SORRY, MR PRIME MINISTER, AFGHANISTAN IS NOT OUR WAR

[mcqueen625]

March 25, 2006

SORRY, MR PRIME MINISTER, AFGHANISTAN IS NOT OUR WAR

John Chuckman

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he has trouble understanding Canadians who feel ardently that their country's soldiers should not be involved in Afghanistan.

Toronto Globe and Mail

* Remaining Post removed due to cross-posting *

Admin

Don't attempt to lay this off on Stephen Harper and the Conservatives since it was Chretien who sent our troops there under as part of a NATO expeditionary force, and it was Martin who sent even more soldiers there. I might add under-equipped, and dressed in "Olive Drab" to a desert location. Nothing like making our boys a target. Let's also not forget the fact that we had to hire a foreign transport aircraft to get this inappropriate equipment to Afghanistan.

Stephen Harper did what neither Chretien or Martin had the balls to do, and that was to visit with the troops where they live and fight. That was the right thing to do, because above all else these soldiers are risking their lives to help improve the lot of the Afghan people, especialy the women and children who upon the establishment of a Taliban government immediately reelegated females to mere property with no right to made decision nor to receive an education. I think that ideal is worth sending troops to re-establish. Not only was the visit the right thing to do for the stated reasons but it also shows our troops that we support their efforts.

[Montgomery Burns]

"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."

Just another example of the bigotry of the left.

Those Afghanis are just second class brown people.

They don't deserve to be free; they are incapable.

They deserve nothing better than to live under the boot of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

[Insom Elvis]

Let's retreat now.

That should send a clear message to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban that they should murder our troops and innocent civilians because they'll get their way. We should allow Afghanistan to fall under oppressive dictatorial rule again, because that would send a clear message to the world what Canada stands for and defends.

Great idea, bleeding-hearts.

Agreed. It is a risk either way, for both the U.S. and Canada. We can pull out now and prove to the world we have no intent to follow through on our promises of stopping terrorism or protecting the people who aided us in the countries involved, who will surely be tortured and executed. Our other option keeps us engaged in combat for who knows how long and for an undetermined length of time, causing more casualities, expense and dissent among opposers of the war. Personally I think Bush will keep the U.S. engaged until the next election where a democratic president will be elected and pull us out of all conflict immediately. Whatever good or harm this does, Bush's hands are clean of the action and it'll be up to a new president to solve a still ongoing problem. One thing I can say for certain is if terrorists strike at either of our contries after a full withdrawal of forces we will once again have to consider taking the battle back to their soil and the hell away from ours.

[Black Dog]

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?

I know they've been telling us the folks "we're" fighting are Taliban. But that don't make it so. It's a little surreal to have people go on about the threat posed by the big bad Taliban when just a few years ago, we were being told that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were broken and scattered, their leaders dead or captured, yadda yadda yadda. So what are we dealing with here. I sure don't know, but I find any model where anyone who fights the U.S. and company in Afghanistan is automatically labeled "Taliban" to be mighty simplistic and highly questionable.

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

Again with the fetishization of elections, as though that in and of itself was evidence of any thing. Well, Saddam Hussein held elections too. So did the Soviet Union. That doesn't make them meaningful. And in a country where the government can't even leave the capital, where government members are routinely targeted for assasnination and where much of the country is run by local tribal warlords, an election is an empty excercise indeed.

Just another example of the bigotry of the left.

Those Afghanis are just second class brown people.

They don't deserve to be free; they are incapable.

They deserve nothing better than to live under the boot of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

There's an actual discussion happening here: your masturbation fantasies are not necessary.

[Wilber]

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?

I know they've been telling us the folks "we're" fighting are Taliban. But that don't make it so. It's a little surreal to have people go on about the threat posed by the big bad Taliban when just a few years ago, we were being told that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were broken and scattered, their leaders dead or captured, yadda yadda yadda. So what are we dealing with here. I sure don't know, but I find any model where anyone who fights the U.S. and company in Afghanistan is automatically labeled "Taliban" to be mighty simplistic and highly questionable.

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

Again with the fetishization of elections, as though that in and of itself was evidence of any thing. Well, Saddam Hussein held elections too. So did the Soviet Union. That doesn't make them meaningful. And in a country where the government can't even leave the capital, where government members are routinely targeted for assasnination and where much of the country is run by local tribal warlords, an election is an empty excercise indeed.

Just another example of the bigotry of the left.

Those Afghanis are just second class brown people.

They don't deserve to be free; they are incapable.

They deserve nothing better than to live under the boot of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

There's an actual discussion happening here: your masturbation fantasies are not necessary.

Boy, you sure know a lot about what is going on over there. Where do you get the real truth.

Elections are a fetish and murder to maintain power is where it is at. Stalin would be proud.

Back to this

"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."

WWI was not spearheaded by the Yanks. I doubt very much you would have reacted in such a manner but don't take it personally. Canada in 1914 was a very different country with different allegiances and different standards. Nearly one Canadian in ten joined the military and every one was a volunteer. Right or wrong it was a war that had great support from the vast majority of Canadians and actively opposing it might have proved dangerous to ones health in many parts of Canada.

[Black Dog]

Boy, you sure know a lot about what is going on over there. Where do you get the real truth.

Elections are a fetish and murder to maintain power is where it is at. Stalin would be proud.

Nice strawman. Care to debate me instead?

WWI was not spearheaded by the Yanks.

No shit. That's not what I said.

I doubt very much you would have reacted in such a manner but don't take it personally. Canada in 1914 was a very different country with different allegiances and different standards. Nearly one Canadian in ten joined the military and every one was a volunteer. Right or wrong it was a war that had great support from the vast majority of Canadians and actively opposing it might have proved dangerous to ones health in many parts of Canada.

And it was still a wrong-headed, utterly pointless waste of life that did not serve Canada's interests.

[Wilber]

"Nice strawman. Care to debate me instead?"

Just wondering where you get the information that makes you write the country off when those who are there taking the risks have not.

You are the one that said elections are a fetish, not me.

"And it was still a wrong-headed, utterly pointless waste of life that did not serve Canada's interests."

It was most certainly a wrong headed, utterly pointless waste of life but historically it was very much in Canada's interests. Wars generally are wrong headed and pointless but unfortunately that doesn't mean many of them don't have to be fought anyway.

It is said that Canada became a country at Vimy Ridge. Maybe that is an over simplification but WWI was a defining moment in determining the country Canada would become. Countries just don't come into being as a finished product, they are the sum of their history and the actions and sacrifices of its citizens over a period of time. WW1 and WWII have everything to do with the peace, prosperity and good fortune you and I have enjoyed in our lifetime.

I don't know if Afghanistan will become a defining moment in this country's history but it may remind us that all we have is not some divine entitlement but was paid for with the blood of Canadians in years past. Peace keeping is wonderful but first someone has to pay the price of peace.

[Black Dog]

Just wondering where you get the information that makes you write the country off when those who are there taking the risks have not.

You are the one that said elections are a fetish, not me.

And why did I say elections are a fetish and for whom are they a fetish? Because any time doubts are raised about how successful the bid to democratize Afghanistan (or Iraq, for tthat matter), the response inevitably mentions the elections, as if elections alone are sine qua non of democracy.

Follow?

I don't know if Afghanistan will become a defining moment in this country's history but it may remind us that all we have is not some divine entitlement but was paid for with the blood of Canadians in years past. Peace keeping is wonderful but first someone has to pay the price of peace.

Well, to accept that, one would have to accept first the highly specious premise that our involvement in Afghanistan is essential to maintaining our freedoms. I don't see how Canadian soldiers chasing a bunch of poppy farmers and brigands around a desolate wasteland is in any way serving our interests.

[Wilber]

"And why did I say elections are a fetish and for whom are they a fetish? Because any time doubts are raised about how successful the bid to democratize Afghanistan (or Iraq, for tthat matter), the response inevitably mentions the elections, as if elections alone are sine qua non of democracy.

Follow?"

No.

[Black Dog]

Ooooookay.

let me spell it out for you: you said:

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

Elections do not equal democracy.

[Wilber]

Ooooookay.

let me spell it out for you: you said:

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

Elections do not equal democracy.

True, but try and have a democracy without one.

[Black Dog]

True, but try and have a democracy without one.

So what? How does that factoid relate to Afghanistan?

[Wilber]

True, but try and have a democracy without one.

So what? How does that factoid relate to Afghanistan?

How does it not relate to Afgahanistan? What makes you the final arbitrator of which elections constitute a democracy and which don't? This is getting really stupid.

[Black Dog]

What makes you the final arbitrator of which elections constitute a democracy and which don't?

I never claimed such a thing. I would posit, though, that elections are meaningless excercises in countries that lack the necessary components of a functioning civil society (such as economic prosperity, social cohesion, educated populace).

[Black Dog]

Harper flip flops: allows Afghan debate

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has agreed to opposition demands and will allow a debate in the House of Commons about Canada's military role in Afghanistan.

However, there will be no vote on the mission. The discussion is being characterized as a "take-note" debate to allow politicians to express their views.

[lost&outofcontrol]

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.

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.

Wow! Who do you think helped the terrorist(Taliban) come to power in Afghanistan? The CIA trained the damn Taliban and actually funded them through their violent overthrow of the local Afghan government in 1996 all the way up to 1999. Since the US invaded Afghanistan, the heroin production has peaked at an all time high in Afghanistan(the Taliban had cut production by 85%). The US funded and supported terrorist organizations in

Macedonia. Then we have Nicaragua in relation to Iran contra affair, the overthrow and abduction of a democratically elected socialist .gov in Haiti, the violent overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chili in favour of Pinochet, the list goes on and on concerning US funded terrorism.

The war on terrorism is a sham, they create a big bad boogey man and we blindly follow over the edge. Any nation harboring terrorist is not safe according to the US .gov, well then I guess we should take a long hard look at ourselves.

Read this, you can thank me latter.

[cybercoma]

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.

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.

Wow! Who do you think helped the terrorist(Taliban) come to power in Afghanistan? The CIA trained the damn Taliban and actually funded them through their violent overthrow of the local Afghan government in 1996 all the way up to 1999. Since the US invaded Afghanistan, the heroin production has peaked at an all time high in Afghanistan(the Taliban had cut production by 85%). The US funded and supported terrorist organizations in

Macedonia. Then we have Nicaragua in relation to Iran contra affair, the overthrow and abduction of a democratically elected socialist .gov in Haiti, the violent overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chili in favour of Pinochet, the list goes on and on concerning US funded terrorism.

The war on terrorism is a sham, they create a big bad boogey man and we blindly follow over the edge. Any nation harboring terrorist is not safe according to the US .gov, well then I guess we should take a long hard look at ourselves.

Read this, you can thank me latter.

Do you want to provide a credible source for your heroin production statistic? Last I read, the new government of Afghanistan was workng on destroying the poppy crops.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Do you want to provide a credible source for your heroin production statistic? Last I read, the new government of Afghanistan was workng on destroying the poppy crops.

Last you heard was propaganda from Washington, they are doing a great job(page 9) in restoring production.