong with out inteligence community? CSIS is finding terror cells within Canada as the US CIA are in their country.

THeir is mroe terrorism going on Mandrid bombings, Australian bomb, 911, and after the british transit bombings that really pissed the world off and now we are fighting a war.

We are fighting a war it is no different from World War 2 We are fighting for freedom. What is it going to take for you people to realise that their is terorism goign on? When we Canada are attacked on our own soil. WE ARE FIGHTING THIS WAR TO PREVENT THAT!

So this brings to the front of a 'perpetual war' no distinct enemy, no distinct location. This is dangerous ground, this can drag out forever, and when would you know that you are done??

So we don't know who they are? We don't know their location? Would you rather we sat back and did nothing, let the terrorists attack our home land gost? Thats what your saying, your saying just because this may not end and we dont know who they are we should just let them attack us.

[Argus]

It's called civilization. The constant struggle between us and the barbarian hordes, between those who build and those who tear down.

At this particular point in time the West, unhappily led by the US, are those who build.

Most of those who want to destroy appear to be Muslims. Make of that what you will.

Did you say the conflict between "us" as in Western Culture and barbarian hordes.. are did you say the US.

Either way, saying Muslims are the onces destroying while Muslim nations are being invaded is laughable.

The US is obviously a part of Western Culture, and I don't consider the Muslim world to be civilized.

[scribblet]

Canada had a military commitment to enforcing the sham of an embargo in Iraq until after the coalition reoccupation of Iraq. We had military personnel in harm's way during the invasion, despite our government refusing to admit it.

Our commitment to Afghanistan is a response to the new threat of international terrorism that is not sponsored by any particular nation. Unlike previous wars which have pitted nations against nations, terrorists operate covertly without any official sanction.

There is no precedent for combating this threat to our security and democracy.

Afghanistan was a major terrorist base. The terrorist training bases had to be taken out. We have to allow Afghanistan to form a democratic government to prevent return of the terrorists and rebuilding of their bases.

The terrorists could not afford to lose Iraq, and threw in resources from all over the world to defeat the collation. Not only have they failed, but terrorist, and in particular foreign terrorists are no longer able to threaten the Iraqi, who grow more defiant as time passes. They are tired of having gunmen murder them at random.

The Iraq war has taken a toll of terrorist organization and power. Many of the leaders have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan and the London and Madrid bombings were carried out by some of the remaining

leaders at the time. They are the hunted rather than the hunters at present. We need to keep it that way.

Governments in Afghanistan and Iraq will face continued terrorist threats. We need to provide policing and military assistance while these governments develop the trained people and equipment to deal

with the terrorists themselves.

In my mind, it is a clear case of teaching people how to fish. Once they acquire the skills along with some basic infrastructure, they will no longer be a dependent and can become strong allies of the west.

We cannot escape the ugly fact that the brutality employed by terrorists to coerce and subjugate local populations is exactly the brutality that they wish to employ on western societies.

There is no argument, debate or negotiation with radical terrorists. We kill them or are subject to their tyranny. We allow our military to fight them where they find them or we fight for our lives at

home.

[scribblet]

Leftists hate America and hate militarism. Rightests tend to be a lot more realistic.

After months away from Mapleleafweb, it's reassuring to find Archie Bunker-style intelligence, absurd generalizations and comic relief masquerading as political comment. It almost makes me want to return to this site more frequently.

If you don't like it here why come back and throw insults and ad hominems, your comments are out of line in this forum, and against the rules. IMO anyway,

[cybercoma]

Cambodia.

Vietnam.

Korea.

Ukraine

Belarus

Kosovo.... ect.

Now that there is no more global threat of communism, there needs to be another enemy to keep the military industrial complex going. And the Muslims are getting the brow beating.

If you want to bring peace you should be nurturing these people. Helping them come into the 21st century. Bringing freedom through military might will not solve those issues, not this time.

The US does alot of tear down as well. The US builds where they see they have the advantage.

You mean when people fly airplanes into buildings where civilians are working, blow themselves up on buses where civilians are travelling and kidnap civilians only to decapitate them later, we should nurture these people? We should try to be understanding with these people? We should give in to the demands of people who would murder innocent civilians? These are the same people who will attack troops and hide in residential areas using civilians as human shields.

Do we negotiate with these people, do they deserve nurturing, should we extend an olive branch to them? Absolutely not, this behaviour should never be rewarded. The people that are terrorized by these elements around the world deserve our protection, whether they're on our soil or elsewhere. And it's incredibly selfish of the people calling for us to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq to make such a foolish request.

[Army Guy]

Gosthack:

Now that there is no more global threat of communism, there needs to be another enemy to keep the military industrial complex going. And the Muslims are getting the brow beating.

What you really mean is that the threat of communism is not as great as the threat of terrorism at this time.

to say that communism is not a concern of the western powers is wrong. And to think them as dead or not a threat is dangerous.

China has 2.5 million men under arms today plus another 1.5 mil in the reserves

korea has just over 1 mil under arms plus another 500,000 in the reserves.

Russia has just under 1 mil under arms, plus another mil in the reserves.

Cuba has just over 200,000 under arms, plus another 700,000 in the reserves.

The muslim states have always been a problem in the world, dating back to after WWII, but was never seriously looked at because the east presented a bigger concern. Now that it has fadded a bit, the entire middle east has been put under the microscope. And for good reason.

The military industrial complex does not drive the west economy, yes it may be a fator but not the sole driving force, your making it sound like all western contries must remain at war in order for them to prosper. Not true.

If you want to bring peace you should be nurturing these people. Helping them come into the 21st century. Bringing freedom through military might will not solve those issues, not this time.

Perhaps you can give one example of your nurturing concept that has produced results. people or nations who use force to gain what they want can only be stopped with the threat of force or thru the use of force itself. throwing them donuts or money will not deter them.

Freedom through military force for the most part does work, history is full of examples. Walk tall and carry a big stick.

[Montgomery Burns]

Wow, Argus singlehandedly whupped the pacifists on this thread. Post #2 was an A++.

Army Guy:

Freedom through military force for the most part does work, history is full of examples. Walk tall and carry a big stick.

So true. These thugs see appeasement as a sign of weakness; they only understand brute force. Look at Neville Chamberlain. He gave Hitler the Sudetenland (Sept 29, 1938 Munich Agreement) because Hitler promised not to make any further territorial demands in Europe. A year later, Europe exploded--again.

Iran wasn't too worried about Jimmy Carter but Reagan was another matter.

Uday Hussein's bodyguard stated that Uday told him (I'm paraphrasing), "I was never worried much about Clinton, but I think that Bush is serious."

[Black Dog]

Thus is Afghanistan inextricably linked, in the minds of the Left, to support for the United States.

Opposition to our support for the UN and NATO mission of rebuilding Afghanistan (not "war") has two main branches, one of which often compliments the other.

I love how right wingers run for the cover of international legitimacy when it suits them to do so. Very dishonest, given the usual amount of bile spilled towards the UN and the very concept of multilateralism. Also: the Canadian mission in Khandahar is under U.S. command, not NATO or the UN.

First, there is that vitriolic hate of the Unites States in general, and the Bush government in particular, which is now widespread among the Canadian Left. There is little justification for either, but hate isn't about reasoning, but emotionalism, and emotionalism is the basis of most Leftist ideology. To the Left, our mission in Afghanistan has nothing to do with helping the people there (who, lets' face it, they don't care about anyway) and everything to do with helping Americans.

Well, the mission is helping Americans, so there you go.

Second is an almost reflexive anti-militarism inspired by a Canadian media who are almost universally trendy, urban, fat, smug and happy. We're talking about people who would get lost in a city park without a guide, and who would react to any physical confrontation by throwing up their hands in terror and squealing like little girls. These are the people, sadly, who make culture, who propogade their ideals and beliefs. Those who have always been looked after, who have never known want or fear or danger cannot comprehend the reality of a world where bad men dominate. They are smart enough to know that soldiers have to carry guns but can't help looking askance at them anyway. Canadians and guns don't go together in their minds, and the thought Canadian soldiers might actually, well, be rude to people, has them all gasping like fish out of water. Worse! They might be rude to ethnic people! Aagghh!

Ah yes, so says the man comfortably ensconced in his own little suburban life, who suckles at the teat of this socialist state. Such a brave man you are on the internet!

CTV, which is rapidly deteriorating in my mind, to a standard below tabloid television, led a discussion the other day with talk of how Canadians don't support the "war" in Afghanistan, and that "now that the body bags have started coming home" we need a rethink.

The bodybags coming home? We had a traffic accident which killed two soldiers. If it had happened in Canada the media wouldn't even have covered it. But because it was in Afghanistan there was wall to wall national coverage. Even the funeral was covered! It was a traffic accident! Sheesh!

In the past, Canadian soldiers killed abroad in action were laid to rest in the country they died in. But the U.S. brings their home and that's good enough for us now. But I digress. The point is Canada can't sustain a large number of casualties.

There's that reflexive anti-westernism which I've seen more and more of over the past decade. The presumption that Western Canadians are somehow hard-hearted bumpkins out of touch with the more culturally enlightened and sophisticated denizens of Toronto... more than half of whose citizens, btw, are foreign born. There seems to be a growing resentment among the literati in central Canada towards the western Canadian cultural belief that people should take responsibility for their own actions, and that government is not there to solve each and every problem each and every one of us faces in life. Western Canada's habit of voting conservative has them fretting and fuming and now sneering condescendingly at all westerners. Oddly, no such attitude is shown towards Quebecers who insist on voting seperatist.

Apprently, the government should not solve each and every problem, unless you live in Afghanistan.

Ignorance about Canada's place in the world, its history and reputation abound among the Left. They cherish this fanciful ideal that Canada is seen as a great and shining knight of truth, justice and peace by all. But they forget the fact that knights are, at their base, known for killing people. According to yesterday's newspaper Canada places 50th in the world in terms of its contribution to UN peacekeeping. You won't find any recognition of that among the Left. They still seem to think our world reputation is as the great peacekeepers, admired by all for our noble efforts on the world's behalf. As for the fact our soldiers have a stirling, historical reputation for ferocity in battle, well, knowledge of history among the left only extends to those events and periods with which they are emotionally comfortable.

The Aghan mission is really about Canada continuing its fine tradition as a lapdog for powerful nations. When Empire calls we answer "Ready, Aye Ready!"

Everyone even remotely knowledgeable about Afghanistan states with utter certainty that the pullout of western troops now would lead to the immediate disintigration of the Afghan government and civil war. It's breathtaking that the Left swoons about the idea of Canada helping people throughout the world with peacekeeping, but snivels in complaint when the need to employ force might actually arise - especially where there are (ick!) American interests involved. Mushy headed emotionalism mixed up with bizarre anti-American political correctness is not a basis for foreign policy, and I'm glad Canada's government ignores the bleating of the Left.

No you much prefer the mushy-headed idealism of the right, which aspires to build a nation where none has stood before, to bring democracy to a country where people can't even read, to promote western liberal ideals in a country that has rejected every attempt to liberalize and modernize it in the past century and change. But it's not really about that: right wingers are always willing to abandon pragmatism if it serves the greater good, which is basically about the fact that men in tanks killing brown people gives right wingers a collective boner.

[Wilber]

A little aside here.

A couple of days ago a Canadian and an American soldier were killed in the same action in Afghanistan. Yesterday I am watching the news and there is a story on an American deserter's refugee hearing going on in Canada. Is this one stupid country or what?

[Black Dog]

A couple of days ago a Canadian and an American soldier were killed in the same action in Afghanistan. Yesterday I am watching the news and there is a story on an American deserter's refugee hearing going on in Canada. Is this one stupid country or what?

Technically, isn't that two stupid countries? Or is it three?

[Wilber]

I find the inability of some to relate themselves or their country in any other terms than the US kind of sad. Whatever would they do if the US wasn't there? Who else could they blame our foreign policy (or lack of) on?

"No you much prefer the mushy-headed idealism of the right, which aspires to build a nation where none has stood before, to bring democracy to a country where people can't even read, to promote western liberal ideals in a country that has rejected every attempt to liberalize and modernize it in the past century and change. But it's not really about that: right wingers are always willing to abandon pragmatism if it serves the greater good, which is basically about the fact that men in tanks killing brown people gives right wingers a collective boner."

What do you stand for other than not being involved in anything that involves Americans?

I guess we could pull out of Afghanistan, let the Taliban take over and make it a place for Al Qaeda to regroup and plan another 9/11. When that happens the west would have to bomb the crap out of them and invade again. Much better than trying to help them build a country.

We don't have to make them adopt western ideals. That is not realistic but trying to help them at least part of the way into the 20th century can't be a bad thing. We do need a government in place that doesn't actively support international terrorism.

Afghanistan was invaded because a group in airplanes ran them into buildings containing people of many different nationalities, colours and religions.

[Black Dog]

I find the inability of some to relate themselves or their country in any other terms than the US kind of sad. Whatever would they do if the US wasn't there? Who else could they blame our foreign policy (or lack of) on?

Such plaintive hypotheticals are about as valuable as saying "If i were a tree, what tree would I be?"

What do you stand for other than not being involved in anything that involves Americans?

Is it my fault that the last few ill-conceived military adventures were spearheaded by the Yanks? If this were 1914, you can bet I'd be wondering what the hell we're doing sending our boys to die in France.

I guess we could pull out of Afghanistan, let the Taliban take over and make it a place for Al Qaeda to regroup and plan another 9/11. When that happens the west would have to bomb the crap out of them and invade again. Much better than trying to help them build a country.

blrgglh.

We're dealing with enouh assumptions here as to make one's head explode. For example: the Taliban assumption. If people hate the Taliban (as everyone seem sto think), and the Taliban have been clobbered so bad, what's the problem? Why is the success of the Taliban a predetermined outcome? And if so, why?

We don't have to make them adopt western ideals. That is not realistic but trying to help them at least part of the way into the 20th century can't be a bad thing. We do need a government in place that doesn't actively support international terrorism.

I find the assumption that any government but the one we give them would support international terrorism to be a bit baffling.

[Wilber]

"Such plaintive hypotheticals are about as valuable as saying "If i were a tree, what tree would I be?"

Well, what tree would you be? Would you have us throw all our alliances in the dumpster and only react if Canada is attacked directly? Who could we depend on to support us in that case? Well, you know those big bad Americans would in spite of ourselves. Thats the beauty of being a Canadian, those big bad Americans have to defend us no matter how much we trash them, in order to protect themselves.

This war started when the Taliban backed Al Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11, or was it when they attacked their embassy in Nairobi, or was it when they attacked the USS Cole, or was it when they tried to blow up the Trade Center the first time in 91, not when coalition troops invaded Afghanistan.

What news have you been watching? Who the hell do you think they are fighting over there? It was the Taliban that attacked the outpost where those two soldiers were just killed. Do you think the war lords will suddenly unite against them if we leave?

What do you mean by the government we give them? Who wants to give them a government? The idea is ridiculous, no government we impose upon them can last. The present government was elected. Many Afghanis thought it important enough that they risked getting murdered on the way to polling stations and some were. How many Canadians would have the guts to do that? I don't believe the Taliban ever held an election while they were in power nor do I believe they gained power in the first place by being elected, or will they if they happen to gain power again.