Stephen Harper using the troops AGAIN.

Topaz · November 13, 2006

Most Canadians will always SUPPORT the troops but not the GOVERNMENT, if they show they are heading in the wrong direction, as Harper is, an election will either proof this to be true or not.

Ricki Bobbi · November 13, 2006

Isn't their allready a topic on this.

Probably, we seem to have a proliferation of threads on identical topics.

A hat trick = a three-peat. No pun intended.

Or it could mean three pathetic attempts by the same single-minded poster on his own thread that nobody else cares about...

Canadian Blue · November 13, 2006

Most Canadians will always SUPPORT the troops but not the GOVERNMENT, if they show they are heading in the wrong direction, as Harper is, an election will either proof this to be true or not.

Canadian's don't always support the troops.....

What wrong direction is that? Once again of all of the reports I have read about Afghanistan it appears we have been making improvements. I don't see whats wrong with trying to improve security in the south since the Taliban are the ones who are denying human rights, and recently killed a leading women's rights advocate in Afghanistan.

Sometimes I wonder what people are thinking when they say pullout of the country. Does anybody really think the situation will be better ten years down the road when Afghanistan is back in the same position it was in, in 2000. We haven't lost troops lately, and we have been seeing improvements, contrary to what the NDP and Liberals say. Or even worse a civil war in that country which could have implications for the whole region.

normanchateau · November 13, 2006

Sometimes I wonder what people are thinking when they say pullout of the country.

Some are thinking that even though the Taliban are worse, they see no sufficiently compelling reason for Canadians to die to prop up the Islamic fundamentalist, Koran-ruled theocracy of Afghanistan whose own government imprisons blasphemers and has sentenced Christian converts to death.

If a Taliban-like group were threatening the government or people of Iran, would we send in Canadian troops to

prop up the current elected Iran government? Well that's analagous to what we're doing in Afghanistan in my opinion.

There are probably multiple reasons why a majority of NATO countries are unwilling to send their forces on this pointless mission.

Canadian Blue · November 13, 2006

Well Norman Afghanistan is far from an Islamic dictatorship. Once again for a fledgling democracy their will be problems, however so far I believe that its a cause worth dying for. Women were given a right to vote, and the constitution enshrines various human rights. But I don't really see the reasoning in saying lets stop progress before it can start by pulling out and leaving the sheep to the wolves.

If a Taliban-like group were threatening the government or people of Iran, would we send in Canadian troops to

Not it isn't, listen once again Afghanistan is a democracy and voted for Karzai. Afghanistan isn't threatning to wipe Jew's off the face of the planet as Iran is. Women are serving in positions of power in the government, and they have more freedom's then ever before, thanks largely to the CF and NATO.

Remember, this is a UN sanctioned mission.

The Constitution describes Islam as its sacred and state religion. A system of civil law is described, but no law may contradict the beliefs and provisions of Islam. It was widely reported that Sharia law is not specifically mentioned, but in fact Hanafi jurisprudence is one of the six branches of Sharia law. Moreover, concessions are made to Shia jurisprudence in cases arising strictly between Shi'ites.
Followers of other religions are "free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites" within the limits of the law. There is no mention of freedom of conscience.

While its not perfect its better then the alternative.

Koran-ruled theocracy of Afghanistan whose own government imprisons blasphemers and has sentenced Christian converts to death.

Wrong again. I read the case and the government withdrew the charges due to the overzealous judiciary. This is the only case I have read that has happened in Afghanistan. The international community reacted, and I can garauntee you that if Afghanistan had killed Abdul Rahman then Afghanistan would not be getting much needed aid, as the story made international headlines.

Once again the government was desperately trying to drop the charges.

Argus · November 13, 2006

Some are thinking that even though the Taliban are worse, they see no sufficiently compelling reason for Canadians to die to prop up the Islamic fundamentalist, Koran-ruled theocracy of Afghanistan whose own government imprisons blasphemers and has sentenced Christian converts to death.

How many blasphemers and converts have been imprisoned and/or killed in the last five years?

A round number, please.

There are probably multiple reasons why a majority of NATO countries are unwilling to send their forces on this pointless mission.

Political cowardice and pandering to anti-American morons being high among them.

Argus · November 13, 2006

Given that this is remembrance day, and that Stephen Harper just yesterday invoked this day in another example of his cynical usage of our troops, this topic deserves a kick.

Odd how popular he is with the troops, and how the mention of Jack Layton's name brings sneers and contempt, eh?

normanchateau · November 13, 2006

If a Taliban-like group were threatening the government or people of Iran, would we send in Canadian troops to

Not it isn't, listen once again Afghanistan is a democracy and voted for Karzai.

Wrong again. Afghanistan is a theocracry. The Koran trumps all human rights in Afghanistan.

Iran voted for their loathsome President Ahmadinejad. Does that make Iran a democracy?

Argus · November 13, 2006

No, I understand that perfectly well. What some (not necessarily you) don't understand is that it's very possible we're not just fighting terrorists or even just Taliban in Afghanistan. Just as the USA has a battle in Iraq with mostly a home-grown non-terrorist insurgency, that may be the case in Afghanistan.

Whatever it is it's not the big scary fight as the media keep trying to portray it. Total deaths in Afghanistan fighting over the last year have been about 3700, the great majority of those deaths are insurgents.

By contrast, 55,000 people were murdered in Brazil last year.

Which is more dangerous, the streets of Kabul, or the streets of Sao Paulo?

gerryhatrick · November 13, 2006

Given that this is remembrance day, and that Stephen Harper just yesterday invoked this day in another example of his cynical usage of our troops, this topic deserves a kick.

Odd how popular he is with the troops, and how the mention of Jack Layton's name brings sneers and contempt, eh?

Odd that the first time I saw this expressed was on a military website, eh?

gerryhatrick · November 13, 2006

No, I understand that perfectly well. What some (not necessarily you) don't understand is that it's very possible we're not just fighting terrorists or even just Taliban in Afghanistan. Just as the USA has a battle in Iraq with mostly a home-grown non-terrorist insurgency, that may be the case in Afghanistan.

Whatever it is it's not the big scary fight as the media keep trying to portray it.

The media is not "trying" to do anything other than report the reality.

The situation on the ground is changing, and some reports have portrayed the fight as expanding beyond the Taliban. That may be the reality, or it might not. Those reports were limitted to a single source, although they have field offices throughout Afghanistan. Let's just stay tuned.

Canadian Blue · November 14, 2006

No, I understand that perfectly well. What some (not necessarily you) don't understand is that it's very possible we're not just fighting terrorists or even just Taliban in Afghanistan. Just as the USA has a battle in Iraq with mostly a home-grown non-terrorist insurgency, that may be the case in Afghanistan.

No, its alot different from Iraq. Once again progress is being made, and now their is a more secure area rebuilding can go ahead at a more progressive pace. It could be possible that were fighting a non-terrorist insurgency is a cop out since you don't have much proof of this. Were fighting the Taliban, that is who the offensives were targeting in Op Medusa.

Don't try to create a "Canadian Vietnam" out of nothing.

Odd that the first time I saw this expressed was on a military website, eh?

Actually, its expressed by a large number of military members. I remember in the mess Duceppe was on TV talking about pulling out and most of the french recruits seemed to dislike him. While the army is diverse in political views, for the most part a large portion of the troops seem to support Stephen Harper because he is pro-military. While the Liberals and NDP seem more anti-military. I think the Airborne Regiment getting disbanded was a pretty good display of how the previous government viewed the military.

gerryhatrick · November 15, 2006

No, I understand that perfectly well. What some (not necessarily you) don't understand is that it's very possible we're not just fighting terrorists or even just Taliban in Afghanistan. Just as the USA has a battle in Iraq with mostly a home-grown non-terrorist insurgency, that may be the case in Afghanistan.

No, its alot different from Iraq. Once again progress is being made,

We're always being told that progress is being made in Iraq too.

And you misunderstood me when I posted this:

Odd that the first time I saw this expressed was on a military website, eh?

I was talking about the sentiment that Harper is using the troops when he invokes support for them (and the possible loss of it) when he is speaking of the mission. That is the point of this topic, and is what I first saw expressed on a military website.

Canadian Blue · November 15, 2006

Afghanistan isn't in a full fledged civil war. As well we haven't seen nearly that amount of casualties in Afghanistan as compared to the venture in Iraq.

Are you talking about army.ca???

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,53198.0.html

normanchateau · November 15, 2006

Afghanistan isn't in a full fledged civil war. As well we haven't seen nearly that amount of casualties in Afghanistan as compared to the venture in Iraq.

No doubt about it. The situation in Afghanistan isn't nearly as bad as the quagmire in Iraq...yet.

Argus · November 15, 2006

If a Taliban-like group were threatening the government or people of Iran, would we send in Canadian troops to

Not it isn't, listen once again Afghanistan is a democracy and voted for Karzai.

Wrong again. Afghanistan is a theocracry. The Koran trumps all human rights in Afghanistan.

Iran voted for their loathsome President Ahmadinejad. Does that make Iran a democracy?

Afghanistan is a democracy run by secularists. Case closed.

Iran did not have free elections. Iran has never had free elections.

normanchateau · November 15, 2006

Afghanistan is a democracy run by secularists.

Contrary opinions:

http://anewerworld.org/?p=40

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archiv...is-afghanistan/

http://www.breakingranks.net/weblog/archives/128

Theocracy: a government ruled by OR subject to religious authority.

The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the latter.

Canadian Blue · November 15, 2006

I'm not sure, isn't a democracy a country where the people get to vote. Afghanis had a general election, as well as have a constitution.

No doubt about it. The situation in Afghanistan isn't nearly as bad as the quagmire in Iraq...yet.

Once again I'm not sure what your referring to, since Afghanistan has shown improvement. Afghanistan has shown alot more improvement then Iraq, as well you can't expect the transfer of power to be that smooth after the country was led by the Taliban.

Once Afghanistan is in a full fledged civil war similar to Iraq then we'll talk.

g_bambino · November 15, 2006

Iran did not have free elections. Iran has never had free elections.

Just to perhaps clarify, Iran did have free elections at least from 1951, when Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was appointed by the Shah as Prime Minister, with the support of the Parliament, until the revolution in 1979.

Army Guy · November 15, 2006

normanchateau:

Theocracy: a government ruled by OR subject to religious authority.
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the latter.

The last time i check the leader of Afganistan was not a religious leader. Yes the Afganis government is influenced by religious leaders...But what about our government are you saying that the Abortion issued is not influenced by religion, how many other topics out thier have a religious flare to them such as gay marriage etc etc at what piont does your defination kick in, how much influence does religion have to have before it's declared a theocracy...

normanchateau · November 15, 2006

Afghanis had a general election, as well as have a constitution.

Their constitution states that no legislation, including human rights legislation, can be "contrary to the laws of Islam".

gerryhatrick · November 16, 2006

Afghanis had a general election, as well as have a constitution.

Their constitution states that no legislation, including human rights legislation, can be "contrary to the laws of Islam".

Well, that's no good. Gotta get that changed to Christianity, tout suit! /sarcasm.

cybercoma · November 17, 2006

Afghanis had a general election, as well as have a constitution.

Their constitution states that no legislation, including human rights legislation, can be "contrary to the laws of Islam".

And the very first line in our Constitution is, "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law".

normanchateau · November 17, 2006

Afghanis had a general election, as well as have a constitution.

Their constitution states that no legislation, including human rights legislation, can be "contrary to the laws of Islam".

And the very first line in our Constitution is, "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law".

God...not Christianity, not Islam, not Judaism. And in Canada, the rule of law can in fact be contrary to Islam, Christianity, Judaism or any other religion for that matter.

Canadian Blue · November 17, 2006

Because Canada has been a democracy for over a 125 years. Afghanistan has made the change to democracy within 5 years so how can you expect them to be a pluralist democracy within such a short amount of time. Allow the Afghan's to make progress, I'm certain ten years down the road it'll be a different story if the country is fully functioning. But that is only if NATO doesn't pull out before training the Afghan Army and Afghan Police.