Canadian troops to stay in Afghanistan

[Leafless]

Canadian troops will remain in Afghanistan for another two years.

A motion was passed in parliament approving this by a mere four votes, 149-145.

Key Liberal leadership candidates voted against this motion as did the Bloc who were expected to support it with previous Liberal leader Paul Martin absent.

Whether you think this is a good or bad move is entirely dependent on who you support and your reasons for acceptance or rejection for this extension.

See story at:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...8d60a2d&k=51523

[Montgomery Burns]

Wow. Harper is really on a roll. Even I am surprised.

What a brilliant display of political gamesmanship. Harper masterfully sized up the Liberals and won. They wanted a debate and got it. They wanted a vote and got it. The left screamed about the timing because their allies in the MSM weren’t going to be able to milk this for weeks on end. The NDP, as usual, made sure their caucus was anything but democratic. Toe the line, you socialists.

And Paul Martin didn't even be bother to show up.

What a difference a 100 days can make.

[Nocrap]

Wow. Harper is really on a roll. Even I am surprised.

What a brilliant display of political gamesmanship. Harper masterfully sized up the Liberals and won. They wanted a debate and got it. They wanted a vote and got it. The left screamed about the timing because their allies in the MSM weren’t going to be able to milk this for weeks on end. The NDP, as usual, made sure their caucus was anything but democratic. Toe the line, you socialists.

And Paul Martin didn't even be bother to show up.

What a difference a 100 days can make.

Despite the "free vote Harper"'s claims of allowing his MPs to make their own decisions, to date they have all voted with him, so we can always expect at least 125 votes for any issue he brings up. He won't even let them speak so why would he let them think independantly. However, if the NDP stick together they are tyranical socialists. A bit biased, but then what else is new.

Two more years in Afghanistan - soldiers lose - Canadians lose - Hill & Knowlton clients: cha-ching, cha-ching.

Just remember that when the Canadian people, who already feel uncomfortable with this war; demand that we no longer put our soldiers in such grave danger to appease the US war machine; we will remember that the NDP tried to bring our soldiers home, but Harper had far too many promises to keep to his campaign contributors, who are enjoying the profits of war; to allow that to happen.

Again, the NDP appear to be the only voice of reason and are looking better all the time.

[Argus]

Despite the "free vote Harper"'s claims of allowing his MPs to make their own decisions, to date they have all voted with him, so we can always expect at least 125 votes for any issue he brings up. He won't even let them speak so why would he let them think independantly. However, if the NDP stick together they are tyranical socialists. A bit biased, but then what else is new.

Yeah and I'm sure that has nothing to do with Jack Layton unhesitantly - even proudly firing anyone who dares to vote differently than him.

Two more years in Afghanistan - soldiers lose - Canadians lose - Hill & Knowlton clients: cha-ching, cha-ching.

The thing about you lefties is all you care about is money. No matter what decision a government makes, pro or con, someone is going to make money, and that horrifies you because, well, you ain't got none.

Just remember that when the Canadian people, who already feel uncomfortable with this war; demand that we no longer put our soldiers in such grave danger to appease the US war machine;

This is the real reason for the left's hatred of the Afghanistan mission. Somehow, they have it in their tiny heads that it means we're allied military with the great satan. This is why that nitwit Layton, after railling against the violence of miltarism and how horrible it is that Canadian troops aren't politely allowing themselves to simply be kidnapped as in Bosnia, then suggested we take all the troops from Afghanistan and send them to Darfur. It's not that Darfur would be any less dangerous, but there aren't any Americans there so Jack can feel clean again. Besides, there's Black people. It's much more politically correct to die on behalf of Black people than on behalf of brown people, and probably more votes in it for socialists. I bet Jack would be on the first plane to Darfur to pose with the troops (pictures to show up in every riding with large Black populations in the Toronto area the next week).

we will remember that the NDP tried to bring our soldiers home,

No, the NDP tried to send our troops to Darfur, or had you forgotten that? And don't you think it's just slightly disingenuous to imply the left gives a damn about our soldiers? Decades of disdain and contempt have proven otherwise.

[scribblet]

Excellent post Argus. The liberals are quite funny, they wanted a vote, then protested when they got one - they needed 'more information'. Right - Graham and other liberals have all the informatio they need, if they didn't, then they were asleep at the switch when in power. This is strictly political games with no thought to the troops or the Afghani people. One MP actually said that the anti U.S. rhetoric helped him to vote yes.

The mission there was never a peace mission, it was always to be there as part of a transition team until NATO took over.

Guess Martin had to stay away as voting no would have made him a bigger hypocrite then the rest of them.

[Wilber]

The mission there was never a peace mission, it was always to be there as part of a transition team until NATO took over.

We are NATO.

[August1991]

An interesting point about this vote is that it split the Liberals, and specifically the leading Liberal leadership candidates. Dion voted against the motion and Ignatieff voted for it. I suppose Rae would have voted against if he'd had a seat in the House.

And Paul Martin didn't even be bother to show up.

Remember this detail the next time you hear a politician claim that he/she is doing public service for the good people of the country and of the riding.

[Michael Hardner]

The thing about you lefties is all you care about is money. No matter what decision a government makes, pro or con, someone is going to make money, and that horrifies you because, well, you ain't got none.

Loud buzzer sounds.

The major leftie issue of the last little while - SSM. Where is the money in that ?

Toronto votes strongly Liberal/NDP and is awash in money.

And painting cariactures of your opponents don't help the matter.

Leftists do have money. Often, though, they earn a paycheque. They tend to be technical specialists, or linked to marketing in the east, in my experience. The righties with money I've met (as opposed to the righties on welfare I've met) tend to have made their money through small business or sales. Often, that's not that much (maybe low 6 figures) but it's hard fought.

[Temagami Scourge]

I'm glad our government is staying the course for two more years. I never want to see afghanistan go back to the Taliban days because we know that makes the world unsafe when a country supports terrorism.

however, I'm still no supporter of Harper. Afghanistan was a liberal initiative on which Harper is pleased to ride the coattails of. I don't trust the guy because he was willing to put us in Iraq, which is a made-up war and doing nothing except to act as a training ground for future terrorists...who are beginning to apply their skills in Afghanistan now.

If Harper was half a man, we'd be in Darfur now too. Actually, the liberals should shoulder some of the blame because we should have been in there long ago, stopping the Janjaweed militia from their murderous ways, but I see no excuse to not go. I'd throw in an extra few bucks in taxes if we can get a combat unit flown in on an Allied transport plane.

[Black Dog]

Yeah and I'm sure that has nothing to do with Jack Layton unhesitantly - even proudly firing anyone who dares to vote differently than him.

Didn't happen.

The thing about you lefties is all you care about is money. No matter what decision a government makes, pro or con, someone is going to make money, and that horrifies you because, well, you ain't got none.

Yeah that's right: lefties are all poor, dreadlock whearing hippies consumed by envy. Oh wait: they're all effete latte-siping Volvo drivers. Or....uh...uh...they hate our freedoms!

This is the real reason for the left's hatred of the Afghanistan mission. Somehow, they have it in their tiny heads that it means we're allied military with the great satan.

And I suppose the fact that we're under U.S. command over there wouldn't have anything to do with that, hey?

This is why that nitwit Layton, after railling against the violence of miltarism and how horrible it is that Canadian troops aren't politely allowing themselves to simply be kidnapped as in Bosnia, then suggested we take all the troops from Afghanistan and send them to Darfur. It's not that Darfur would be any less dangerous, but there aren't any Americans there so Jack can feel clean again. Besides, there's Black people. It's much more politically correct to die on behalf of Black people than on behalf of brown people, and probably more votes in it for socialists. I bet Jack would be on the first plane to Darfur to pose with the troops (pictures to show up in every riding with large Black populations in the Toronto area the next week).

W...T...F?

No, the NDP tried to send our troops to Darfur, or had you forgotten that? And don't you think it's just slightly disingenuous to imply the left gives a damn about our soldiers? Decades of disdain and contempt have proven otherwise.

can't say I agree with sending troops to Darfur. It's as hopless a case as Afghanistan.

Anyway, I wonder if those cheering this extension will still be cheering 10 or 15 years from now. Or wil you tell your kids to cheer as we enter our 50th year of democracy-building in Afghanistan. Because that's what it's gonna take. (It's also strange that so many small government conservatives get so aroused at the thought of ig government spending on the military.)

[Temagami Scourge]

Argus:

This is the real reason for the left's hatred of the Afghanistan mission. Somehow, they have it in their tiny heads that it means we're allied military with the great satan.

What the hell do you know about our military? Everything you mention in this post is partisan crap. We should be in Darfur as well as Afghanistan! Political stripe is meaningless during times like these, and yet its your kind that enjoys using our hard-fighting troops as political footballs for your own ends.

Buck up now boy, and take it like a man! don't hide behind the "Left" as a foil, but just say that we need to project our power into areas where we need to. We embarrassed ourselves in Rwanda, and I for one don't want to see that happen again, and nor do i think other Canadians want to see an abject failure, regardless of political stripe.

Likewise, you wax philosophic about Geyn Morgan on another thread, and here you use people of colour to crack jokes over: "...Besides, there's Black people. It's much more politically correct to die on behalf of Black people than on behalf of brown people, and probably more votes in it for socialists. I bet Jack would be on the first plane to Darfur to pose with the troops (pictures to show up in every riding with large Black populations in the Toronto area the next week)."

my god...what kind of sad, racist bastard are you? Don't you realize that there are "black" and "brown" soldiers fighting over in Afghanistan for you, so you can sit here content to joke about their families? Is Layton going to rush straight to Ainsworth Dyer's father's house for a photo-op?

The only thing that saddens me is that you poor attempts at humour belittle the memory of decent Canadians who gave their lives in the service.

[Rue]

1. I find Harper and Layton equally as dictatorial and think skinned with their caucus.

2. Harper is demonstrating someone who is an astute tactician but has one glaring weakness that will eventually get to him like it did Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien and that is arrogance. He has a mean streak to him that belittles his intelligence.

3. Can't blame his latest tactics he hoisted the Liberals on their own petard.

Now let's discuss the issue, should the troops stay. My concern from day one has always been that I consider the notion that you send troops to Afghanistan to help it develop democracy is by its very essence classic imperialist idiocy. It's nothing more then a modern version of the Christian missionary off to Africa to save the savages from eating each other. Right out of an old Johny Quest cartoon.

Now I expect this kind of simplistic imperialist drivel from the U.S., because they really believe they are the best people in the world and everybody wants to be just like them but Canada? Has our inferiority complex and fear of not being liked by the Americans gotten so bad we are willing to simply send out troops into Afghanistan on some half assed mission?

Our mandate is blithering and confused. What we have done is mix two completely different missions. One is fighting or preventing terrorism, the other is acting as supports and missionaries to assist a government develop democracy.

They are two different things and yet most of our politicians have inter-mixed the two and so have bogged down our troops in a suicide mission that can only create negative future consequences.

With due respect a conventional army can not prevent terrorism if anything it becomes a sitting duck for terrorists. Mao Tse Tung taught that, so did the Viet Cong and so many other guerilla and terrorist groups fighting conventional armies.

To fight terrorism, one needs a small, quick, mobile team of specially skilled commandoes who move quickly and in secrecy. The Canadians have such an elite unit and that unit and its work to me is commendable but let's not confusethat work with sending our under-funded, ill-equipped conventional army to Afghanistan to do.

Let's talk about our conventional army. The soldiers themselves are very well trained but have inferior equipment and most importantly have been given a ridiculous mandate. They are sitting ducks and the longer they stay, the more soldiers will be killed and the more likely they will develop specific psychological behaviour that will eventually have a serious effect on moral.

What the US failed to learn in Vietnam and the Russians failed to learn in Afghanistan but the Israelis learned in the West Bank and in Gaza is you can not send in a conventional military force to hunt terrorists. At best it creates a tit for tat stalemate such as with the Tamil Tigers and the regular Sri Lankan Army or what happened in Ireland or Cyprus or with the intifada until Israel withdrew its conventional army and began engaging in pin point precision assassinations with car bombs and missiles.

Just what is our army's mandate in Afghanistan? Is it to chase after Taliban and kill them or is it to convert savages to democracy? How can it do both? We are asking our soldiers to kill but then at the next moment have tea. That to me is absolute pure political b.s. Its tied our army's hands. Canadians think we can be all things to all people. Well we can't. This is not nice guy Canadiansbring Tim Horton's coffee and donuts to dirty little barefoot savages. These are men and women who have been asked to occupy a country and hunt down and kill Taliban on behalf of the current regime.

Spin it any way you want but our Army is a proxy force propping up a regime. Is that what we want?

Just what are we doing? Do any of you evenb know? Hmm, we started off with the Americans in hot pursuit of Osama Ben Laden and going into Afghanistan and bombing it to smithereens. Oopsy he got away. Then they invading Iraq allegedly going after weapons of mass destruction that never existed and ooopsy who should stay behind in Afghanistan so it can send its National Guard to Iraq...hmmmm..Australia and NATO countries like Canada and Holland.

As for the Taliban who we feel supported Osama Ben Laden-aren't they the same people the CIA created to fight the Russian commies when they were in Afghanistan? Then again strange how politics works. Whether its Gamel Nasser, Mummar Ghaddafi, Sadaam Hussein, General Noriega, yes even OSama Ben Laden and the Taliban, isn't it funny how they start off as CIA friends and then become "rogue" and need to be punished?

Sow hat do we Canadians do? Oh we sound all lefty touchy feel self righteous over Iraq but push comes to shove we went running into Afghanistan because of our massive inferiority complex and need to show the Yanks how tuff we are.

So why did we go in? Funny how that one question gets missed in all this macho b.s. and posturing. Is it to hunt and kill Taliban or is it to stand around and have tea with savages and wash their undemocratic feet. Or do you believe you can kill at 9 a.m., and have tea at 5 p.m.?

The party line is there is a democratic government that needs our help and by hunting down and killing Taliban and acting as sort of policemen in Afghanistan we are preventing terrorism and promoting doing democracy. Yah where have I heard that before? Hmm the crusade? Off to the Middle East we went to save the Christians from the savages. Off to South Africa we went. Off to South Korea, on and on. This is exactly the same b.s. that the Americans trotted out with their dominoe theory when they went into South Vietnam.

Are we really fighting Hitler? Is this really comparable to world war two?

The fact is the leader of Afghanistan is a CIA prop and who knows maybe one day he too will become a villan like every other CIA stooge.More to the point, he does not have the popular support of his population and can not venture outside the city of Kabul. Eventually he will be assassinated.

The Afghanistan you and I refer to today is a 14 square mile radius around Kabul. The rest of the country is a large rock with peasants, most of whom are illiterate and depend on their religious leaders to tell them how to think. They have no currency, no economy, no electricity, no infrastructure and live day by day. You really think in this climate they can afford let alone have the physical ability to suddenly become free enterprise loving democrats? Yep I can just see the time shares going up. Sorry people, there is no oil, no lovely sandy beaches, no sun - just rock and mountain ranges that are inhospitable and impossible to police.

Does anyone really think if you show a Maple Leaf in a small area of Afghanistan and offer people Tim Horton's coffee they will suddenly become democractic? They need food, water, electricity, infrastructure...coventional armies do not bring that. Social evolution over hundreds if not thousands of years brings that. Critical thought needs to evolve from fundamentalist thought and for that to happen people have to first conquer the basics, such as food, shelter, medicine and education, all things we take for granted in Canada.

Afghanistan for the next few hundred years is destined to be ungovernable and undemocratic because its people are illiterate, choose to be fundamentalist Muslim and basically live in a poor, inhospitable country and in their own time need to evolve and make hard choices. Zooming around in some antiquated Bison vehicles won't change that.

Now let's talk specifics. The people who prop up the current Afghanui regime aren't the Canadians or Americans, or democrats, they are in fact, murderous, tyranical, drug lords who have divided the country up and resurfaced since the Taliban were sent into the hills and no longer can police them.

The cold tragic reality is that Canadian soldiers will now die so that these drug lords can cultivate poppies and make a fortune dumping opium in Europe and North America. We will have a new generation of drug addicts but hey I know, its for the good of democracy.

Do I think we have a responsibility to be part of an international military force to combat terrorism-yes. Do I think placing Canadian soldiers in Afghhanistan with a vague mandate is the way to do that-no.

I personally think if we want to go after terrorists then create mobile commando units and do just that and stop playing this self-righteous political game that we are there to save people. We aren;t. We are there to hunt, track down and kill Taliban. Either accept that fact or get off the pot. Trying to pretend are soldiers are supposed to be nice is for domestic consumption. The expectation that they sit around and drink Tim Horton's coffee and help old people across the street is to make us feel less guilty as to why they are really there - to hunt and kill.

The notion of thinking our soldiers can drive around in patrols and say hello to the natives is b.s. This is not Cyprus. This is not peace keeping. This is war. Each time our soldiers step forth they are possible targets for ANY civilian. So how long until our good people in the armed forces in Afghanistan despise and hate the Afghanis? Will it take 10, 30, 50 more deaths? How long until we hear about our soldiers torturing someone?

With due respect coventional armies must be given clear mandates with very definitive time lines. Otherwise they rot from within from poor morale caused by the psychological effects of protracted

stress. Coventional armies are meant to fight other conventional armies. Not chase after civilians in the shadows.

I respect our soldiers. I think they are brave and I commend what they are doing but I think we civilians have unrealistic expectations of them and it is now being reflected by our politicians including Mr. Harper who is trying too hard to convince people his pee pee isn't tiny.

Yes I think we should contribute elite anti-terrorist units to specific anti-terrorist campaigns but no I do not agree with using our soldiers to fight at times, but at other times be passive policemen.

This is not Cyprus, this is not Haiti.

I think Nato feels Canada has been a lousy member and expect us to pull up our socks and take the lead but the fact is it should be the United Nations and not NATO in Afghanistan. There should be UN soldiers with a clear mandate in Afghanistan not just the Canadian Army with Aussies adn Dutch, etc.

The Canadian army has by default taken over a mission that the UN and its spineless, gutless leaders have failed to respond to and that is what really pisses me off.

That said I wish our troops well and respect what they are trying to do. Its our hipporcitical politicians I can not stand. Our troops I absolutely respect.

If the Canadian Armed Forces can handle their current situation and support it, well then as much as I do not like it, I support them. But it doesn't mean gutless politicians can take credit for what they are doing.

[August1991]

Here's a Hansard link giving the yea and nay votes on the Afghan mission. (It shows that Ignatieff, Graham voted yes, and Dion, Bevilacqua, Volpe voted no.)

[someone should put all this on some web site so that we know how MPs voted, and then do ratings compared to the positions of well-known lobby groups. I'd be curious to know which MPs toe the party line and which are more independent.]

[August1991]

My concern from day one has always been that I consider the notion that you send troops to Afghanistan to help it develop democracy is by its very essence classic imperialist idiocy. It's nothing more then a modern version of the Christian missionary off to Africa to save the savages from eating each other. Right out of an old Johny Quest cartoon.

....

Our mandate is blithering and confused. What we have done is mix two completely different missions. One is fighting or preventing terrorism, the other is acting as supports and missionaries to assist a government develop democracy.

Rue, I think you are mistaken about what our military is doing in Afghanistan.

We went to Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban because it had provided a place for al-Qaeda to develop. Having succeeded in dislodging the Taliban regime, we haven't succeeded in ensuring it won't return to power. Hence, we can't exactly pack up and come home.

---

Now then, your view of our activities abroad is interesting. Do you consider the money spent by CIDA and the activities it undertakes as "nothing more then a modern version of the Christian missionary off to Africa to save the savages from eating each other"?

[Army Guy]

NoCrap:

Two more years in Afghanistan - soldiers lose - Canadians lose - Hill & Knowlton clients: cha-ching, cha-ching.

Perhaps you can tell me just how it is that Soldiers lose, how Canadians lose. Have you even heard what 99 % of our soldiers have been saying about this mission, You know the men and women that are on the ground right now. Thats the problem with most Canadians they don't listen....They dismiss them as just dumb grunts, what do they know about rebuilding a nation. So i ask you WTF do you know about nation building.

Just remember that when the Canadian people, who already feel uncomfortable with this war; demand that we no longer put our soldiers in such grave danger to appease the US war machine; we will remember that the NDP tried to bring our soldiers home, but Harper had far too many promises to keep to his campaign contributors, who are enjoying the profits of war; to allow that to happen.

The reason most Canadians fell uncomfortable about this mission is because of the misinformation coming out of the Liberal, and NDP parties. That and the fact that both parties hate the US and it's current government so much that they let it get in the way of sound judgement.

Before you throw on 60's vest with the peace symbol on it, you should do some research on Dafar and tell me what the difference is between Dafar and Afgan in regards to the actual mission there.

Again, the NDP appear to be the only voice of reason and are looking better all the time.

Show me just how you came to this conclusion ? Because from a soldiers piont of view, todays NDP know nothing of peacekeeping or nation building.

[geoffrey]

Our military is 100% volunteer, people are in Afghanistan because they want to be there, not because they are forced to.

Obviously 2 and 1/2 parties just don't support our troops, shame on them for that.

[Army Guy]

Temagami Scourge:

however, I'm still no supporter of Harper. Afghanistan was a liberal initiative on which Harper is pleased to ride the coattails of. I don't trust the guy because he was willing to put us in Iraq, which is a made-up war and doing nothing except to act as a training ground for future terrorists...who are beginning to apply their skills in Afghanistan now.

Yes for a liberal Initiative they really showed support for their past leadership and now can't make-up thier minds what side of the fence they are on.

And was it really a liberal intiative or did they decide on default, to palcate the americans as we did not go into Iraq.

As for it being a training ground Yes it is, But do we blame the US for that, why not put the blame where it truely lies. Lets start with religous extremists, education, thier own countries of orgins. Do the extremist really need a reason to die for Allah, todays flavour is the US what will tomorrow bring.

If Harper was half a man, we'd be in Darfur now too. Actually, the liberals should shoulder some of the blame because we should have been in there long ago, stopping the Janjaweed militia from their murderous ways, but I see no excuse to not go. I'd throw in an extra few bucks in taxes if we can get a combat unit flown in on an Allied transport plane

I think the Canadian people should also shoulder some of the blame as well, Our armed forces did not get into the state it is in now overnight. It is all good to say we should do our part here and here and here but on a shoe string budget we are lucky to accomplish one mission.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Anyway, I wonder if those cheering this extension will still be cheering 10 or 15 years from now. Or wil you tell your kids to cheer as we enter our 50th year of democracy-building in Afghanistan. Because that's what it's gonna take. (It's also strange that so many small government conservatives get so aroused at the thought of ig government spending on the military.)

And if it took that long to have Afgan stand on it's 2 feet free from war, and all that it comes with it would the effort not be worth it.

[Black Dog]

Our military is 100% volunteer, people are in Afghanistan because they want to be there, not because they are forced to.

Uh, I'm pretty sure that, while joning the military is a choice, things like where you're posted are not.

Obviously 2 and 1/2 parties just don't support our troops, shame on them for that.

Not that useless bullshit meme again.

And if it took that long to have Afgan stand on it's 2 feet free from war, and all that it comes with it would the effort not be worth it.

If I thouht for one second that fighting off one group of religious fanatics so anotehr group of religious fanatics can run the show was a recipe for lasting peace, I'd be all over this mission. Unfortunately....

[Army Guy]

Rue:

Now let's discuss the issue, should the troops stay. My concern from day one has always been that I consider the notion that you send troops to Afghanistan to help it develop democracy is by its very essence classic imperialist idiocy. It's nothing more then a modern version of the Christian missionary off to Africa to save the savages from eating each other. Right out of an old Johny Quest cartoon

Perhaps you can explain what the problem is, are you suggesting that soldiers are incapable of developing democracy. Canada's military have been doing it for over 30 years now are you saying were doing it wrong.

Now I expect this kind of simplistic imperialist drivel from the U.S., because they really believe they are the best people in the world and everybody wants to be just like them but Canada? Has our inferiority complex and fear of not being liked by the Americans gotten so bad we are willing to simply send out troops into Afghanistan on some half assed mission?

Is there really a fear of the americans not liking us ? or Do Canadians have a passion of doing everything and anything that tells the world we are Anti US. As for Afgan being a half ass mission me and thousands of Canadian troops don't seem to think so but then again what do i know ?

Our mandate is blithering and confused. What we have done is mix two completely different missions. One is fighting or preventing terrorism, the other is acting as supports and missionaries to assist a government develop democracy

Our mandate is not confusing some of it is in the below link. Our military has done this concept you think is impossiable for more than 10 years now it's called the 3 block war concept, fighting in one block, providing humanitary support in another, and nation building in another. To accomplish all this takes more than just the military , RCMP, diplomates, and months of training by all involved. I think your finding it hard to wrap your mind around the fact that todays soldiers is capable of more than just fighting.

My Webpage

With due respect a conventional army can not prevent terrorism if anything it becomes a sitting duck for terrorists. Mao Tse Tung taught that, so did the Viet Cong and so many other guerilla and terrorist groups fighting conventional armies.

To fight terrorism, one needs a small, quick, mobile team of specially skilled commandoes who move quickly and in secrecy. The Canadians have such an elite unit and that unit and its work to me is commendable but let's not confusethat work with sending our under-funded, ill-equipped conventional army to Afghanistan to do.

Your under estamating just what a conventional army is capable of doing. And right now in Afgan they are taking the fight to terrorism on a daily basis, and they are making a difference. But they are also helping in rebuilding a nation and yes they are making a difference there as well. like you said give credit were credit is due, Canada's military is a team effort one is depend on all elements of our military..

My Webpage

[Argus]

Argus:

This is the real reason for the left's hatred of the Afghanistan mission. Somehow, they have it in their tiny heads that it means we're allied military with the great satan.

What the hell do you know about our military?

Quite a bit, actually.

Everything you mention in this post is partisan crap.

Yeah. So? Doesn't make it untrue.

We should be in Darfur as well as Afghanistan!

I find what is happening in Darfur distressing. But we really don't have the ability to go in there ourselves. Are you forgetting, or do you even know, that we don't have any helicopters? We're getting around in Afghanistan only through the good-will of the US, Britian and other allied militaries.

Buck up now boy, and take it like a man! don't hide behind the "Left" as a foil, but just say that we need to project our power into areas where we need to.

Perhaps, but we do not have any ability to project what little power we have. Perhaps, if Harper is in power for a while, and follows through on promises to buy more long range air and sea transport, and to expand the size of the military, we might one day enjoy that ability.

We embarrassed ourselves in Rwanda, and I for one don't want to see that happen gain, and nor do i think other Canadians want to see an abject failure, regardless of political stripe.

We had very few people there, and they were taking orders from the UN.

Likewise, you wax philosophic about Geyn Morgan on another thread, and here you use people of colour to crack jokes over: "...Besides, there's Black people. It's much more politically correct to die on behalf of Black people than on behalf of brown people, and probably more votes in it for socialists. I bet Jack would be on the first plane to Darfur to pose with the troops (pictures to show up in every riding with large Black populations in the Toronto area the next week)."

What makes you think I'm joking? I think Layton really IS that shallow and politically correct.

my god...what kind of sad, racist bastard are you?

I'm just someone with a mind. Maybe in your next life you'll be gifted with one and won't be just another ignorant, self-centred, whiny cliche'd member of a conquered people.

The only thing that saddens me is that you poor attempts at humour belittle the memory of decent Canadians who gave their lives in the service.

Gee. And if I had the slightest hint of a fragment of respect for you I might even care.

[Argus]

Now let's discuss the issue, should the troops stay. My concern from day one has always been that I consider the notion that you send troops to Afghanistan to help it develop democracy is by its very essence classic imperialist idiocy. It's nothing more then a modern version of the Christian missionary off to Africa to save the savages from eating each other. Right out of an old Johny Quest cartoon.

Canada and the other NATO troops there supporting the UN mission are tasked with helping to bring stability to Afghanistan.

That's basically it. Everything else comes after that. Without stability what happens? Afghanistan reverts to warring warlords and a breeding ground for fanatics.

So what would you have us do? Afghanistan need some kind of a government. We're trying to put one in place. Would you be happier if we simply picked out a brutal warlord, helped him conquer everyone else and take over? Perhaps we should put some kind of monarchy in place? What is better than a democracy? Or should we do nothing and simply hope that the Afghans somehow invent a government capable of running the place? How many decades were we going to stay again?

[Army Guy]

Black dog :

If I thouht for one second that fighting off one group of religious fanatics so anotehr group of religious fanatics can run the show was a recipe for lasting peace, I'd be all over this mission. Unfortunately..

Would you agree that a vast majority of Canada's long term peacekeeping missions have be successful.

The problem is time,It's everyone enemy in todays world, but establishing a new nation takes years...and we have just begun in Afgan, and in 5 years from now you will proably see the UN in Afgan, doing more traditional peacekeeping work.

But then again we all knew that before we went into Afgan, and if we can't stand the line against a few scum bags then why did we go in the first place. should have kept our heads buried in the sand and let them scum bags play the bongo's on our arses.

[Leafless]

Army Guy

You wrote- " Perhaps you can explain what the problem is, are you suggesting soldiers are incapable of developing democracy."

To be blunt, yes.

Afghanistan is a country that wheels and deals in opium, full of war lords and their militias, militants and terrorism that has increased since the Iraq effort.

There are different estimates of the number of coalition troops some peg at 17,000. but militants in Pakistan in the city of Karachi just across the border, it is estimated that over 25,000 graduates of Al Quaida training camp live along with several thousand renegade Taliban and militants in the border mountains. Coalition troops it seems are out numbered.

If I were Mr. Harper I would use the extended two years to wind down our part in Afghanistan and write it off has a bad experience since that war has escalated and Canada really is not in the position military wise at this time to continue since it greatly exceed what our military is designed for primarily peace keeping efforts. The situation in Afghanistan will probably continue indefinitely without the U.S and it's allies taking another route of action.

I wish you the best of luck with installing democracy since I believe that country will be corrupt for years to come as corruption is their buisness.

[scribblet]

http://chuckercanuck.blogspot.com/2006/05/...ate-awards.html

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Afghan Mission Debate Awards

-snip-

After tabulating the results from audience phone-ins, Chuckercanuck is thrilled to announce the winners of the 2nd Monthly Afghan Mission Debate Awards for the following categories:

Pee-Wee Herman Award for Most Embarassing Question

Jack Layton can't support a mission extension without first knowing how the mission ties into our foreign policy.

aybe you agree with the answer to that question, maybe you don't; but the answer to that question has been

given ad nauseum. To pretend the answer is unknown trivializes the debate by abdicating a parliamentarians responsibility to engage fully. A slew of questions can only mask your fear of answering any yourself for so long.

Anthony Robbins Award for Grossly Foolish Hyperbole

Jack Layton asks if Canada is abandoning its hard-won reputation for peace-keeping in favour of war-making.

Canadians, polite to the core, are much too gentle with the NDP. They play recklessly with words like war and peace, using Darfur and Afghanistan to promote an agenda full of hidden premises and ugly consequences. If Capt. Nichola Goddard died in a theatre of war, does this nomenclature diminish the nobility of her sacrifice? I think the NDP answers "yes" to that question without the foggiest clue what

the word "war" means.

-snip-

General Santa Anna Award for Just Not Getting It

Withering in their dithering, the Liberals could not commit to any position and left it to a free vote. They could easily have won the Ralph Ellison Award for Invisibility: as the former government, they authored this

mission; as official opposition, they made no notable contribution to the debate.

-snip-

Anyway, since so many of my readers love a good conspiracy, here's the one ringing in Chuckercanuck's head:

Would it be a coincidence that during the week of the AG report on the gun registry, the Liberal Party is consumed with a unilingual-witch hunt?.........