Hundreds support troops at Edmonton rally.

[cybercoma]

What a ludicrously inapt red-herring.

Sorry, but in case you didn't notice, this thread's about Afghahistan.

Inapt is it? Your logic has Canada staying put within her borders, instead of fighting battles abroad. Yes, you're putting this claim against the current Afghanistan situation; however, take your logic and put it up against another situation Canada was in and your argument falls apart.

You obviously don't believe "we should be more concerned with protecting their lives and limbs than with the impossible to resolve needs of remote foreigners." How many Canadian soldiers were killed during WWII because they were concerned with the seemingly impossible to resolve needs (I'm sure at the time that's the way it seemed) of remote foreigners in Europe? We took part because it was the right thing to do at the time.

Afghanistan is not Nazi Germany, but it's a nation of largely uneducated and oppressed people that need our help. So, the red-herring is not putting your logic to the test.

The red-herring is the fact that you have nothing but contempt for the poor suffering people of Afghanistan. You cover this up by using the lame excuse that you're trying to look out for our soldiers over there. In actuality, you completely ignore the reason we're there today. Forget the terrorists that have been disrupted and fled, forget the regime change, we're trying to put a country back together.

To do that, the uneducated people who live there need to be educated and taught how to protect and defend themselves. The country needs to be secured before aid workers can get in and do what they have to do. Only then can Afghanistan be rebuild.

But no...that's not what you're suggesting. Forget the needs of those filthy Afghanis...

Bring the men and women home because you don't feel they're up for the challenge. You think it's hopeless and our Canadian Soldiers need your protection by calling for the government to withdraw them.

Who really cares that they're offering their lives to try and make the lives of Afghanis better? Who cares that they believe this world can be a better place if we continue to fight for our ideals of democracy and freedom one country at a time?

Bring our troops home and let Afghanistan fall into the hands of tyrants again.

If anyone wished for you what you're wishing for the Afghanis with your ridiculous claims, I hope there'll more people like me to support our troops and the mission to protect you... even if it means some of them have to die for your freedom.

[normanchateau]

I am glad that we have fellow citizens who will KNOWINGLY put their lives at risk to maintain and protect Canadian values.

I too am glad that fellow citizens will put their lives at risk to maintain Canadian values. What does that have to do with Afghanistan?

The current Islamic Republic of Afghanistan recognizes the Koran as being supreme over any other legislation and for this reason it's perfectly legal for them to execute Muslims who convert to Christianity. What Canadian values are being protected by Canadians dying for an Islamic theocracy? The fact that the Harper Conservatives and a handful of Liberals voted to extend the mission doesn't make it right.

Funny that the vast majority of the Afghan's themselves disgaree with you.

Evidence?

[Figleaf]

What a ludicrously inapt red-herring.

Sorry, but in case you didn't notice, this thread's about Afghahistan.

Inapt is it? Your logic has Canada staying put within her borders, instead of fighting battles abroad.

I never said that. Now you've moved from red-herring arguments to strawman arguments. Let's see if you can run the whole fallacy gamut!

You obviously don't believe "we should be more concerned with protecting their lives and limbs than with the impossible to resolve needs of remote foreigners."

Okay, let me plod through an explanation simplistic enough for you to understand... WWII, unlike Afghanistan, did involve true national interests of Canada. WWII, unlike Afghanistan, was not impossible to resolve. WWII, unlike Afghanistan, did not involve remote foreigners.

So, those three vital (and obvious to most people) differences make your comparison inapt.

Afghanistan is not Nazi Germany, but it's a nation of largely uneducated and oppressed people that need our help.

Billions of uneducated and oppressed people need help. I don't think Canada ought to shoulder that burden.

The red-herring is the fact that you have nothing but contempt for the poor suffering people of Afghanistan.

What I have contempt for is people who'll send our soldiers to die without any sensible plan in a lost cause irrelevant to our national interests.

You cover this up by using the lame excuse that you're trying to look out for our soldiers over there.

So you feel we shouldn't care about the safety of our military people. Hurray for you. I feel differently.

In actuality, you completely ignore the reason we're there today.

I know the reason we went in the first place, and I agreed with it. I can't fathom what good reason we have for remaining there.

You think it's hopeless and our Canadian Soldiers need your protection by calling for the government to withdraw them.

I see no plan or strategy for achieving or measuring success. I see no reason why we should be responsible for Afghanistan. And yes, I think our soldiers need our protection.

... let Afghanistan fall into the hands of tyrants again.

Let the Afghans decide who governs them.

[bradco]

"WWII, unlike Afghanistan, did involve true national interests of Canada"

We came to the aid of our American allies when they were attacked by a group that was harboured by an Afghanistan regime. We went to Afghanistan because it is in our best interests to support our allies and honour collective security agreements. The benefit to Canada is that if someday we are attacked the Americans will do the same for us. We stay in Afghanistan to affirm our commitment to our allies to ensure they will share the same commitment to us. We stay in Afghanistan because it is in our best interests that the state does not fall back into the hands of a group that will harbour terrorists intent on attacking our allies or ourselves. We stay because its in our best interests to prove to the rest of the world that is skeptical of our actions that we are there to help the Afghani people in their pursuit of freedom not just demolish their country. A successful result in Afghanistan will go miles in winning a broader "hearts and minds" campaign that is important forour security.

[Figleaf]

"WWII, unlike Afghanistan, did involve true national interests of Canada"

We came to the aid of our American allies when they were attacked by a group that was harboured by an Afghanistan regime.

1. Right. The national interests of the UNITED STATES were involved, and our membership in an alliance led us to assist them in protecting THEIR national interests. I'm okay with that, but that doesn't make it OUR national interests.

2. The regime that threatened the national interests of our ally has been overthrown. Job well done. The rest of this 'mission' is a farce.

[normanchateau]

We went to Afghanistan because it is in our best interests to support our allies and honour collective security agreements. The benefit to Canada is that if someday we are attacked the Americans will do the same for us.

How naive! The US will come to our assistance if it is in their best interests and will not come to our assistance if it is not in their best interests.

The US stood by while Germany invaded Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and other countries.

The US stood by while Germany bombed Great Britain and Churchill begged Roosevelt to step in and assist.

The US stood by when Germany invaded Russia in June, 1941, and Stalin asked Roosevelt for help.

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in December, 1941, the US declared war on Japan but still did not declare war on Germany. But Germany then declared war on the US to honour their treaty with Japan. That's when the US finally sent their military into Europe.

The US will come to our assistance if it is in their best interests, not because we sacrificed Canadians in Afghanistan.

[cybercoma]

How naive! The US will come to our assistance if it is in their best interests and will not come to our assistance if it is not in their best interests.

The US stood by while Germany invaded Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and other countries.

The US stood by while Germany bombed Great Britain and Churchill begged Roosevelt to step in and assist.

The US stood by when Germany invaded Russia in June, 1941, and Stalin asked Roosevelt for help.

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in December, 1941, the US declared war on Japan but still did not declare war on Germany. But Germany then declared war on the US to honour their treaty with Japan. That's when the US finally sent their military into Europe.

The US will come to our assistance if it is in their best interests, not because we sacrificed Canadians in Afghanistan.

If Canada asked the UK to support us in a war and the UK said, "fight your own battles."

When the UK comes and asks Canada for assistance in a war of their own....what do you think our response should be?

[White Doors]

I am glad that we have fellow citizens who will KNOWINGLY put their lives at risk to maintain and protect Canadian values.

I too am glad that fellow citizens will put their lives at risk to maintain Canadian values. What does that have to do with Afghanistan?

The current Islamic Republic of Afghanistan recognizes the Koran as being supreme over any other legislation and for this reason it's perfectly legal for them to execute Muslims who convert to Christianity. What Canadian values are being protected by Canadians dying for an Islamic theocracy? The fact that the Harper Conservatives and a handful of Liberals voted to extend the mission doesn't make it right.

Funny that the vast majority of the Afghan's themselves disgaree with you.

Evidence?

Not thta it will change your narrow little mind, but here you go.

A brand new one to boot!

http://65.109.167.118/pipa/articles/home_p...55&lb=hmpg1

[White Doors]

"WWII, unlike Afghanistan, did involve true national interests of Canada"

We came to the aid of our American allies when they were attacked by a group that was harboured by an Afghanistan regime.

1. Right. The national interests of the UNITED STATES were involved, and our membership in an alliance led us to assist them in protecting THEIR national interests. I'm okay with that, but that doesn't make it OUR national interests.

2. The regime that threatened the national interests of our ally has been overthrown. Job well done. The rest of this 'mission' is a farce.

The rest of the mssion is the most important part.

It is apparent you have a very juvenile understanding of the situaiton.

[normanchateau]

When the UK comes and asks Canada for assistance in a war of their own....what do you think our response should be?

It depends. If they asked us to invade Iraq for no good reason other than they were invading Iraq, our response should be to decline. If they asked us to help fight Germany because Germany was invading neighbouring countries and was threatening the UK, we should help. In other words, we should have a foreign policy made in Canada, not the UK or US.

[White Doors]

We went to Afghanistan because it is in our best interests to support our allies and honour collective security agreements. The benefit to Canada is that if someday we are attacked the Americans will do the same for us.

How naive! The US will come to our assistance if it is in their best interests and will not come to our assistance if it is not in their best interests.

The US stood by while Germany invaded Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and other countries.

The US stood by while Germany bombed Great Britain and Churchill begged Roosevelt to step in and assist.

The US stood by when Germany invaded Russia in June, 1941, and Stalin asked Roosevelt for help.

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in December, 1941, the US declared war on Japan but still did not declare war on Germany. But Germany then declared war on the US to honour their treaty with Japan. That's when the US finally sent their military into Europe.

The US will come to our assistance if it is in their best interests, not because we sacrificed Canadians in Afghanistan.

So in your mind the Americans are damned if the do and are damned if they don't eh? Practice isolationsim, they are cowards. Practice interventionism they are murdering scumbags. In just what scenario is it that the Americans aren't the bad guys 8n your myopic little outlook on the world?

[Figleaf]

"WWII, unlike Afghanistan, did involve true national interests of Canada"

We came to the aid of our American allies when they were attacked by a group that was harboured by an Afghanistan regime.

1. Right. The national interests of the UNITED STATES were involved, and our membership in an alliance led us to assist them in protecting THEIR national interests. I'm okay with that, but that doesn't make it OUR national interests.

2. The regime that threatened the national interests of our ally has been overthrown. Job well done. The rest of this 'mission' is a farce.

The rest of the mssion is the most important part.

It is apparent you have a very juvenile understanding of the situaiton.

The rest of the mission is the part we have no obligation to fulfill, no viable strategy for accomplishing, and no hope of acheiving.

P.S. Just because I disagree with you does not make my understanding of the situation 'juvenile'. Do you know what 'juvenile' means?

[normanchateau]

Not thta it will change your narrow little mind, but here you go.

So if someone doesn't share your opinion on an issue, that is evidence of a "narrow little mind."

If you don't see the flaw in that logic, there is no point in any further discussion and I will no longer respond to your posts.

[White Doors]

"WWII, unlike Afghanistan, did involve true national interests of Canada"

We came to the aid of our American allies when they were attacked by a group that was harboured by an Afghanistan regime.

1. Right. The national interests of the UNITED STATES were involved, and our membership in an alliance led us to assist them in protecting THEIR national interests. I'm okay with that, but that doesn't make it OUR national interests.

2. The regime that threatened the national interests of our ally has been overthrown. Job well done. The rest of this 'mission' is a farce.

The rest of the mssion is the most important part.

It is apparent you have a very juvenile understanding of the situaiton.

The rest of the mission is the part we have no obligation to fulfill, no viable strategy for accomplishing, and no hope of acheiving.

P.S. Just because I disagree with you does not make my understanding of the situation 'juvenile'. Do you know what 'juvenile' means?

It's not that you disagree with me it's that you offer no evidence and make wild predictions about the future.

I would say that your world view is quite juvenile, yes.

[White Doors]

Not thta it will change your narrow little mind, but here you go.

So if someone doesn't share your opinion on an issue, that is evidence of a "narrow little mind."

If you don't see the flaw in that logic, there is no point in any further discussion and I will no longer respond to your posts.

[/quote

Well did you read my link? Did you see that the vast majority of Afghani's want our presence there? Did you see that the vast majority of Afghani's don;t want the Taliban back?

Yet, you want to cut and run? Why? Does what the Afghan people want enter into your thought process at all?

[Sully]

For those who disagree with putting our troops in Afghanistan on the grounds that we are needlessly endangering their lives for no good reason, these people must surely disagree with every peace keeping mission that Canada is a part of, right???

Look at the rules of engagement a peace keeper from Canada must adhere to:

1.) Act as a buffer between warring parties, (Are we looking to make economic ties with these parties, probably not? Do we really have to be there, probably not. But hey we are making the world a better place, YAY!!!)

2.) Carry a gun, but do not think of using it (Hey well you can think of it, but do not use it until you have been shot at a minimum 2 times)

3.) Wear a blue helmet so then you are completely indentified as the person who cannot do anything to stop you (Taken from the point of the warring factions)

4.)Then finally complete your tour of duty, knowing you did absolutely nothing to change the situation

I mean I am sure Canada could sit all alone way up North here, claim neutrality, never get involved in anything until its in our best interests. Maybe you all would agree that we should develop a foreign policy like China's, a policy that reserves judgement and proclaims non intervention. Just think of it how wonderful that would be, we could develop relationships with despots and dictators and never lose any sleep over it. We could have developed a wonderful lasting relationship with the Taliban (DAM THOSE AMERICANS FOR INTERVENING) as we share so many values, values such as allowing women to be educated, allowing homosexuals to live freely in our society and also allowing to terrorists to carry out their activities.

Wait a minute under the Taliban, dogs were treated better then women, homosexuals were stoned to death and terrorists were able to develop operations that could span the globe (well actually Canada with lax immigration and welfare laws, pretty much allows the same)

Needless to say Canada could do nothing if it wants to, but I am glad that Canada does. Many people together make up Canada with many different viewpoints. But I am positive we all cherish freedom, and if we can help others achieve that, then I am all for it. That may mean risking Canadian lives and I know Canada is not there for economic reasons or to claim a stake in the world opium market.

[normanchateau]

For those who disagree with putting our troops in Afghanistan on the grounds that we are needlessly endangering their lives for no good reason, these people must surely disagree with every peace keeping mission that Canada is a part of, right???

Look at the rules of engagement a peace keeper from Canada must adhere to:

1.) Act as a buffer between warring parties, (Are we looking to make economic ties with these parties, probably not? Do we really have to be there, probably not. But hey we are making the world a better place, YAY!!!)

2.) Carry a gun, but do not think of using it (Hey well you can think of it, but do not use it until you have been shot at a minimum 2 times)

3.) Wear a blue helmet so then you are completely indentified as the person who cannot do anything to stop you (Taken from the point of the warring factions)

4.)Then finally complete your tour of duty, knowing you did absolutely nothing to change the situation

I mean I am sure Canada could sit all alone way up North here, claim neutrality, never get involved in anything until its in our best interests. Maybe you all would agree that we should develop a foreign policy like China's, a policy that reserves judgement and proclaims non intervention. Just think of it how wonderful that would be, we could develop relationships with despots and dictators and never lose any sleep over it. We could have developed a wonderful lasting relationship with the Taliban (DAM THOSE AMERICANS FOR INTERVENING) as we share so many values, values such as allowing women to be educated, allowing homosexuals to live freely in our society and also allowing to terrorists to carry out their activities.

Wait a minute under the Taliban, dogs were treated better then women, homosexuals were stoned to death and terrorists were able to develop operations that could span the globe (well actually Canada with lax immigration and welfare laws, pretty much allows the same)

Needless to say Canada could do nothing if it wants to, but I am glad that Canada does. Many people together make up Canada with many different viewpoints. But I am positive we all cherish freedom, and if we can help others achieve that, then I am all for it. That may mean risking Canadian lives and I know Canada is not there for economic reasons or to claim a stake in the world opium market.

The current government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a theocracy which imposes death sentences on those who convert to Christianity. Sure the Taliban are far worse but I see no compelling reason for Canadians dying to save an Islamic theocracy composed of warlords, mullahs and corrupt government officials even if it is supported by most Afghans.

[Figleaf]

For those who disagree with putting our troops in Afghanistan on the grounds that we are needlessly endangering their lives for no good reason, these people must surely disagree with every peace keeping mission that Canada is a part of, right???

Ummm ... NO. I only disagree with missions which have no connection to our national interests and which have no plan or prospect of success.

For those who support continuing the Afghan mission, please tell me ... what's the strategy? How will we know we are succeeding? What are the milestones? When will it finish?

[Sully]

For those who disagree with putting our troops in Afghanistan on the grounds that we are needlessly endangering their lives for no good reason, these people must surely disagree with every peace keeping mission that Canada is a part of, right???

Ummm ... NO. I only disagree with missions which have no connection to our national interests and which have no plan or prospect of success.

For those who support continuing the Afghan mission, please tell me ... what's the strategy? How will we know we are succeeding? What are the milestones? When will it finish?

Well for me, our success would be not having a Pro-terrorist government in place, a government who is stable and supports fair and equitable treatments of its citizens, one who is our future friend and one who appreciates the help we provided them. When will all this happen, who knows!!! Sounds a lot like a peace keeping mission to me!!! But I am sure you can tell me how being in Bosnia and Haiti met our National Interests anymore than Afghanistan???

[White Doors]

For those who disagree with putting our troops in Afghanistan on the grounds that we are needlessly endangering their lives for no good reason, these people must surely disagree with every peace keeping mission that Canada is a part of, right???

Ummm ... NO. I only disagree with missions which have no connection to our national interests and which have no plan or prospect of success.

For those who support continuing the Afghan mission, please tell me ... what's the strategy? How will we know we are succeeding? What are the milestones? When will it finish?

To help the formation of a responsible country on the world stage that has human rights for its people. A democracy is good too and also a government that is able to effecively govern. I mean, this is pretty elementary stuff here. I am puzzled why you are mystified as to what the 'exit criteria' are.

[normanchateau]

But I am sure you can tell me how being in Bosnia and Haiti met our National Interests anymore than Afghanistan???

Bosnia and Haiti aren't theocracies and there was a reaonable chance for success in our peace keeping missions there.

[Sully]

But I am sure you can tell me how being in Bosnia and Haiti met our National Interests anymore than Afghanistan???

Bosnia and Haiti aren't theocracies and there was a reaonable chance for success in our peace keeping missions there.

Well whether its dictators or theocracies, its people bent on power. But I would really appreciate if you can give me the exact examples of the actions of the Afghan "theocracy" and how they are acting so wrong in your eyes. Also what is a"reasonable chance" to you, 90% success rate, 80%, 50%. Sounds like your philosophy is, if it requires effort or risk its not worth fighting for and thats a scary thought. What should Canada's motto be, "No Canadian moves, no Canadian gets hurt."

[Argus]

The current government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a theocracy which imposes death sentences on those who convert to Christianity.

It is not a theocracy. It is a democracy, though the rules of a heavily religious people are based largely on the Koran. However, the government intervened to prevent the one time sentence against the one offender found, from being carried out.

[Figleaf]

For those who disagree with putting our troops in Afghanistan on the grounds that we are needlessly endangering their lives for no good reason, these people must surely disagree with every peace keeping mission that Canada is a part of, right???

Ummm ... NO. I only disagree with missions which have no connection to our national interests and which have no plan or prospect of success.

For those who support continuing the Afghan mission, please tell me ... what's the strategy? How will we know we are succeeding? What are the milestones? When will it finish?

To help the formation of a responsible country on the world stage that has human rights for its people. A democracy is good too and also a government that is able to effecively govern. I mean, this is pretty elementary stuff here. I am puzzled why you are mystified as to what the 'exit criteria' are.

Did you fail to understand the questions?

What's the strategy? How will we know we are succeeding? What are the milestones? When will it finish?

And let me add another ... why should we do it?

[Sully]

Did you fail to understand the questions?

What's the strategy? How will we know we are succeeding? What are the milestones? When will it finish?

And let me add another ... why should we do it?

To answer your questions again.......

Whats the strategy?

Strategy is to help keep Afghanistan secure and from tearing itself apart while the country grows into a new DEMOCRATIC nation, which we will help to influence while we are there. I think Canadian values are pretty good gift to the Afghanis.

How will we know we are succeeding?

We will know we are succeeding as the Afghanistan begins to take control of their own destiny and rely less on outside forces for aid

What are the milestones?

Milestones will be created by the people on the frontlines who know how to determine what the goals should be and how quickly they can be achieved and not by a bunch people sitting around their computers making their own political statements.

When will it finish?

Who knows, there is no scientific formula.

And let me add another ... why should we do it?

You let cancer go untreated and the cancer grows and thats why WE SHOULD DO IT !!!