Stephen Harper using the troops AGAIN.

[normanchateau]

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.

Or to paraphrase what you've just said... Trust me.

I wonder how you felt in March, 2003, when Harper was saying Canada should join the US invasion of Iraq.

[Army Guy]

normanchateau:

With all your excuses debunked here serveral times, by serveral different people . Your still holding the Afgan people to a higher standard than you hold "the rest of us" Canadians ...you'll never see the good that is being done in Afgan, to you there will always be a reason not to support this mission.

And thats to bad.

So i thank you for your support, the Afgan people thank you as well, because this is what it really all about is it not...I guess not.

[Mimas]

normanchateau:

With all your excuses debunked here serveral times, by serveral different people . Your still holding the Afgan people to a higher standard than you hold "the rest of us" Canadians ...you'll never see the good that is being done in Afgan, to you there will always be a reason not to support this mission.

And thats to bad.

So i thank you for your support, the Afgan people thank you as well, because this is what it really all about is it not...I guess not.

Let's hope something comes of it. Iraq is a complete disaster and the operation is a complete failure. Hopefully, the Americans will smarten up, pull out of Iraq and put more effort into Afghanistan. If they don't, Afghanistan will end up a complete failure as well. I hope that in the future we'll think twice about sending our soldiers to die in missions that are not properly thought out and are underfunded and understaffed.

[Army Guy]

Mimas:

Let's hope something comes of it. Iraq is a complete disaster and the operation is a complete failure. Hopefully, the Americans will smarten up, pull out of Iraq and put more effort into Afghanistan

I think you are right, Afgan could be another Iraq if we are all not prepare to go the distance in regards to funding and personal issues..

I hope that in the future we'll think twice about sending our soldiers to die in missions that are not properly thought out and are underfunded and understaffed.

One would hope that this would be the case every time our nation decides to mobilize it's troops, our lifes depend on it. As for being underfunded, from a military piont of view, this operation has done more for equipping our forces than any other government push has done. That being said we still have a long way to go, and your right we should have never been sent into afgan in the shape we were in.

[gerryhatrick]

Mimas:

Let's hope something comes of it. Iraq is a complete disaster and the operation is a complete failure. Hopefully, the Americans will smarten up, pull out of Iraq and put more effort into Afghanistan

I think you are right, Afgan could be another Iraq if we are all not prepare to go the distance in regards to funding and personal issues..

What do you mean by "personal issues"?

And regarding "Afgan could be another Iraq if we are all not prepare to go the distance", are you saying the USA hasn't been going the distance thus far? 130+ thousand troops AT LEAST for the last several years seems like going the distance to me.

[normanchateau]

normanchateau:

With all your excuses debunked here serveral times, by serveral different people .

What excuses?

[Army Guy]

gerryhatrick:

What do you mean by "personal issues"?

Sorry i meant to say personnel issues.

And regarding "Afgan could be another Iraq if we are all not prepare to go the distance", are you saying the USA hasn't been going the distance thus far? 130+ thousand troops AT LEAST for the last several years seems like going the distance to me.

Thats exactly what i meant, even the US ground commanders have commented serveral times that there is just not enough troops on the ground. That being said i don't want to take anything away from the accomplishments that US forces have done in Iraq todate. just state that thier is not enough troops on the ground to solve all the problems they face there now.

[normanchateau]

normanchateau:

With all your excuses debunked here serveral times, by serveral different people .

What excuses?

[Army Guy]

normanchateau:

What excuses?

If i did not know any better norm i'd say you where trolling, so i guess i'll bite and say "yours".

[normanchateau]

normanchateau:

What excuses?

If i did not know any better norm i'd say you where trolling, so i guess i'll bite and say "yours".

Can you provide examples?

[Wilber]

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

And what does that mean? What are the "laws of Islam" and according to who? The laws of Christianity have undergone constant change over the centuries depending on who was making them and their particular agenda. People will try to bend the law to their own advantage no matter what it is based on.

[Canadian Blue]

Rome wasn't built in a day.

Before Afghanistan can become a full fledged democracy they need the proper infrastructure in place, as well as the economy to be rebuilt. I don't know why people think that Afghanistan would be easy to fix in the first place. As for the line in the constitution about no laws being contrary to Islam, it's just a line to appease some of the more traditional muslims. Once again Afghanistan will become a democracy slowly but surely.

If anybody watched Global yesterday a report showed troops in the field talking about the mission. One of the points they made was if they were pulled out then their fellow soldiers would have died for nothing. As well they showed a school which was rebuilt with the help of the CF. If the troops believe in what their doing there, then shouldn't that be a good indicator of improvements that are being made in Afghanistan due to our presence.

[Saturn]

The only way to rectify the situation in Afghanistan is through financial help. You can't beat people to change their ways as the Soviet occupation of its eastern european satellites proved.

[gerryhatrick]

If anybody watched Global yesterday a report showed troops in the field talking about the mission. One of the points they made was if they were pulled out then their fellow soldiers would have died for nothing.

I think that's a specious argument.

The mission and it's continuation must always be judged by the present reality.

Holding up dead soldiers as a reason to continue a particular course of action does a disservice to their memory if anything.

[Wilber]

If anybody watched Global yesterday a report showed troops in the field talking about the mission. One of the points they made was if they were pulled out then their fellow soldiers would have died for nothing.

I think that's a specious argument.

The mission and it's continuation must always be judged by the present reality.

Holding up dead soldiers as a reason to continue a particular course of action does a disservice to their memory if anything.

Not specious if it's your comrades who have died for something you both believe in. I'd like to see you tell one of them he was being specious to his face. Telling them that their opinions are insincere, lack merit and they are doing their dead comrades a disservice by expressing them? To use your own favorite word, despicable. But then you are far more qualified to judge the merits of the mission than they.

[Saturn]

If anybody watched Global yesterday a report showed troops in the field talking about the mission. One of the points they made was if they were pulled out then their fellow soldiers would have died for nothing.

I think that's a specious argument.

The mission and it's continuation must always be judged by the present reality.

Holding up dead soldiers as a reason to continue a particular course of action does a disservice to their memory if anything.

Not specious if it's your comrades who have died for something you both believe in. I'd like to see you tell one of them he was being specious to his face. Telling them that their opinions are insincere, lack merit and they are doing their dead comrades a disservice by expressing them? To use your own favorite word, despicable. But then you are far more qualified to judge the merits of the mission than they.

The Soviets went into Afghanistan to help a government that was under attack by insurgents. Over 9 years, they had a constant presence of roughly 100,000 troops there in addition to the Afghan military. They lost 30,000 soldiers and achieved nothing as a result. The Afghan government was still ousted by the insurgents. If the Soviets had stayed there another 9 years, I doubt that they would have achieved anything different from losing another 30,000 soldiers and failing to succeed.

I can hardly see a difference between what they did and what we are doing now. We are just another foreign force supporting another Afghan government, which is under attack by insurgents. With a small military presence of under 50,000 and little financial support, we will achieve nothing different - just thousands of our young people will be killed there. We either have to take it seriously, put a force 200,000 strong and spend some BIG money in building the country, or we should get out and not have our soldiers killed there. So there are only two real choices - do the real thing or get out. Nothing in between makes sense. Currently we are doing what the Soviets did - achieving nothing at a huge cost of lives.

[Wilber]

If anybody watched Global yesterday a report showed troops in the field talking about the mission. One of the points they made was if they were pulled out then their fellow soldiers would have died for nothing.

I think that's a specious argument.

The mission and it's continuation must always be judged by the present reality.

Holding up dead soldiers as a reason to continue a particular course of action does a disservice to their memory if anything.

Not specious if it's your comrades who have died for something you both believe in. I'd like to see you tell one of them he was being specious to his face. Telling them that their opinions are insincere, lack merit and they are doing their dead comrades a disservice by expressing them? To use your own favorite word, despicable. But then you are far more qualified to judge the merits of the mission than they.

The Soviets went into Afghanistan to help a government that was under attack by insurgents. Over 9 years, they had a constant presence of roughly 100,000 troops there in addition to the Afghan military. They lost 30,000 soldiers and achieved nothing as a result. The Afghan government was still ousted by the insurgents. If the Soviets had stayed there another 9 years, I doubt that they would have achieved anything different from losing another 30,000 soldiers and failing to succeed.

I can hardly see a difference between what they did and what we are doing now. We are just another foreign force supporting another Afghan government, which is under attack by insurgents. With a small military presence of under 50,000 and little financial support, we will achieve nothing different - just thousands of our young people will be killed there. We either have to take it seriously, put a force 200,000 strong and spend some BIG money in building the country, or we should get out and not have our soldiers killed there. So there are only two real choices - do the real thing or get out. Nothing in between makes sense. Currently we are doing what the Soviets did - achieving nothing at a huge cost of lives.

I took exception to the idea that some dude sitting safely behind his computer in Canada was telling the people who are doing the fighting and dieing that their opinions are specious. You have a problem with that?

[Saturn]

If anybody watched Global yesterday a report showed troops in the field talking about the mission. One of the points they made was if they were pulled out then their fellow soldiers would have died for nothing.

I think that's a specious argument.

The mission and it's continuation must always be judged by the present reality.

Holding up dead soldiers as a reason to continue a particular course of action does a disservice to their memory if anything.

Not specious if it's your comrades who have died for something you both believe in. I'd like to see you tell one of them he was being specious to his face. Telling them that their opinions are insincere, lack merit and they are doing their dead comrades a disservice by expressing them? To use your own favorite word, despicable. But then you are far more qualified to judge the merits of the mission than they.

The Soviets went into Afghanistan to help a government that was under attack by insurgents. Over 9 years, they had a constant presence of roughly 100,000 troops there in addition to the Afghan military. They lost 30,000 soldiers and achieved nothing as a result. The Afghan government was still ousted by the insurgents. If the Soviets had stayed there another 9 years, I doubt that they would have achieved anything different from losing another 30,000 soldiers and failing to succeed.

I can hardly see a difference between what they did and what we are doing now. We are just another foreign force supporting another Afghan government, which is under attack by insurgents. With a small military presence of under 50,000 and little financial support, we will achieve nothing different - just thousands of our young people will be killed there. We either have to take it seriously, put a force 200,000 strong and spend some BIG money in building the country, or we should get out and not have our soldiers killed there. So there are only two real choices - do the real thing or get out. Nothing in between makes sense. Currently we are doing what the Soviets did - achieving nothing at a huge cost of lives.

I took exception to the idea that some dude sitting safely behind his computer in Canada was telling the people who are doing the fighting and dieing that their opinions are specious. You have a problem with that?

No, but I have a problem with people claiming to support the troops but not wanting to put their taxes on the line and provide the real support needed. To talk about supporting the troops and our effort in Afghanistan and then pushing for tax cuts so you can buy Chinese junk instead of rebuilding Afghanistan, so that the mission succeeds, is disingenuous to say the least.

[Canadian Blue]

The Soviets went into Afghanistan to help a government that was under attack by insurgents. Over 9 years, they had a constant presence of roughly 100,000 troops there in addition to the Afghan military. They lost 30,000 soldiers and achieved nothing as a result. The Afghan government was still ousted by the insurgents. If the Soviets had stayed there another 9 years, I doubt that they would have achieved anything different from losing another 30,000 soldiers and failing to succeed.

I can hardly see a difference between what they did and what we are doing now. We are just another foreign force supporting another Afghan government, which is under attack by insurgents. With a small military presence of under 50,000 and little financial support, we will achieve nothing different - just thousands of our young people will be killed there. We either have to take it seriously, put a force 200,000 strong and spend some BIG money in building the country, or we should get out and not have our soldiers killed there. So there are only two real choices - do the real thing or get out. Nothing in between makes sense. Currently we are doing what the Soviets did - achieving nothing at a huge cost of lives.

The Soviets were a completely different story. They actually raped Afghan women, thats why their is a white minority in Afghanistan. The Soviets dealt with the conflict much more aggressively then NATO. As well we haven't seen anywhere near the amount of casualties that were inflicted on the Soviets. We have helped rebuild alot of Afghanistan, and their are new schools, roads, infrastructure, etc. All of which has been built with the help of the CF.

[Saturn]

The Soviets went into Afghanistan to help a government that was under attack by insurgents. Over 9 years, they had a constant presence of roughly 100,000 troops there in addition to the Afghan military. They lost 30,000 soldiers and achieved nothing as a result. The Afghan government was still ousted by the insurgents. If the Soviets had stayed there another 9 years, I doubt that they would have achieved anything different from losing another 30,000 soldiers and failing to succeed.

I can hardly see a difference between what they did and what we are doing now. We are just another foreign force supporting another Afghan government, which is under attack by insurgents. With a small military presence of under 50,000 and little financial support, we will achieve nothing different - just thousands of our young people will be killed there. We either have to take it seriously, put a force 200,000 strong and spend some BIG money in building the country, or we should get out and not have our soldiers killed there. So there are only two real choices - do the real thing or get out. Nothing in between makes sense. Currently we are doing what the Soviets did - achieving nothing at a huge cost of lives.

The Soviets were a completely different story. They actually raped Afghan women, thats why their is a white minority in Afghanistan. The Soviets dealt with the conflict much more aggressively then NATO. As well we haven't seen anywhere near the amount of casualties that were inflicted on the Soviets. We have helped rebuild alot of Afghanistan, and their are new schools, roads, infrastructure, etc. All of which has been built with the help of the CF.

What planet are you from? White minority in Afghanistan? Afghans ARE white! There are more whites in Afghanistan than there are in Canada.

As for raping Afghan women, I can't say it did not happen. The US forces tortured civilians in Iraq. Canadian forces tortured and raped civilians in Rwanda (and we didn't know it at the time). Torture and rape occurs in every conflict, even when forces from "civilized" countries are involved.

To you the Soviet invasion may be completely different from the NATO invasion but to the majority of Afghans it's just the same thing. It's mainly Christian foreigners occupying their lands trying to stuff foreign values down their throats.

[Canadian Blue]

To you the Soviet invasion may be completely different from the NATO invasion but to the majority of Afghans it's just the same thing. It's mainly Christian foreigners occupying their lands trying to stuff foreign values down their throats.

How do you know what the majority of Afghan's think???

What planet are you from?

Planet Earth, what planet are you from?

[normanchateau]

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

The laws of Christianity have undergone constant change over the centuries depending on who was making them and their particular agenda. People will try to bend the law to their own advantage no matter what it is based on.

But Canada's constitution does not state that human rights legislation cannot be "contrary to the laws of Christianity". Mullahs have the last word in fundamentalist Islamic Afghanistan.

[Wilber]

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

The laws of Christianity have undergone constant change over the centuries depending on who was making them and their particular agenda. People will try to bend the law to their own advantage no matter what it is based on.

But Canada's constitution does not state that human rights legislation cannot be "contrary to the laws of Christianity". Mullahs have the last word in fundamentalist Islamic Afghanistan.

So we write off a country because they don't choose to do things our way. We aren't there to build another little Canada, that would be futile. If they want to be a theocracy thats fine with me, the question is what they do with it.

[gerryhatrick]

If anybody watched Global yesterday a report showed troops in the field talking about the mission. One of the points they made was if they were pulled out then their fellow soldiers would have died for nothing.

I think that's a specious argument.

The mission and it's continuation must always be judged by the present reality.

Holding up dead soldiers as a reason to continue a particular course of action does a disservice to their memory if anything.

Not specious if it's your comrades who have died for something you both believe in. I'd like to see you tell one of them he was being specious to his face. Telling them that their opinions are insincere, lack merit and they are doing their dead comrades a disservice by expressing them? To use your own favorite word, despicable. But then you are far more qualified to judge the merits of the mission than they.

It's all very nice to play the emotion card...to pretend that the pure logic of "The mission and it's continuation must always be judged by the present reality" is somehow an insult to soldiers....but it's got no substance beyond emotion.

Oh, and in saying this:

Telling them that their opinions are insincere, lack merit and they are doing their dead comrades a disservice by expressing them?

You've clearly let your emotions run away with your brain.

[Wilber]

You've clearly let your emotions run away with your brain.

Not really. Read your post again.

I think that's a specious argument.

The mission and it's continuation must always be judged by the present reality.

Holding up dead soldiers as a reason to continue a particular course of action does a disservice to their memory if anything.

This was in response to:

If anybody watched Global yesterday a report showed troops in the field talking about the mission. One of the points they made was if they were pulled out then their fellow soldiers would have died for nothing.

It was the troops opinions that you were calling specious and doing a disservice to the memory of their dead comrades, not the Globes opinions and not mine. I think my comments are more than justified and I would like to watch you say it to the face of one of those people.

Disagreeing with their opinions is one thing, belittling their opinions and their feelings toward their friends who have died is quite another. You may not agree with their logic but surely you must understand and respect it.