Why does Harper want to keep us in Afghanistan?

[belinda emerson]

Certainly Afghanistan is better off without the brutal Taliban but has anyone in the new Government of Canada actually looked online at the latest constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the country Canadians are now dying for? Article 3 of the constitution states "In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and priorities of the sacred religion of Islam."

What this means is that no matter what legislated human rights are in place, the Koran takes priority over those rights. In other words, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a theocracy and a far cry from democracy.

This is why in March, 2006, an Afghan man who converted to Christianity faced the death penalty. See:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004796.htm

Paul Martin was a fool for getting us into Afghanistan and Stephen Harper has now extended this mission.

One can only hope that the Liberals have the wisdom to chose as leader someone other than Ignatieff who seems to share Harper's "vision" of Canadians dying for a theocracy.

Other than pandering to U.S. foreign policy interests, why do Ignatieff and Harper want us there, and at what point will they conclude that we're merely repeating the Russian experience in Afghanistan and creating more terrorists?

[Canadian Blue]

The Russians created more terrorists because they raped Afgani women, and their is now a white minority in A-stan due to it. You don't know what the CF is doing in Afganistan, reconstruction work as well as fighting Taliban insurgents. Chretien got us into Afganistan by the way.

[jdobbin]

The Russians created more terrorists because they raped Afgani women, and their is now a white minority in A-stan due to it. You don't know what the CF is doing in Afganistan, reconstruction work as well as fighting Taliban insurgents. Chretien got us into Afganistan by the way.

The troops were to be finished their rotation shortly. Harper has extended it to 2009 and is talking about a longer stay.

[belinda emerson]

The troops were to be finished their rotation shortly. Harper has extended it to 2009 and is talking about a longer stay.

Well that probably guarantees Harper won't win a majority unless the Liberals shoot themselves and pick Ignatieff who also wants Canadians to die for an Islamic theocracy whose constitution permits the execution of converts to Christianity.

[Argus]

Certainly Afghanistan is better off without the brutal Taliban but has anyone in the new Government of Canada actually looked online at the latest constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the country Canadians are now dying for? Article 3 of the constitution states "In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and priorities of the sacred religion of Islam."

Laws can be interpreted in a lot of different ways, as can holy books. All Islamic governments have that sort of wording in amongst their laws, and it really doesn't mean a lot more than "In God We Trust".

Paul Martin was a fool for getting us into Afghanistan and Stephen Harper has now extended this mission.

Almost every member of NATO is involved in "this mission". Were we supposed to throw up our hands and say "Oh no! It's too hard for us! We're afraid! Find someone else!"

Other than pandering to U.S. foreign policy interests, why do Ignatieff and Harper want us there,

This has already been explained repeatedly. Go and search for it. I'm tired of writing complex answers in response to the most inanely shallow drivel.

[August1991]

Well that probably guarantees Harper won't win a majority unless the Liberals shoot themselves and pick Ignatieff who also wants Canadians to die for an Islamic theocracy whose constitution permits the execution of converts to Christianity.

Ignoring your claims about the Afghan constitution, I'll note that we are not at war with Islam.

We are in Afghanistan specifically to prevent it from harbouring a terrorist group that would threaten the west and to send a signal to other regimes that might think of copying the Taliban. It was a Liberal government that decided to send troops there as part of our NATO obligations.

A majority of Canadians support our mission in Afghanistan and are proud of what our soldiers are doing there.

[Canadian Blue]

We ought to be proud of what we are doing in Afganistan. Alot of the troops are also proud of what they have been able to accomplish. Unfortunately when some people try undermining their efforts by saying they are getting killed for nothing it hurts morale. If you don't agree with the war, do so for valid reasons instead of rabbling on because we are either not handing out enough candy or being more peaceful towards those "friendly non-aggressive taliban" as some people on the left believe them to be.

[jdobbin]

We ought to be proud of what we are doing in Afganistan. Alot of the troops are also proud of what they have been able to accomplish. Unfortunately when some people try undermining their efforts by saying they are getting killed for nothing it hurts morale. If you don't agree with the war, do so for valid reasons instead of rabbling on because we are either not handing out enough candy or being more peaceful towards those "friendly non-aggressive taliban" as some people on the left believe them to be.

Elements of the the government are friendly to the Taliban anyways.

Read this and think about how easy it will be turn Afghanistan around.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/...tan/chayes.html

[B. Max]

What this means is that no matter what legislated human rights are in place, the Koran takes priority over those rights. In other words, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a theocracy and a far cry from democracy.

We are not there to convert them. We are there to get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

[jdobbin]

We are not there to convert them. We are there to get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

And they are hiding in Pakistan being supported by elements of the Pakistani government.

[B. Max]

And they are hiding in Pakistan being supported by elements of the Pakistani government.

So what. They keep coming back.

[watching&waiting]

This is just such a silly thread. People do not sem to understand that it is not Harper or even O'Connor that are responsible for the troops in Afghanistan, but rather it is because of our commitment to NATO that we are there. We are not there representing ourselves as being Canadian and on our own. We are part of a team of Nato based troops. It is nato that sets the goals and the operations etc, and when Nato says that the Canadian have finished their battlefront rotation then we will again be rotated to other less risky operations. The way soem people yap and gripe you would think that it was Harper giving the orders himself. The only thing he did was extand the dates of the mission and allow for Canada to do full scale rotations in the efforts. This meant, that the troops would be used in the same way as the British and USA as wi=ell as the Dutch and many others. Now just how is that so bad? Maybe if people wpould learn just exactly what it is like when we are called upon by Nato and just what our commitments to these calls are, then maybe we would not see all these stupid banter about how it is the fault of the present goverment, even though it was not them who sent the troop over there in the first place, and nothing has changed in the types of action they were to see. The only thing to change is the date of which we have committed our troop to remain there for, and that has always been the way these things have always been done.

Here at home we keep saying Canadian troops and Canadian missions when it is really Nato troops and Nato missions. Maybe it is time to get this straight, before more go off down the wrong path. The majority of the land which is Afghanistan is being ruled and secure by the Afghani security forces and with the help of Nato troops. Yes we still have action in the south and that is where Canadian troops have been rotated to and will be rotated out of by this Febuary. It daoes not mean they will be out of Afghanistan but rather may be used in the north where they can do reconstruction and peace keeping roles once again. By the time they will once again be needed to be battlefront, the soldiers that were there now will have been returned home and new soldiers will have been sent to Afghanistan. This point was made clear many times by O'Connor inthe past and once again today in the newspapers.

So the reason Harper has our troops in Afghanistan is because we are required by the Nato treaty we signed long ago to supply and sent troops whn needed for Nato missions. That is why they are there and also why they will still be there as it will be Nato who says when the missions are over. If we dropped out of Nato we would have to then build our military to at least 10 times what it is now just to defend ourselves with the same abilities. So it would just be palin stupid to do such a thing.

[jdobbin]

So what. They keep coming back.

Ergo, there can be no peace. The war lasts forever.

[jdobbin]

This is just such a silly thread. People do not sem to understand that it is not Harper or even O'Connor that are responsible for the troops in Afghanistan, but rather it is because of our commitment to NATO that we are there. We are not there representing ourselves as being Canadian and on our own. We are part of a team of Nato based troops. It is nato that sets the goals and the operations etc, and when Nato says that the Canadian have finished their battlefront rotation then we will again be rotated to other less risky operations. The way soem people yap and gripe you would think that it was Harper giving the orders himself. The only thing he did was extand the dates of the mission and allow for Canada to do full scale rotations in the efforts. This meant, that the troops would be used in the same way as the British and USA as wi=ell as the Dutch and many others. Now just how is that so bad? Maybe if people wpould learn just exactly what it is like when we are called upon by Nato and just what our commitments to these calls are, then maybe we would not see all these stupid banter about how it is the fault of the present goverment, even though it was not them who sent the troop over there in the first place, and nothing has changed in the types of action they were to see. The only thing to change is the date of which we have committed our troop to remain there for, and that has always been the way these things have always been done.

Most of NATO has abandoned Canada on the frontline.

This isn't silly. It's the truth. Gordon O'Connor is not obligated not can he possibly keep Canadian soldiers on the frontline in battle for two years straight.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/canada_afghan_canada_col

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061018/...fghan_cda_tours

[watching&waiting]

No one is saying that Canadian troops will be on the battlefront for two years. Nato has already said that the Canadian trops are due to be rotated out of the front by Febuary. That is why the 1000 Polish troops will be in afghanistan by Jan next year, and also why they having been pushing other countries for more troops. The German and the french are considering allowing their troops to be used there as well.

[jdobbin]

No one is saying that Canadian troops will be on the battlefront for two years. Nato has already said that the Canadian trops are due to be rotated out of the front by Febuary. That is why the 1000 Polish troops will be in afghanistan by Jan next year, and also why they having been pushing other countries for more troops. The German and the french are considering allowing their troops to be used there as well.

I don't know that anyone has actually said they will replace Canada at the front. This is why the Defence minister has been calling NATO out.

[Topaz]

From what I've read, Canada has 2200 in Afghanistan and they are all in the south were the Taliban are, so this part is the most dangerous area of the war. The other nations of NATO won't send any troops there except the US and the US is using what they have there already. A British General has said this war will probably go on for 20years. Well, since Canada has only 2200, I doubt if we'll be able to finish to 2009. I see the military running out personnel for this war and IF any govt brought in a draft then be sure they be gone! There will be also some soldiers who won't be able to return to duty if they are found to have a "mental health" problems as with the US in Iraq. One thing I don't understand is why fight the Taliban? When they were in power they stopped the produce of opium and outside of their way of looking on woman, which alot of the Middle-East countries do, what to say, the present govt won't turn out the same. Look at what they were going to do to the Muslim that turn Christian and they were going to kill him! I think this war will turn out like the Iraq, a mistake by the Bush government that didn't think before they went in, but couldn't be talked out of it. either!

[geoffrey]

Right Topaz. Tell that to those killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11, in Bali, Madrid or London. Big waste of time to take out the Taliban, habouring al-Qaeda.

I know you'd like to curl up into a ball and ignore the world around you, but the terrorists tend to ignore that and attack you still.

[gerryhatrick]

Right Topaz. Tell that to those killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11, in Bali, Madrid or London. Big waste of time to take out the Taliban, habouring al-Qaeda.

I know you'd like to curl up into a ball and ignore the world around you, but the terrorists tend to ignore that and attack you still.

TERRA TERRA TERRA TERRA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[geoffrey]

Right Topaz. Tell that to those killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11, in Bali, Madrid or London. Big waste of time to take out the Taliban, habouring al-Qaeda.

I know you'd like to curl up into a ball and ignore the world around you, but the terrorists tend to ignore that and attack you still.

TERRA TERRA TERRA TERRA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Excuse me?

[watching&waiting]

If you all take time to look back you will see that the Nato commander did say that the 1000 Polish troops were going to go to the front and they were making deals with some of the other countries to also go to the front as the Canadian troops were due to be rotated in Febuary. I alos believe there was a push for Germany to lift its caviots on their troops and the same with France, but I did not hera more on that. The USA and British Troops have already been to the Front and I am not sure if they have replaced the soldiers in their troops yet so as to make it so the soldiers do not do two rotations in the front. This is just how these things work.

[belinda emerson]

So the reason Harper has our troops in Afghanistan is because we are required by the Nato treaty we signed long ago to supply and sent troops whn needed for Nato missions. That is why they are there and also why they will still be there as it will be Nato who says when the missions are over. If we dropped out of Nato we would have to then build our military to at least 10 times what it is now just to defend ourselves with the same abilities. So it would just be palin stupid to do such a thing.

It seems that only Canadians, Americans and Brits are dying in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, inadvertently defending the right of the Karzai government to execute Christians who convert to Islam.

Why do you suppose that Harper has thrown in his lot with Bush and Blair rather than the vast majority of NATO countries whose leaders have shown more foresight?

Surely the quagmire that is Iraq should be a lesson to Canadians. At one time, most Americans supported the war in Iraq. Now they don't. Likewise, Canadians now support involvement in Afghanistan. Soon they won't.

[watching&waiting]

So the reason Harper has our troops in Afghanistan is because we are required by the Nato treaty we signed long ago to supply and sent troops whn needed for Nato missions. That is why they are there and also why they will still be there as it will be Nato who says when the missions are over. If we dropped out of Nato we would have to then build our military to at least 10 times what it is now just to defend ourselves with the same abilities. So it would just be palin stupid to do such a thing.

It seems that only Canadians, Americans and Brits are dying in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, inadvertently defending the right of the Karzai government to execute Christians who convert to Islam.

Why do you suppose that Harper has thrown in his lot with Bush and Blair rather than the vast majority of NATO countries whose leaders have shown more foresight?

Surely the quagmire that is Iraq should be a lesson to Canadians. At one time, most Americans supported the war in Iraq. Now they don't. Likewise, Canadians now support involvement in Afghanistan. Soon they won't.

Once again you are wrong. There have been Dutch casualties and I am sure there have been German and French as well. It is not reported here as it is not news to our masses. But if you take the time and check with Nato there will be a list of all casualties from all contributing Nato countries. The front line casualties at this moment are mostly Canadian as yes, they are right where the action is. There are just as of last month 12,000 USA troops now under Natos command as well.

Since this is not a Canadain only thing, but is Nato controlled and lead, we need to go to Nato if you want anything to know about the whole mission. Here we only get the National News etc and it is designed to be as shocking as possible. That is just the way the News services work. We need to start realizing that, instead of taking it at their own hyped values.

[belinda emerson]

So the reason Harper has our troops in Afghanistan is because we are required by the Nato treaty we signed long ago to supply and sent troops whn needed for Nato missions. That is why they are there and also why they will still be there as it will be Nato who says when the missions are over. If we dropped out of Nato we would have to then build our military to at least 10 times what it is now just to defend ourselves with the same abilities. So it would just be palin stupid to do such a thing.

It seems that only Canadians, Americans and Brits are dying in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, inadvertently defending the right of the Karzai government to execute Christians who convert to Islam.

Why do you suppose that Harper has thrown in his lot with Bush and Blair rather than the vast majority of NATO countries whose leaders have shown more foresight?

Surely the quagmire that is Iraq should be a lesson to Canadians. At one time, most Americans supported the war in Iraq. Now they don't. Likewise, Canadians now support involvement in Afghanistan. Soon they won't.

There have been Dutch casualties and I am sure there have been German and French as well.

Once again you are wrong. What I said is that it SEEMS that only Canadians, Americans and Brits are DYING in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Since when is a casualty synonymous with death? Since when are all casualties fatal? If you have evidence of Dutch, German and French military people dying on this NATO mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, please present it.

[watching&waiting]

I already told you where to look. You have to go to the NATO site and do your own research of the number. The Dutch have been called in many times to help out the Canadian on the battlefront because they have helicopter support. Also yes I know casualties also include the wounded.

This is a NATO mission and if you want the real stst on what is and is not going on that is where to start. I how quoted nato in posts before, but I do not still have the link, but you should not have a tough time finding it on their site.