NDP- LAYTON "Invite Taliban to Peace Talks"

[August1991]

I don't see Layton as a man much given to compromise. And so I don't think he's that passionate a fan of the ideal. This is more a reflection for his distaste of militarism and the military, of an association with the Americans, and of the idea of White western soldiers fighting brown-skinned people.

If I'm not mistaken, Layton initially supported sending troops to Afghanistan so his current position is a change.

His anti-militarism and anti-Americanism seem to be recently discovered positions.

He has now said on two different occasions that he thinks Canadian troops should come home.

Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton has repeated his earlier calls for Canada to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, after four soldiers died on the weekend while battling Taliban militants.

"This is the wrong mission for Canada," Layton said Sunday at a news conference in Toronto following the announcement of the soldiers' deaths.

Layton said the focus of the mission has shifted from reconstruction to open war, which he said did not reflect Canada's traditional role as a peacekeeping nation.

"It's not balanced. It doesn’t represent the equilibrium between humanitarian aid, reconstruction and comprehensive peace process that Canadians would want to see."

CBC

He seems to be appealing to the Liberal/Canadian dogma of Canada as country of "compromising peacemakers". Then again, Layton may just be reading the polls and figuring that this is the time to strike.

----

At bottom, we need police and we need prisons. It is absurd to suggest that the touchy-feely/social work approach will work the likes of Moms Boucher or Clifford Olson.

The same reasoning applies to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. One can criticize the way the police do their work (or the way the military are doing their job) but the need for such work is without question.

This is what I find disturbing about Layton's position, and the people who say "War is not the answer" or "Violence solves nothing" or "Violence only engenders more violence" and so on. Somebody had to use force to put the handcuffs on Clifford Olson.

[Rovik]

In a perfect world, the coalition forces would wipe out every Taliban individual to the last. In a perfect world, the Afghan people would help the coalition forces every step of the way and would celebrate the end of the Taliban. In a perfect world, the drug trade would have decreased, not increased since the coalition forces have been there. In a perfect world, all people of different faiths in Afghanistan will be treated with respect.

But guess what...it's not a perfect world. Many of Afghan's population still support the Taliban. And even with the new Afghan govt., there is still sharia law and a citizen who converted to Christanity was almost put to death and again that is with the new Afghan govt. and the presence of the coalition forces in the country. It was only through intense international pressure that this man was saved. With the coaltion forces in Afghanistan, the opium trade has increased, not decreased like one would have expected. and the coalition forces have dealt with warlords, who in many instances are just as bad or worse than the Taliban.

I'm not saying that the Taliban are good; they are most definately not. Their stance against women's rights and the rights of non-Islams is appalling but if the coalition forces can deal with the more tolerant leadership of the Taliban (if there are any of course) and offer them amnesty or a small role in the govt. (a govt. that already supports sharia law mind you) and the understanding that it can't go back to how it was under the Taliban, the coalition forces may make some headway; because right now that doesn't seem too be happening, even after 5 years.

And to those who don't believe in moderate Taliban, within just about every group, there are people with different stances or different ideals, for example in this case, a moderate may lean toward diplomacy and tolerance while an extremist leans towards violence and believes there is no middle ground.

And don't try to tell me that all Conservatives are the same, or Liberals or the NDPers...they're not and to try to tar all people in a particular group as the same is simply wrong.

[jdobbin]

Layton calls for pull out again after 4 more deaths of Canadian soldiers.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/03092006/3/cana...ake-deaths.html

[August1991]

And even with the new Afghan govt., there is still sharia law and a citizen who converted to Christanity was almost put to death and again that is with the new Afghan govt. and the presence of the coalition forces in the country.

Nobody expects Afghanistan to turn into San Francisco anytime soon.

The mission has two goals in my mind: to ensure that Afghanistan will not be used as a base for a terrorist threat to western countries and to show other regimes what happens if they become a threat to the west directly or indirectly.

From what I can gather, and given those two goals, negotiations with the Taliban now would be counterproductive.

Layton calls for pull out again after 4 more deaths of Canadian soldiers.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/03092006/3/cana...ake-deaths.html

[Dobbin, do you bother to read threads? I just posted a link to that news report above.]

[jdobbin]

[Dobbin, do you bother to read threads? I just posted a link to that news report above.]

I already had the page open while I read the article. After I posted it, I saw you had already posted the CBC link. I just didn't bother deleting it.

Does it matter that I left it?

[Rovik]

Nobody expects Afghanistan to turn into San Francisco anytime soon.

Or ever, if one goes by the Afghanistan's rocky history. Just ask the Russians and the Brits.

The mission has two goals in my mind: to ensure that Afghanistan will not be used as a base for a terrorist threat to western countries and to show other regimes what happens if they become a threat to the west directly or indirectly.

Well the mission is not going smoothly after almost 5 years, actually it seems to be getting worse. Why I wonder? And if the Afghanistan mission is ever completed then what? Go into Iran? Syria? North Korea? Sudan? Somalia? or maybe even Venezula or Indonesia if they get bad enough?

From what I can gather, and given those two goals, negotiations with the Taliban now would be counterproductive.

Maybe you are right or maybe you are not. You would be definately right if things were going great for the coalition forces, but they are not. Their current techniques are not working and sometimes you have to look at the alternatives even if some of them are not very appetizing. And if they negotiated with the Taliban and it ended in disarray, the Coalition could turn around to the world and the Afghan people and say that they tried

[kimmy]

I'm not saying that the Taliban are good; they are most definately not. Their stance against women's rights and the rights of non-Islams is appalling but if the coalition forces can deal with the more tolerant leadership of the Taliban (if there are any of course) and offer them amnesty or a small role in the govt. (a govt. that already supports sharia law mind you) and the understanding that it can't go back to how it was under the Taliban, the coalition forces may make some headway; because right now that doesn't seem too be happening, even after 5 years.

If the coalition lures these "moderate Taliban" to desert their comrades-in-arms with offers of amnesty, then what legitimacy do these deserters have to negotiate on behalf of the Taliban? None.

And to those who don't believe in moderate Taliban, within just about every group, there are people with different stances or different ideals, for example in this case, a moderate may lean toward diplomacy and tolerance while an extremist leans towards violence and believes there is no middle ground.

And don't try to tell me that all Conservatives are the same, or Liberals or the NDPers...they're not and to try to tar all people in a particular group as the same is simply wrong.

Well, I shouldn't have to point this out, but the Taliban is a lot different from the Conservatives, Liberals, or NDP. The Taliban isn't a democracy. They don't have an annual policy convention.

But if you want to stick with a Canadian political analogy, here's one to ponder.

Imagine that Jack Layton hosts a big pow-wow at the YMCA or wherever it is the NDP has its get-togethers. Among the invitees are David Orchard, Joe Clark, and Carole Jamieson. And after several days of discussions, sing-alongs, and hugs, they emerge from the YMCA with many new policy announcements. Flanked by his three new friends, Jack Layton announces that Canada will be cancelling NAFTA, pulling out of Afghanistan, and keeping Kyoto.

When asked how they arrived at these surprising agreements without Prime Minister Harper even in attendance, Jack explains that he worked out the agreement with the "moderate Conservatives" on stage with him.

Think that would fly? Think that Stephen Harper would feel bound to abide by agreements reached by 3 people he can't stand who had no authority to negotiate on his behalf? That's ridiculous, right?

So, why would you think the Taliban would feel inclined to give any credence to any agreements negotiated by some chickenshit deserters?

-k

[kimmy]

Will Jack be the first?

You'd think that might be a suitable wake-up call to people who think that we can make peace with al Qaeda using some kind of generalized fuzzy-wuzzy live-and-let-live approach.

But you'd be wrong.

-k

[gerryhatrick]

What are we to make of your false quote of Layton?

You're not allowed to falsely quote people. Just sayin'.

[kimmy]

What are we to make of your false quote of Layton?

You're not allowed to falsely quote people. Just sayin'.

Where has Layton been falsely quoted?

If you're referring to the thread title, it's not false. It's an accurate paraphrasing of his position.

"We believe that a comprehensive peace process has to bring all combatants to the table. You don't accomplish peace if those who are fighting are not involved in the peace-based discussion," he said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

What does "bring all combatants to the table" mean, if not "invite Taliban to peace talks"?

Why don't you illustrate for us exactly where you feel Layton's position has been misrepresented, gerry? I'm sure this will be tremendously entertaining.

-k

[August1991]

The NDP website has Layton's speech and it seems to be a fudge.

Or as Kerry would say, it requires "nuance" to understand.

Talking about policy after a troop withdrawal, Layton said in his speech:

Canada can then focus on building a made-in-Canada foreign policy that moves us toward reclaiming Canada's place in the world. One that is clear, comprehensive, and balanced.

Made-in-Canada? I thought the NDP always argued in favour of a multilateral approach.

Indeed, that's what Layton later said:

Naturally, we must continue to work multilaterally to get tough on terrorism.

Incidentally, our participation in Afghanistan is part of our NATO commitments.

Layton says:

But, we also understand that making the world a safer place requires us to go much further. Issues like international development assistance to combat global poverty, reforming international institutions, peace building and securing human rights are all part of the solution.

But how can we accomplish those goals without first having security? It is the State that is largely responsible for providing protection against criminals. Who enforces the tax laws necessary to combat poverty?

Rules of any sort must ultimately have force or the threat of force to make them work. If the threat is never used, then it is not credible.

Indeed, Layton says this:

New Democrats understand the need to send troops into combat and the risks involved. We support and have supported appropriate missions. Our duty is to ensure that Canada participates in missions where the objectives and mandate are clear and where there are clear criteria for success.

IOW, Layton doesn't disagree with the use of force in principle - just with the use of force on this mission in Afghanistan. Why? What has changed?

Well it seems that Layton doesn't like that Canadian soldiers are being killed. IOW, Layton disagrees with the cost of making a threat credible. No civilized society can exist without that.

Layton and the NDP were strongly in favour of the same-sex marriage law. How are such laws enforced?

And why is Layton so willing to compromise and negotiate with the Taliban whereas he would accept no compromise or negotiation with opponents of same sex marriage?

Logical inconsistencies of this sort often blow up in politicians' faces. This statement has the half-baked odour of a scheme to get votes, and distance the NDP from the Liberals.

[Army Guy]

I'm here in Afgan right now, taking a few minutes i have to myself to write this as i believe the message is important to me and the many other that are serving here and in Canada.

Mr. Layton is calling for our return and using the deaths of my comrads to drive this message home to you guys on the home front.

It is not the message that we want to send, It's disheartening to read the news from home only to learn that a majority of Canadians do not support "our" mission, i said "ours" because it seems to be just "OURS" and not Canada's mission which is to bring about peace and stabilty in Afgan. It was a noble cause when we first arrived and nothing has changed despite what others are saying and it is still a noble cause today.

I've preached this a thousand times before i left and now that i'm here for the second time i still believe more than ever. That Canada is making a difference here in Afgan ,yes we do have our set backs but life here in afgan is getting better for all. below are comments made by soldiers that just returned from the last roto.

My Webpage

My Webpage

The theme is the same "are we making a differance" YES, would you go back "YES"

Canadians need to hear this message. We are the ones that see everyday the improvements here in AFGAN, we are the ones that are spilling our sweat, blood,and tears here.

The least Canadians can do is listen, we're not asking you to don a uniform and walk in our boots just listen to what we have to say. We need your support, not 40 % not 60 % but we need everyones support.

I know most Candians do support our soldiers "with exception of those few that gave out those one finger salutes in Edmonton" But we need Canadians to support the mission, we need to read in the news that Canadians are 100% behind us, with your support we can accomplish anything "including bring peace to a region that has not seen peace for a long time. It's in our history to accomplish the unthinkable, the impossiable, Vimy Ridge comes to mind,along with a long list of others proving we Canadian soldiers, can accomplish anything with your support.

[tml12]

I'm here in Afgan right now, taking a few minutes i have to myself to write this as i believe the message is important to me and the many other that are serving here and in Canada.

Mr. Layton is calling for our return and using the deaths of my comrads to drive this message home to you guys on the home front.

It is not the message that we want to send, It's disheartening to read the news from home only to learn that a majority of Canadians do not support "our" mission, i said "ours" because it seems to be just "OURS" and not Canada's mission which is to bring about peace and stabilty in Afgan. It was a noble cause when we first arrived and nothing has changed despite what others are saying and it is still a noble cause today.

I've preached this a thousand times before i left and now that i'm here for the second time i still believe more than ever. That Canada is making a difference here in Afgan ,yes we do have our set backs but life here in afgan is getting better for all. below are comments made by soldiers that just returned from the last roto.

My Webpage

My Webpage

The theme is the same "are we making a differance" YES, would you go back "YES"

Canadians need to hear this message. We are the ones that see everyday the improvements here in AFGAN, we are the ones that are spilling our sweat, blood,and tears here.

The least Canadians can do is listen, we're not asking you to don a uniform and walk in our boots just listen to what we have to say. We need your support, not 40 % not 60 % but we need everyones support.

I know most Candians do support our soldiers "with exception of those few that gave out those one finger salutes in Edmonton" But we need Canadians to support the mission, we need to read in the news that Canadians are 100% behind us, with your support we can accomplish anything "including bring peace to a region that has not seen peace for a long time. It's in our history to accomplish the unthinkable, the impossiable, Vimy Ridge comes to mind,along with a long list of others proving we Canadian soldiers, can accomplish anything with your support.

That is very beautiful post ArmyGuy. Please know that you have my support and that I don't know if I will ever be able to thank you for the sacrifices that you and your fellow soldiers have made so that we can live freely here in Canada.

[watching&waiting]

Army guy, you have all my support and that of my family. Do not let the newspapers make you think anything else, as they are only trying to sell papers. The truth is things here at home are pretty quiet and there is not alot of political news, as we do not have a corrupt deal per week being let out to the press. So they then go searching for sensationalism from the ranks where it always has been, The Libs and NDP. They use all this as a wedge to see how many cases of foot in mouth they can find. As you should know that is not the Canada we want to have, and it really is not represemntative of the majority of people. Just do the job you started doing and rest assured that we here back at home support the troops 100%.

[Wilber]

I'm here in Afgan right now, taking a few minutes i have to myself to write this as i believe the message is important to me and the many other that are serving here and in Canada.

Mr. Layton is calling for our return and using the deaths of my comrads to drive this message home to you guys on the home front.

It is not the message that we want to send, It's disheartening to read the news from home only to learn that a majority of Canadians do not support "our" mission, i said "ours" because it seems to be just "OURS" and not Canada's mission which is to bring about peace and stabilty in Afgan. It was a noble cause when we first arrived and nothing has changed despite what others are saying and it is still a noble cause today.

I've preached this a thousand times before i left and now that i'm here for the second time i still believe more than ever. That Canada is making a difference here in Afgan ,yes we do have our set backs but life here in afgan is getting better for all. below are comments made by soldiers that just returned from the last roto.

My Webpage

My Webpage

The theme is the same "are we making a differance" YES, would you go back "YES"

Canadians need to hear this message. We are the ones that see everyday the improvements here in AFGAN, we are the ones that are spilling our sweat, blood,and tears here.

The least Canadians can do is listen, we're not asking you to don a uniform and walk in our boots just listen to what we have to say. We need your support, not 40 % not 60 % but we need everyones support.

I know most Candians do support our soldiers "with exception of those few that gave out those one finger salutes in Edmonton" But we need Canadians to support the mission, we need to read in the news that Canadians are 100% behind us, with your support we can accomplish anything "including bring peace to a region that has not seen peace for a long time. It's in our history to accomplish the unthinkable, the impossiable, Vimy Ridge comes to mind,along with a long list of others proving we Canadian soldiers, can accomplish anything with your support.

That is very beautiful post ArmyGuy. Please know that you have my support and that I don't know if I will ever be able to thank you for the sacrifices that you and your fellow soldiers have made so that we can live freely here in Canada.

Well said tml12.

[jdobbin]

I'm here in Afgan right now, taking a few minutes i have to myself to write this as i believe the message is important to me and the many other that are serving here and in Canada.

Mr. Layton is calling for our return and using the deaths of my comrads to drive this message home to you guys on the home front.

I know most Candians do support our soldiers "with exception of those few that gave out those one finger salutes in Edmonton" But we need Canadians to support the mission, we need to read in the news that Canadians are 100% behind us, with your support we can accomplish anything "including bring peace to a region that has not seen peace for a long time. It's in our history to accomplish the unthinkable, the impossiable, Vimy Ridge comes to mind,along with a long list of others proving we Canadian soldiers, can accomplish anything with your support.

Stay out of danger Amyguy. Hope you and you're unit remain safe throughout the war.

I think poll after poll shows that people support the troops.

The extension of the deployment is a separate issue and not a reflection of how people think of Canadian forces in general.

No one holds Canadian soldiers respponsible for the corruption in the Karzai government that leads to members of his own family. No one holds Canadian soldiers reponsible for the booming opium trade. No one holds Canadian soldiers reponsible for the al Qaeda and Taliban units being able to take shelter in Pakistan.

Canadians are wary about the winnability of the war. Canadian forces might win every battle they are in and still not be able to win the war there. It is probably why O'Connor proposed Canadian soldiers going to Pakistan this week. If the war is to be won, it will have to fought in the mountains of Pakistan. Don't know if that is going to happen.

[Rovik]

If the coalition lures these "moderate Taliban" to desert their comrades-in-arms with offers of amnesty, then what legitimacy do these deserters have to negotiate on behalf of the Taliban? None.

I disagree. If enough of the moderate leadership (and their followers) are willing to compromise, this would put tremendous pressure on the extremist leadership within the organization. If they ignore it or seek to reprimand the moderates, they risk alienating a lot of the taliban's support in the country and a fractured and weakened Taliban

Well, I shouldn't have to point this out, but the Taliban is a lot different from the Conservatives, Liberals, or NDP. The Taliban isn't a democracy. They don't have an annual policy convention.

Doesn't matter if the group is a democracy or not, the principles remain the same no matter the type of group.

But if you want to stick with a Canadian political analogy, here's one to ponder.

Imagine that Jack Layton hosts a big pow-wow at the YMCA or wherever it is the NDP has its get-togethers. Among the invitees are David Orchard, Joe Clark, and Carole Jamieson. And after several days of discussions, sing-alongs, and hugs, they emerge from the YMCA with many new policy announcements. Flanked by his three new friends, Jack Layton announces that Canada will be cancelling NAFTA, pulling out of Afghanistan, and keeping Kyoto.

When asked how they arrived at these surprising agreements without Prime Minister Harper even in attendance, Jack explains that he worked out the agreement with the "moderate Conservatives" on stage with him.

Think that would fly? Think that Stephen Harper would feel bound to abide by agreements reached by 3 people he can't stand who had no authority to negotiate on his behalf? That's ridiculous, right?

Your analogy doesn't really represent this situation. An better analogy (in my opinion) would be if Harper put forward a proposal to change the EI system that would make it harder to receive EI and those who do would, receive less money than before. And the result being the Atlantic caucus coming together and coming out in public saying the changes would be unacceptable. Harper would have to revise his proposal or face a backlash.

So, why would you think the Taliban would feel inclined to give any credence to any agreements negotiated by some chickenshit deserters?

-k

See my first statement.

[Rovik]

It saddens me that when someone doesn't support the "mission," they are often portrayed as not supporting the soldiers and unpatriotic. This is something that the Republicans in the US have been good at during the Iraqi war and now many Conservatives and some Liberals are doing now. It's a sad ploy to try to embarrass people to accept the situation in Afghanistan.

Just because you are against a mission does not mean you are against the soldiers. In fact, many who are against the situation in Afghanistan support the soldiers and the Canadian military wholeheartedly. They are against what the government has mandated the soldiers to do and realize that the soldiers are only doing their jobs.

I might be more for it if it was making a difference, but it doesn't seem to be (especially outside the larger centres.) It's funny,I remember on CNN a few years ago, they interviewed a soldier who said they were making a difference but fast- forward to now and we see a civil war in Iraq, thousands continue to die, people's living standards have dropped, not increased and the terrorists have a bigger sway in Iraq then they did before the war.

Personally, there is a couple of things that bother me about this. First, the fact that Canadian's role has changed from a peacekeeping role to a more aggressive killing role which put them in harm's way and risk heavier casualities then in times past. Second is how the Conservative government pushed the extension of the mssion without much of a debate. They knew it would be harder to past once the original mandate had finished, because by then, people would see the heavy casualties and there would be more opposition to it. In my opinion, what the Conservatives did was tricky and underhanded and done to appease the Americans.

[tml12]

It saddens me that when someone doesn't support the "mission," they are often portrayed as not supporting the soldiers and unpatriotic. This is something that the Republicans in the US have been good at during the Iraqi war and now many Conservatives and some Liberals are doing now. It's a sad ploy to try to embarrass people to accept the situation in Afghanistan.

Just because you are against a mission does not mean you are against the soldiers. In fact, many who are against the situation in Afghanistan support the soldiers and the Canadian military wholeheartedly. They are against what the government has mandated the soldiers to do and realize that the soldiers are only doing their jobs.

I might be more for it if it was making a difference, but it doesn't seem to be (especially outside the larger centres.) It's funny,I remember on CNN a few years ago, they interviewed a soldier who said they were making a difference but fast- forward to now and we see a civil war in Iraq, thousands continue to die, people's living standards have dropped, not increased and the terrorists have a bigger sway in Iraq then they did before the war.

Personally, there is a couple of things that bother me about this. First, the fact that Canadian's role has changed from a peacekeeping role to a more aggressive killing role which put them in harm's way and risk heavier casualities then in times past. Second is how the Conservative government pushed the extension of the mssion without much of a debate. They knew it would be harder to past once the original mandate had finished, because by then, people would see the heavy casualties and there would be more opposition to it. In my opinion, what the Conservatives did was tricky and underhanded and done to appease the Americans.

I don't think it was done to appease the Americans. While the Americans must be pleased by it, I think Canada recognizes that it is in the world's best interest to have a more secure Afghanistan. Furthermore, ArmyGuy reported that Canadian troops there were making a difference...and if he says that, I believe him.

The NDP doesn't want Canada in Afghanistan because they don't believe in any kind of military action. They may support the troops, yes, but they can never support any kind of militarism.

Canada's role needs to be more aggressive. The fact that Canada "keeps the peace" just isn't true...it is a myth propagated by Liberal governments. Canada had strong and proud roles in past wars, especially WWII. It is time we recognized this and appreciated what our troops were doing over there.

[Wilber]

Just because you are against a mission does not mean you are against the soldiers. In fact, many who are against the situation in Afghanistan support the soldiers and the Canadian military wholeheartedly. They are against what the government has mandated the soldiers to do and realize that the soldiers are only doing their jobs.

Yet when those soldiers speak to these people and tell them they believe in what they are doing and want to be there, rather than listen, they stick to their own prejudices. How is that supporting the soldiers? The day the soldiers no longer believe they should be there is when we should be calling for them to be brought home. That is supporting the soldiers.

[Argus]

And to those who don't believe in moderate Taliban, within just about every group, there are people with different stances or different ideals, for example in this case, a moderate may lean toward diplomacy and tolerance while an extremist leans towards violence and believes there is no middle ground.

People who lean towards diplomacy and tolerance don't join the Taliban. How hard is it for you to wrap your mind around that? It's like appealing to the moderates in the Heritage Front. How many people who are "moderate" do you think join the Heritage Front?

And the HF are sweeties compared to the Taliban. All the HF do are talk and whine and put up a nasty web site. The Taliban are about murder and destruction, bombing girls schools and executing anyone they think might be cooperating with the government. Just what is it about that you think would appeal to a moderate?

[Argus]

The mission has two goals in my mind: to ensure that Afghanistan will not be used as a base for a terrorist threat to western countries and to show other regimes what happens if they become a threat to the west directly or indirectly.

Well the mission is not going smoothly after almost 5 years, actually it seems to be getting worse. Why I wonder?

First, because there were insufficient troops to take advantage of the route of the Taliban. Second, now that they have been reinforced, they are moving out into areas the Taliban have resettled to, to areas they have not been challenged in for some years. It is not a matter of things getting that much worse, but of the NATO forces now moving into Taliban strongholds which were largely untouched.

And if the Afghanistan mission is ever completed then what? Go into Iran? Syria? North Korea? Sudan? Somalia? or maybe even Venezula or Indonesia if they get bad enough?

That is what the military is for. Or would you rather wait and fight over here?

From what I can gather, and given those two goals, negotiations with the Taliban now would be counterproductive.

Maybe you are right or maybe you are not. You would be definately right if things were going great for the coalition forces, but they are not. Their current techniques are not working

It does not sound like you actually know much about what is going on there. So I'll take your opinion with a few grains of salt. It takes more than a few years to rebuild a nation, especially when most of the world's attention and resources is focussed elsewhere.

[Rovik]

I don't think it was done to appease the Americans. While the Americans must be pleased by it, I think Canada recognizes that it is in the world's best interest to have a more secure Afghanistan. Furthermore, ArmyGuy reported that Canadian troops there were making a difference...and if he says that, I believe him.

The NDP doesn't want Canada in Afghanistan because they don't believe in any kind of military action. They may support the troops, yes, but they can never support any kind of militarism.

Canada's role needs to be more aggressive. The fact that Canada "keeps the peace" just isn't true...it is a myth propagated by Liberal governments. Canada had strong and proud roles in past wars, especially WWII. It is time we recognized this and appreciated what our troops were doing over there.

And how do we keep Afghanistan secure? By keeping coalition forces in there perpetually? And is Afghanistan really much more secure (outside the larger centres) after almost 5 years of coalition forces?

I'm sure that ArmyGuy is sincere and really believes what he says, but his is only one soldier's opinion. I've talked to a friend's brother who served over there and he is pessimistic about what will happen. He said that out in the villages, the locals support the Taliban wholeheartedly and they kept their eyes on any local that came close. He also mentioned that there were many soldiers who didn't like the direction of the Canadian military but they would never come out in public and say what was on their mind, because if they did, they would be marginalized and isolated. And no matter what role the military has, people will always respect the soldiers as it should be.

The NDP believes in peacekeeping, which in my mind is a form of militarism.

One can't compare Afghanistan to WW2. In WW2, the enemy had one of the great military powers of its time and wanted to control the world. They even had subs off Canada's Atlantic coast. In Afghanistan, we have a small ragtag group whose technology doesn't even come close to the coalition. To even consider comparing the two is really pushing it.

[Rovik]

People who lean towards diplomacy and tolerance don't join the Taliban. How hard is it for you to wrap your mind around that? It's like appealing to the moderates in the Heritage Front. How many people who are "moderate" do you think join the Heritage Front?

And the HF are sweeties compared to the Taliban. All the HF do are talk and whine and put up a nasty web site. The Taliban are about murder and destruction, bombing girls schools and executing anyone they think might be cooperating with the government. Just what is it about that you think would appeal to a moderate?

So going by what you are saying, every member of the Taliban are cold blooded killers? How about the Nazis?

Was every nazi of 40s Germany a cold blooded killer?

Here is a interesting artcile that will explain why there is hope for the Taliban, and why they are not like Al Queda and why there is hope to bring some of them over.

Why The Taliban Aren't Terrorists

[Rovik]

Well the mission is not going smoothly after almost 5 years, actually it seems to be getting worse. Why I wonder?

First, because there were insufficient troops to take advantage of the route of the Taliban. Second, now that they have been reinforced, they are moving out into areas the Taliban have resettled to, to areas they have not been challenged in for some years. It is not a matter of things getting that much worse, but of the NATO forces now moving into Taliban strongholds which were largely untouched.

By your logic, the American-led mission should have brought in enough solders to reinforce 5 years ago? If they had, perhaps we could have seen a lot less suffering in the last 5 years. And the question remains, how come they didn't bring in the required manpower 5 years ago?

And if the Afghanistan mission is ever completed then what? Go into Iran? Syria? North Korea? Sudan? Somalia? or maybe even Venezula or Indonesia if they get bad enough?

That is what the military is for. Or would you rather wait and fight over here?

The military could be used to protect our sovereignty such as troops in the far north or to prevent genocide from happening such as what happened in Rwanda.

Maybe you are right or maybe you are not. You would be definately right if things were going great for the coalition forces, but they are not. Their current techniques are not working

It does not sound like you actually know much about what is going on there. So I'll take your opinion with a few grains of salt. It takes more than a few years to rebuild a nation, especially when most of the world's attention and resources is focussed elsewhere.

My goodness, resorting to insults now, I must have hit a nerve. And you must forgive me, I didn't realize that you were the world's foremost expert in the Afghanistan Conflict. Guess whatever the rest of us say must be wrong if it doesn't fit your views