Afghanistan

[jdobbin]

As we sadly add up the dead soldiers that are fighting in Afghanistan, it is easy to become discouraged.

As each new flag draped coffin arrives on Canadian soil, it pains each of us just a little more.

But I think we need to remember something.

2,752 Innocent People died in the Twin Towers on Sept. 11th 2001.

(2003 revised figures.)

Our troops are over there fighting to keep that kind of thing from happening here.

I agree that Canada went there because al Qaeda was being sheltered by the Taliban. However, al Qaeda is now being sheltered in Pakistan. It could be a never ending battle.

Canada has to assess if Afghanistan will be able to stand on its own and whether we contribute to stability or add to their instability.

[jbg]

As we sadly add up the dead soldiers that are fighting in Afghanistan, it is easy to become discouraged.

As each new flag draped coffin arrives on Canadian soil, it pains each of us just a little more.

But I think we need to remember something.

2,752 Innocent People died in the Twin Towers on Sept. 11th 2001.

(2003 revised figures.)

Our troops are over there fighting to keep that kind of thing from happening here.

I agree that Canada went there because al Qaeda was being sheltered by the Taliban. However, al Qaeda is now being sheltered in Pakistan. It could be a never ending battle.

Canada has to assess if Afghanistan will be able to stand on its own and whether we contribute to stability or add to their instability.

My prediction is that we're basically returning to a modified form of colonial empires. The Western countries will, for their own safety, maintain bases throughout the "Uncivilized World". These "independent nations" will continue to run their internal affairs, but will be subjugated on external security and foreign affairs. They have shown zero ability to keep the world safe from depredations coming from within their borders. They have also shown no ability to not use armed forces as weapons in internecine tribal or religious battles within their countries.

This intolerable state of affairs must end, as we learned on September 11, 2001.

[Who's Doing What?]

As we sadly add up the dead soldiers that are fighting in Afghanistan, it is easy to become discouraged.

As each new flag draped coffin arrives on Canadian soil, it pains each of us just a little more.

But I think we need to remember something.

2,752 Innocent People died in the Twin Towers on Sept. 11th 2001.

(2003 revised figures.)

Our troops are over there fighting to keep that kind of thing from happening here.

I agree that Canada went there because al Qaeda was being sheltered by the Taliban. However, al Qaeda is now being sheltered in Pakistan. It could be a never ending battle.

Canada has to assess if Afghanistan will be able to stand on its own and whether we contribute to stability or add to their instability.

We stand in Afghanistan or we stand in our own streets. Kinda rock & hardplace type thing.

We cannot kid our selves any longer. Any Western Culture is an open target.

[geoffrey]

My prediction is that we're basically returning to a modified for of colonial empires. The Western countries will, for their own safety, maintain bases throughout the "Uncivilized World". These "independent nations" will continue to run their internal affairs, but will be subjugated on external security and foreign affairs. They have shown zero ability to keep the world safe from depredations coming from within their borders. They have also shown no ability to not use armed forces as weapons in internecine tribal or religious battles within their countries.

This intolerable state of affairs must end, as we learned on September 11, 2001.

It's always a state of colonial type influences in world affairs, just different key players. Unfortunately, many countries due to demographics, geography, climate, ect., will always have issues that make them unsteady on their own. That's why we need to help these guys out, an Afghanistan free of the Taliban and terrorism isn't only a benefit to Canada by making us more secure (and opening up a trading partner), but a benefit to each Afghani citizen that will now have an opportunity to live a life so much greater than what his/her parents experienced in their lifetimes of war and violence.

I don't see myself as taking up the white man's burden like the original colonialists did, though it is a similar line of thought. These people deserve and require the same opportunity for success in their lives as I received and I'm willing to stand behind those seeking freedom from terrorism and oppression and I most defnitely stand behind our government and troops that wish to assist these strangers in bettering their lives and communities.

[jdobbin]

We stand in Afghanistan or we stand in our own streets. Kinda rock & hardplace type thing.

We cannot kid our selves any longer. Any Western Culture is an open target.

Nixon was able to leave Vietnam, Reagan was able to leave Lebanon and Clinton was able to leave Somalia (Canada too in this case).

In the end, Canada will have to assess whether we add to the insurgency or are helping to eliminate it.

[jdobbin]

It's always a state of colonial type influences in world affairs, just different key players. Unfortunately, many countries due to demographics, geography, climate, ect., will always have issues that make them unsteady on their own. That's why we need to help these guys out, an Afghanistan free of the Taliban and terrorism isn't only a benefit to Canada by making us more secure (and opening up a trading partner), but a benefit to each Afghani citizen that will now have an opportunity to live a life so much greater than what his/her parents experienced in their lifetimes of war and violence.

I don't see myself as taking up the white man's burden like the original colonialists did, though it is a similar line of thought. These people deserve and require the same opportunity for success in their lives as I received and I'm willing to stand behind those seeking freedom from terrorism and oppression and I most defnitely stand behind our government and troops that wish to assist these strangers in bettering their lives and communities.

I don't think anyone suggests we don't stand with our troops. They're doing amazing work there. But the drug trade is funding a renewed insurgency that threatens to fuel the insurgency for years to come. Only Afghansiatn can assert authority over their own people in the end. We can help as much as we can but we could be there for years and years with nothing to show for it.

[Argus]

I don't think anyone suggests we don't stand with our troops. They're doing amazing work there. But the drug trade is funding a renewed insurgency that threatens to fuel the insurgency for years to come. Only Afghansiatn can assert authority over their own people in the end. We can help as much as we can but we could be there for years and years with nothing to show for it.

We were in Cyprus for more than 20 years. And that meant nothing to us.

[jdobbin]

We were in Cyprus for more than 20 years. And that meant nothing to us.

We left Cyprus because it meant nothing to us and helped little in securing a lasting peace.

[Argus]

We were in Cyprus for more than 20 years. And that meant nothing to us.

We left Cyprus because it meant nothing to us and helped little in securing a lasting peace.

No, we left Cyprus because after 20 years of Liberal government we didn't have enough troops to maintain the mission.

[jdobbin]

No, we left Cyprus because after 20 years of Liberal government we didn't have enough troops to maintain the mission.

Please show a link that says that this is case.

[Wilber]

According to the UN they still had 1200 peacekeepers in Cyprus from 15 different countries in 2004. One would assume they must be doing something there.

[Charles Anthony]

Has Canada officially declared war against Afghanistan?

Has Afghanistan officially declared war against Canada?

We'be been in support of U.N. actions in Afghanistan. Now, we are in supprt of the Afghan government that has invited use to help.

That does not sound like a declaration of war. If a declaration of war was not made by Canada or against Canada, Canada is not at war.

I do not see the difference between foreign mercenaries and Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

[Wilber]

Has Canada officially declared war against Afghanistan?

Has Afghanistan officially declared war against Canada?

We'be been in support of U.N. actions in Afghanistan. Now, we are in supprt of the Afghan government that has invited use to help.

That does not sound like a declaration of war. If a declaration of war was not made by Canada or against Canada, Canada is not at war.

I do not see the difference between foreign mercenaries and Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Foreign mercenaries are soldiers hired by a foreign government to fight for them. The Canadian troops in Afghanistan are there because they were sent by the Canadian government and they are paid for by the Canadian people. That is the difference.

Wikipedia

"A mercenary is a soldier who fights, or engages in warfare primarily for private gain, usually with little regard for ideological, national or political considerations. However, when the term is used to refer to a soldier in a regular national army, it is usually considered an insult, epithet or pejorative."

By your definition all soldiers are mercenaries, which would be true if they only fought for money. No description could be less accurate when it comes to the Canadian armed forces

We didn't declare war on North Korea or China either but does that mean we shouldn't have been there to defend South Korea?

[jdobbin]

According to the UN they still had 1200 peacekeepers in Cyprus from 15 different countries in 2004. One would assume they must be doing something there.

The decision to leave came during Mulroney's term in office. The reason had to do with a lack of support from the U.N. to long term funding for the force and the fact that for 29 years Canada had contributed the bulk of the force.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=520

[Charles Anthony]

If a declaration of war was not made by Canada or against Canada, Canada is not at war.

I do not see the difference between foreign mercenaries and Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Foreign mercenaries are soldiers hired by a foreign government to fight for them. The Canadian troops in Afghanistan are there because they were sent by the Canadian government and they are paid for by the Canadian people. That is the difference.

Big deal. I put that semantic difference in the same crony-geo-political-exploitation bucket.

By your definition all soldiers are mercenaries, which would be true if they only fought for money. No description could be less accurate when it comes to the Canadian armed forces

No. By my definition, if a declaration of war has not been made against Canada, Canadian armed forces in foreign countries are NOT serving "Canada" but rather, they are serving SOMEBODY ELSE's interests.

[jdobbin]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...han-canada.html

British General says forces have 4 months to determine if they will defeat Taliban.

[Wilber]

No. By my definition, if a declaration of war has not been made against Canada, Canadian armed forces in foreign countries are NOT serving "Canada" but rather, they are serving SOMEBODY ELSE's interests.

So if Canada declared war on Afghanistan they would all of a sudden be serving Canada's interests? If another country attacked Canadian interests anywhere in the world without declaring war, our armed forces should not react until they do? Germany did not declare war on or attack Canada at the beginning of WWII, Canada declared war on Germany. By your definition we had no business sending troops to Europe either, or did our official declaration of war all of a sudden make it OK.

Afghanistan did not declare war on the US but an organization based in and supported by its government did attack the US. I guess the US shouldn't have reacted until the Afghan government had officially declared war on them. Talk about fuzzy logic. You would make a great diplomat.

[Charles Anthony]

No. By my definition, if a declaration of war has not been made against Canada, Canadian armed forces in foreign countries are NOT serving "Canada" but rather, they are serving SOMEBODY ELSE's interests.

So if Canada declared war on Afghanistan they would all of a sudden be serving Canada's interests?

You have it all backwards. Part of declaring war involves Canada's military justifying a threat to Canada to the Canadian people.

This is how things should be:

Canada's interests are threatened.

Canada's military MAKES A CASE to Canadians.

AFTER making a case and getting approval from Canadians, THEN Canada's military declares and goes to war.

The fact that it makes no sense to declare war after the fact makes being accountable moot. I am suggesting that militaries at war be more accountable to the people (and the tax-payers who pay their way) they represent.

Thinking that Canada's interests are threatened is not enough. The military has to convince the Canadian people too.

If Canada's interest were TRULY threatened, why not declare war? What is there to hide?

I will tell you what is to hide: Canada's interests are NOT being threatened in a way in which Canadians would approve if they had a choice.

[Army Guy]

Charles Anthony:

You have it all backwards. Part of declaring war involves Canada's military justifying a threat to Canada to the Canadian people.

This is how things should be:

Canada's interests are threatened.

Canada's military MAKES A CASE to Canadians.

AFTER making a case and getting approval from Canadians, THEN Canada's military declares and goes to war.

I'd like to clear-up something. Canada's military does not declare War on anybody, Canada's elected government has that opition, with approval of the parliment (in most cases). You know the one that the Canadian people have elected.

And no they do not have to justify anything to the Canadian people , in fact they make decissions daily that effects us all without justifing anything to the people of this nation...(they may want the support of the people to get re elected but they don't have to justify anything) If what you say is true then what are we doing in Afgan recent polls indicate a majority of Canadians do not support this mission. Has our government broken some law, done something wrong perhaps you can show us a link to back up your argument.

Did you get a call from the liberals when they declared War on terrorism, did you get a call from the conservatives when they decided to spend 15 bil on our military. I must have been out that day, because i never got a call...

In this Case Canada has declared war on terrorism, and has joined coalition forces in taking that fight to the Taliban and Al quada, where ever they may be.

The fact that it makes no sense to declare war after the fact makes being accountable moot. I am suggesting that militaries at war be more accountable to the people (and the tax-payers who pay their way) they represent.

Thinking that Canada's interests are threatened is not enough. The military has to convince the Canadian people too.

Again the military is a tool of our elected government, not the people of Canada. They are not the same. You may pay taxes which are in turn used to pay for military activities, but the people have no say on how the military is used or how they are equipped..and once again the military does not have a say in whom or what the are used for, those orders come from our elected government. Be it to fight terrorist in afgan or put down uprisings in Canada.

No. By my definition, if a declaration of war has not been made against Canada, Canadian armed forces in foreign countries are NOT serving "Canada" but rather, they are serving SOMEBODY ELSE's interests

You really need to do some reading, i recommend reading up on just how the UN deploys troops, How NATO deploys troops , and what is the difference between peacekeeping operations and all out War operations.

Canada does not do anything unless it is in our own interest, they may share the same interest as other nations ,but Canada is serving herself in all she does.

You've been given the defination of merc read it, get somebody to explain it to you if you don't understand it.

But don't compare those that serve this country in our armed forces as merc's. In doing so you cheapen thier sacrafice, thier contribution to this nation...they've given to much and have asked for nothing in return. Unless you have served you don't have that right.

[Charles Anthony]

Again the military is a tool of our elected government, not the people of Canada. They are not the same. You may pay taxes which are in turn used to pay for military activities, but the people have no say on how the military is used or how they are equipped.

Yes, I understand that.

I think that both the tax-payers and the military are vulnerable to abuse by the government. That is precisely what I think is wrong.

[Wilber]

Charles, I can appreciate the fact that you don't think our people should be in Afghanistan, just don't give me a bunch of BS about them being mercenaries.

The people putting themselves at risk will get all the support I can give them as long as they believe what they are doing is necessary and worthwhile. That is the least I can do for them. If the point comes when the bulk of them no longer believe they should be there and it is not worthwhile, I will support getting them out just as much.

[Charles Anthony]

Charles, I can appreciate the fact that you don't think our people should be in Afghanistan, just don't give me a bunch of BS about them being mercenaries.

How about you give me some more BS about why they are there???

I call them mercenaries not because I disrespect them. My disrespect goes towards the government because I think the government debases the military by using Canadian soldiers in that way.

The people putting themselves at risk will get all the support I can give them as long as they believe

Not every Canadian agrees with you. Not every Canadian agrees with me.

Therefore, the military is being used by the government to represent the interests of some Canadians but not the interests of all Canadians.

I realize that the same can be said about the majority of government actions.

[Wilber]

How about you give me some more BS about why they are there???

I call them mercenaries not because I disrespect them. My disrespect goes towards the government because I think the government debases the military by using Canadian soldiers in that way.

By calling them mercenaries you disrespect them by any definition of the word. You seem incapable of differentiating between them and the government that sent them there. Regardless of what you think of the government that sent them, you are flat out wrong to call our troops mercenaries.

Not every Canadian agrees with you. Not every Canadian agrees with me.

Therefore, the military is being used by the government to represent the interests of some Canadians but not the interests of all Canadians.

I realize that the same can be said about the majority of government actions.

\

It can be said of all government actions. Governments are primarily in the business of redistributing wealth which means there will always be winners and losers.

If you expect our military to be used only when all Canadians see it to be in their interest, we might as well get rid of it today because that will never happen.

Whether I agree with it is not the issue. We have sent people in harms way. We do them no favours by telling the people they are fighting that we don't support them being there and that in order to win, they don't have to defeat our people on the ground, just undermine the resolve of those at home. That is why I say they have my full support as long as they are committed to their mission. If they lose that commitment, we should bring them home. I'm just being pragmatic. People who are committed to achieving something have a reasonable chance of success but those who are not, have very little. As long as they are there trying to make a difference, our responsibility is to help them improve that chance, not cut it out from under them.

[Black Dog]

My prediction is that we're basically returning to a modified form of colonial empires. The Western countries will, for their own safety, maintain bases throughout the "Uncivilized World". These "independent nations" will continue to run their internal affairs, but will be subjugated on external security and foreign affairs. They have shown zero ability to keep the world safe from depredations coming from within their borders. They have also shown no ability to not use armed forces as weapons in internecine tribal or religious battles within their countries.

This intolerable state of affairs must end, as we learned on September 11, 2001.

Let's not kid ourselves about this "for our own safety" bullshit. The third world has no means of threatening western hegemony. 9-11 was a drop in the bucket, casualty wise, it's trauma more to do with the fact that it was "us" getting it instead of "them" for once. The western nations can comfortably absorb many more such events. Really, Afghanistan, Iraq, and events now involving Syria, Iran, Israel and Lebanon are all part of a new Great Game conerning access and control over the most important resource in the world.

[jdobbin]

Another Canadian killed in Afghanistan.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...r-canadian.html