The great debate "debate".

[Black Dog]

Yes, exactly what they said about Hitler when he wrote his book while sitting in a jail cell.

*Bzzzzt!* Gratuitous and facile Hitler reference. To the shame corner! And take a copy of "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" with you.

Hitler was the product of a specific set of circumstances too numerous to go into here. There's no analagous entity in the Islamic world.

[Riverwind]

Yes, exactly what they said about Hitler when he wrote his book while sitting in a jail cell.

I doubt anyone ever said that. The current problems in Iraq demonstrate that the Islamic would is not united and that there is zero chance that Islamicists will ever do anything more than foment civil war and strife within their immediate neighborhood. They could even nuke Isreal and it would have zero effect on the lives of the overwhelming majority of people living on the planet.

[B. Max]

Yes, exactly what they said about Hitler when he wrote his book while sitting in a jail cell.

*Bzzzzt!* Gratuitous and facile Hitler reference. To the shame corner! And take a copy of "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" with you.

Hitler was the product of a specific set of circumstances too numerous to go into here. There's no analagous entity in the Islamic world.

Hitler was one man sitting in a jail cell when he wrote Mein Kampf. The Islamic butchers with conquest on their mind are many, spread all over the place and not even in jail. Are those some the circumstances you don't want to discuss.

[B. Max]

Yes, exactly what they said about Hitler when he wrote his book while sitting in a jail cell.

I doubt anyone ever said that. The current problems in Iraq demonstrate that the Islamic would is not united and that there is zero chance that Islamicists will ever do anything more than foment civil war and strife within their immediate neighborhood. They could even nuke Isreal and it would have zero effect on the lives of the overwhelming majority of people living on the planet.

Give your head a shake. These are the same type that once took over spain and were poised to take over Europe until they were driven back. The appeaseres of today are no different than the appeasers of yesterday when they appeased Hitler all the way to the WW2.

[August1991]

ithin their immediate neighborhood. They could even nuke Isreal and it would have zero effect on the lives of the overwhelming majority of people living on the planet.

Huh? There is a very real threat that some of these Muslim whackos will set off a nuclear device in a western city in the next, say, 20 years.

They've flown planes into buildings, set off bombs in busses and subways, they've kidnapped schoolchildren and theatre audiences. They've bombed discos and embassies. This has been going on for well over 10 years in farflung countries around the world. In each case, they killed perfectly innocent people with no connection whatsoever to Israel or the Middle East.

I don't see why they wouldn't do something cataclysmic if given the opportunity. God knows what the response in western countries would be.

This is not a threat like Hitler's or Soviet armies massed along borders. It makes little sense to compare their relative seriousness.

Suffice to say that we will have to deal with the problem as best we can, while trying to limit the encroachment on our civil liberties. I hate to sound boring but that's basically it.

[jdobbin]

Because it will be hard to justify to the public, canadian or american....doesn't mean that the justifcation isn't valid.

The first thing that has to be spelled out, the Taliban wasn't removed because they weren't a western style liberal democracy, but because they gave safe haven to terrorists who were attacking us. The same reason applies to why the Taliban can not be allowed to regain power.(For that matter, why we must keep our eyes on other failed nations like Somalia.)

If because of our involvement, the long term effect of security is peace and prosperity for the Afghan people, so much the better. But if they decide to live in the dark ages...who are we to forbid it?

The justification for going to Afghanistan was certainly there. The reasons for staying are debateable.

The one thing that the Harper government can't control politically is Afghanistan. O'Connor said the Taliban can't be defeated militarily. If this is the case the the cicumstances have indeed changed.

People will ask, what is the exit strategy and how will victory be determined if the Taliban remains safely ensconced in Pakistan?

[Bakunin]

I don't really disagree with the mission in afganistan, but i do agree we need to discuss it. First of all its our taxes and the country's philosophy that is linked to this war, its not only a military matters.

If ever we had to go in Iraq for sample... it would be totally different and therefore i guess we need to make a law that makes it illegal to declare war on a country if we didnt get attacked by them without a debate in ottawa where evry party can say what they think and how it should be managed and what is the goal and cost.

[jdobbin]

So, given the situation, what would it take to bring peace to this region, in your opinion?

More military resources? More educators? More economic aid?

O'Connor has said it will be the defeat of the Taliban in Pakistan.

[Riverwind]

Give your head a skake. These are the same type that once took over spain and were poised to take over europe until they were driven back. The appeaseres of today are no different than the appeasers of yesterday when they appeased Hitler all the way to the WW2.

Hitler was no threat to anyone other than his immediate neighborhood (Just like Islamacists). The only reason Hitler gets so much media play in North America is because most North Americans have European ancestry.

[jdobbin]

If there is to be a debate, then let's debate what we could do more or better. Anybody with a passing understanding of what's involved does not question the existence of this mission.

I'm surprised at the niggling defeatism. This is not an impossible task. It might take time but that's fine.

It is O'Connor who said the Taliban couldn't be defeated militarily. If victory means going into the Pakistan then it isn't likely this war can be won. Pakistan won't allow foreign troops on its soil and continues to harbour bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban.

[MSH]

What does that have to do with the Taliban? The Taliban were and are small-time peasants, illiterate and ignorant thugs. If they had aspirations beyond ruling over their own patch of dirt and making life miserable for the people there, they didn't show it. Osama bin Laden was allowed to set up in Afghanistan because he gave them money and muscle. If the Taliban were to take over again, that won't magically return Al Qaeda to its former strength.

The Taliban WERE small-time peasants. They are now a primary instrument of terror, still heavily influenced and supported by Al Quaeda, so this has very much to do with the Taliban. They are cut from the same cloth as organisations in other nations. If we were to let them to their own devices it would allow Al Quaeda to continue furthering is agenda with them (which is far more ambitious than to "rule over their own patch of dirt"). We have to show the Taliban in no uncertain terms that there is no good in accepting "money and muscle" and following in the footsteps of an insane Islamic cult. If we left, there would be more than enough nutjobs out there to fill the void and re-establish a totalitarian regime bent on western destruction. As desolate and backward as Afghanistan is, it still provided enough of a base for such people to orchestrate the hijacking of three planes for use as giant suicide bombs.

If we succeed, however we plan to measure that, whoever eventually ends up running Afghanistan will be different from the Taliban by a matter of degrees. They'll be corrupt. They'll be backward. And they'll be brutal. And we won't care because they'll be ours.

You have no evidence whatsoever backing your view. NOBODY can say that "they'll be corrupt". When Hitler was finally deposed all of Germany didn't just become corrupt. When the UN action in Korea ended the South Korean gov't wasn't merely "different by a matter of degrees" from the Communist aggressors--it became a stable, free democracy by global standards. They'll only be corrupt thugs if in fact we don't care--and I'd like to think that at least sometimes we DO care. If we withdraw now it certainly measn we DONT care and your prophecy will fulfill itself with absolute certainty.

[Riverwind]

There is a very real threat that some of these Muslim whackos will set off a nuclear device in a western city in the next, say, 20 years.

And maybe a million or so people would die - a tragedy but certaintly not the worst in human history and you can bet that after recovering from the shock that the overwhelming majority of people will continue with their lives has they always have. Furthermore, we know that the best way to ensure that such an attack occurs is to become entangled in military conflicts in Islamic countries. 9/11 would have never happened if the world had let Saddam keep Kuwait and the US kept its troops out of Saudi Arabia. You can argue that we had no choice but to become militarily involved in Kuwait - but you can't argue that 9/11 wasn't a direct a consequence of that military involvement - Bin Laden has said so many times in his public statements.

[Black Dog]

Hitler was one man sitting in a jail cell when he wrote Mein Kampf. The Islamic butchers with conquest on their mind are many, spread all over the place and not even in jail. Are those some the circumstances you don't want to discuss.

How about Hitler was the product of an industrialized society with a strong militaristic streak.

Give your head a shake. These are the same type that once took over spain and were poised to take over Europe until they were driven back.

Yeah: about 1,000 years ago, when they were the pinnacle of human civilization and we were still shitting in holes in the ground. In case you ain't noticed, the roles have kinda switched since then.

The appeaseres of today are no different than the appeasers of yesterday when they appeased Hitler all the way to the WW2

Hitler Hitler Hitler! Fuck this: go read a book.

Huh? There is a very real threat that some of these Muslim whackos will set off a nuclear device in a western city in the next, say, 20 years.

They've flown planes into buildings, set off bombs in busses and subways, they've kidnapped schoolchildren and theatre audiences. They've bombed discos and embassies. This has been going on for well over 10 years in farflung countries around the world. In each case, they killed perfectly innocent people with no connection whatsoever to Israel or the Middle East.

I don't see why they wouldn't do something cataclysmic if given the opportunity. God knows what the response in western countries would be.

So the best they can do is harrass us and kill us in varying numbers. That's not an existensial threat: it's a big pain in the ass.

Suffice to say that we will have to deal with the problem as best we can, while trying to limit the encroachment on our civil liberties. I hate to sound boring but that's basically it.

Pretty much. Terrorism itself isn't a threat to our society. How we choose to react to it is.

Hitler was no threat to anyone other than his immediate neighborhood (Just like Islamacists). The only reason Hitler gets so much media play in North America is because most North Americans have European ancestry.

Even that's giving the Islamists too much credit.

[B. Max]

Give your head a skake. These are the same type that once took over spain and were poised to take over europe until they were driven back. The appeaseres of today are no different than the appeasers of yesterday when they appeased Hitler all the way to the WW2.

Hitler was no threat to anyone other than his immediate neighborhood (Just like Islamacists). The only reason Hitler gets so much media play in North America is because most North Americans have European ancestry.

Oh please. Germany and Spain both declared war on the US a couple of days or so after the attack on pearl harbor. The germans were secretly building a road down the west coast of BC for their planned invasion. They had U-boats off the east coast of North America.

[jdobbin]

Oh please. Germany and Spain both declared war on the US a couple of days or so after the attack on pearl harbor. The germans were secretly building a road down the west coast of BC for their planned invasion. They had U-boats off the east coast of North America.

How is this related to the present situation in Afghanistan itself?

[Black Dog]

Oh please. Germany and Spain both declared war on the US a couple of days or so after the attack on pearl harbor.

So?

The germans were secretly building a road down the west coast of BC for their planned invasion.

Cite?

They had U-boats off the east coast of North America

Someone shoulda bought them a map. The road was on the West Coast.

[Riverwind]

Oh please. Germany and Spain both declared war on the US a couple of days or so after the attack on pearl harbor. The germans were secretly building a road down the west coast of BC for their planned invasion. They had U-boats off the east coast of North America.

Declaring war does not make them a threat - it is simply irrational to think that the Germans could have launched even a token attack against North America. Uboats cannot be used to invade - they were intended to prevent supplies from getting to Europe. The idea that Germans were building anything is BC is simply laughable.

[gerryhatrick]

The longer you dither and debate we the soldiers pay. get off your asses.

"Get of your asses". Exactly what does that mean?

I'm not sure what your objection is. You clearly object, and feel quite strongly about it. The mission is happening...it's on...and we're currently comitted until 2009.

You are obliged to perform the mission that your civilian leadership tells you to perform. Perhaps you need to stick to that instead of using your position to put forward partisan BS. The fact that a debate is happening should be of no consequence to you. Just "grab your balls and squezze", as you say, and don't let it fret you.

[Charles Anthony]

Unfortunately, every Canadian is required to pay for it through their taxes and without choice.

I think it would be more appropriate to pass a collection basket around and let the war-mongers fund this "mission" themselves.

No problem. As long as you trot out the collection boxes for the myriad of socialist boondoogles.

Sounds fair. I would be the first to support that trade.

However, in my book, the war industry is just an other public-servant make-work boondoggle.

[daddyhominum]

I for one would like to hear what the measureable outcomes are for success of the mission. For example: if the mission is to defeat the Taliban, how will that be measured? I think people are tired of the empty sloganeering that passes for information on this matter.

(Army Guy @ Sep 8 2006, 02:08 PM) *It's not about drug lords, corupt goverment officals(Canada did'nt have any of those) or for that matter the taliban. It's all about establishing a secure enviroment so some form of government can take root and the people of Afgan can start to rebuild thier lives after decades of war. where children go to school, people work, women have rights.

We are doing our part by driving the Taliban out, Canadians need to "as my old Sgt Major would say" Grab your balls and squezze, that pain your feeling is proof you have them, now use them. Canadians sent us over here if "we" can uphold our end , then Canadians should be presuring our government to do what ever it can to bring peace to this region so we can come home.

I agree with outcome measurements.

Suppose we turn Army Guy's statements into outcomes.

1.Is the environment secure?

2.Has a government taken root?

3.Are Afgans rebuilding their lives after decades of war?

4.Are children attending school?

5. Are people working?

6. Do women have rights?

Each outcome is to be rated by comparison to the Taliban era and the years of war prior to them as:

A. A lot worse. B. Somewhat worse. C. No change D. Somewhat better . E. A lot better.

More such measurements can be added.

My rating at present would be:

1. D; 2.D; 3.E. 4. E; 5. D; 6. E.

[uOttawaMan]

The longer you dither and debate we the soldiers pay. get off your asses.

"Get of your asses". Exactly what does that mean?

I'm not sure what your objection is. You clearly object, and feel quite strongly about it. The mission is happening...it's on...and we're currently comitted until 2009.

You are obliged to perform the mission that your civilian leadership tells you to perform. Perhaps you need to stick to that instead of using your position to put forward partisan BS. The fact that a debate is happening should be of no consequence to you. Just "grab your balls and squezze", as you say, and don't let it fret you.

Because we all know soldiers are mindless drones, not Canadian citizens entitled to participate in whatever debate they damn well please.

True, they have to follow orders.. to an extent.. certainly not any unlawful orders. But his opinion carries just as much weight as any civie.

[Wilber]

You are obliged to perform the mission that your civilian leadership tells you to perform. Perhaps you need to stick to that instead of using your position to put forward partisan BS. The fact that a debate is happening should be of no consequence to you. Just "grab your balls and squezze", as you say, and don't let it fret you.

Why don't you call him "Boy" while you're at it.

[B. Max]

Oh please. Germany and Spain both declared war on the US a couple of days or so after the attack on pearl harbor. The germans were secretly building a road down the west coast of BC for their planned invasion. They had U-boats off the east coast of North America.

Declaring war does not make them a threat - it is simply irrational to think that the Germans could have launched even a token attack against North America. Uboats cannot be used to invade - they were intended to prevent supplies from getting to Europe. The idea that Germans were building anything is BC is simply laughable.

[gerryhatrick]

The longer you dither and debate we the soldiers pay. get off your asses.

"Get of your asses". Exactly what does that mean?

I'm not sure what your objection is. You clearly object, and feel quite strongly about it. The mission is happening...it's on...and we're currently comitted until 2009.

You are obliged to perform the mission that your civilian leadership tells you to perform. Perhaps you need to stick to that instead of using your position to put forward partisan BS. The fact that a debate is happening should be of no consequence to you. Just "grab your balls and squezze", as you say, and don't let it fret you.

Because we all know soldiers are mindless drones, not Canadian citizens entitled to participate in whatever debate they damn well please.

True, they have to follow orders.. to an extent.. certainly not any unlawful orders. But his opinion carries just as much weight as any civie.

They're not mindless drones, but nor are they insightful political commentators.

Most troops are spouting propaganda, truth be known, and this is certainly the case here.

[Argus]

I think people are tired of the empty sloganeering that passes for information on this matter.

Me too.

I am completely fed up of being told to shut up and support our troups. Somehow, I find it vey difficult to accept "We are saving the world! We are bringing world peace! We are fighting insurgents!" and other such vacuous "mission" statements.

I refuse to believe that nations go to war for any reason greater than the almighty dollar.

Well then, there really isn't any point in discussing anything with you. Your mind is closed tight, and you will believe that, regardless of the evidence.