No early exit for troops

[Leafless]

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he could not live with himself if he reduced Canada's military mission in Afghanistan to further his own political self-interest, and adds he's prepared to lose the next election if it means standing by the military."

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...9df0622&k=55613

I think Canada is going about this in the wrong way and I really did not ever support intervening the way we did as this is not our type of war and was not a direct attack against Canada.

Call it as you will will, but terrorist attacks on global countries including 9/11 was an act of war and should have been initially treated as such, against the countries involved, in a more direct manner, or forget about it.

To invade countries with limited response in these backward countries that harbour an endless supply of terrorist does not make sense and is not like fighting a conventional war.

No one is going to change the way these countries operate in a short time and IMO is all a waste of time, resources and lives.

[geoffrey]

I think Canada is going about this in the wrong way and I really did not ever support intervening the way we did as this is not our type of war and was not a direct attack against Canada.

Our mutual defense agreement through NATO made it a direct attack.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Best quote from that article.

Mr. Harper said he understands the NDP's position -- that Canada should not have sent its troops to Afghanistan and should withdraw now -- better than any of his political opponents because at least this party has been consistent. But he suggested he has less time for the other parties. "The Liberals and the Bloc tell me: rebalance the mission. What does that mean? I mean, what the hell does that mean?

Does anybody know what re-balance the mission means?

If the Bloc and Liberals stick with that line they are in trouble. Afghanistan won't be an issue if the only realistic alternative to forming government can't come out with a clear policy on Afghanistan.

Look at where Harper won his seats in Quebec. All are in those parts of the province that aren't strongly opposed to the mission...

[mikedavid00]

No one is going to change the way these countries operate in a short time and IMO is all a waste of time, resources and lives.

That's what most poeple have realized. These are not sane, rational people we're dealign with. They are brainwashed and nuts.

I would love to see Iraq and Afganistan get freedom, but you can only help so much. It's amazing to think the the insurgance is so strong that we've used all these resources and they still keep coming. I mean, how many taliban is there left?

At the end of the day, I would like poeple from Terror recognized countries to stop entering in Canada and the US. I don't need to live with this threat here and we can more than function fine without these people on our soil.

It's shocking.. simply shocking when a co-worker from work tells me that he has 3 friends from Pakistan in Texas as international students.

I'm sorry. I will not feel sorry for the US if they get attacked again. Canada I can understand becuase Canadians have not woken up yet to certain realities, but US? Sorry. They should learn not to threaten their own security by letting in people from terrorist recognized countries to roam free on student visas.

Update: I forgot to mention that all 3 of them are in Canada now. 1 got a really good job close by my house, and the other 2 are students here I think. Each will be getting arranged marriage to secure citizenship so their parents can come. They all tried to look in the US and could not find any girls willing to marry them which was funny. I helped try to find some girls on the web for them, but they never got responses from any families (probably becuase these girls who are American citizens most likely get thousands of inquiries).

[Leafless]

I think Canada is going about this in the wrong way and I really did not ever support intervening the way we did as this is not our type of war and was not a direct attack against Canada.

Our mutual defense agreement through NATO made it a direct attack.

"Mechanisms for Cooperation

Canada-US defence cooperation is the foundation of continental defence against 21st century threats. Investing in a durable framework for cooperation with the US is central to advancing the nation’s regional and global interests. Between Canada and the US there are currently over 80 treaty-level defence agreements, more than 250 memoranda of understanding between the two defence departments, and approximately 145 bilateral forums in which defence matters are discussed."

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=836

It seems we are more committed to the U.S. than Nato, and that is okay, but that's not the point.

I simply disagree concerning the manner in which we are involved and not the matter of retribution which like I said, was not direct enough initially.

I think the U.S is also wasting time, unless they take a more aggressive approach.

[geoffrey]

I obviously strongly support the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, I think what we are doing there is the right thing to do. Being said, we are a tiny nation of 30 million people. We can't do it alone, and that's essientially what we are doing now. Where is France? Germany?

There needs to be far more troops on the ground. There is evidence that once Canadians capture an area, they immediately must leave for other areas, allowing the enemy to return. Even if the French and the Germans provided the backup support, it'd go along way in dealing with the Taliban.

It goes beyond mutual defense though. Afghanistan was the staging grounds for al-Qaeda, which gives us a very justified reason to remove the Taliban from power and assist a democratic regime in establishing order. But the other effects have been tremendous and I'd hate to see those go to waste. Girls going to school is a big one, they are now be offered an acceptable level of freedom and control over themselves.

It's still an Islamic regime, but it's got boundaries. That's a big difference too. And if you give the people hope and confidence in their future, they are much less likely to resort to terrorism and oppression.

[mikedavid00]

It's still an Islamic regime, but it's got boundaries. That's a big difference too. And if you give the people hope and confidence in their future, they are much less likely to resort to terrorism and oppression.

I think the goal should be for them to protect themselves without our help. To be honest, as long as there is Isamic groups wanting power, they will go after it. It's only a powrer struggle.

Your dealing with brainwashed, ideologic fundamentalists. It will never end. I feel we should just leave at this point and stop letting in people from terrorist countries into Canada to secure ourselves from this threat.

9-11 only happened becuase the US let's people from terrorist countries into their country. There really isn't another way to say it. I know it's a very unpopular thing to say, but it's true.

What if there wasn't that informant here in Toronto who arrested the people in my neighbourhood who bought the tons of fertalizer and took part in training campls. This is going on here too.

But we do it to ourselves.

I would love to have the Arab world be free and spread freedom. But it's proving to be impossible. I mean.. people from other countries will insurge into another country in the name of islam.. completely brainwashed and ready to die. It won't change in those regoins. They mostly kill each other.

Honestly, they have to settle their own problems. A lot of people (muslim people) I know think it's only going to happen when the oil runs out and they are left with nothing. Then the people will rise up and fix themselves. And many lives will be claimed but it needs to happen.

I feel we should bring back all the troops, fund them, let the police protect themslves, and see what happens. If they get back in power, oh well. We just won't be letting them into North America for security reasons. Iraq's a different story. I think they are almost ready to take care of themselves. Maybe a partition of the country is called for to seperate the Shiah's and Sonies.

10% of Muslims around the world are estimated to fundamentalists. I feel at this point they should not be coming onto North American soil due to the nature they attack. It's an unpopular opinion but I'll prove myself right when Canada gets hit.

What is everyone so afraid of? Let's protect ourselves and leave them be. Be patient and they will fix their own problems.

[betsy]

This interview is supposed to air on Saturday on CTV.

On one hand I support the mission...on the other hand, I sometimes tend to think the other way: let Afghans eke it out and we just beef up our security in our own soil (which is also a losing game if we don't beef up our immigration policy). But I'm behind our PM in his decisions....not because he is Harper, but because he is our elected leader.

[Leafless]

I'm sorry. I will not feel sorry for the US if they get attacked again. Canada I can understand becuase Canadians have not woken up yet to certain realities, but US? Sorry. They should learn not to threaten their own security by letting in people from terrorist recognized countries to roam free on student visas.

I agree all Arab Muslims should be banned from immigrating or even visiting, as long as terrorism is a threat, originating from these Islamic countries.

[Black Dog]

I obviously strongly support the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, I think what we are doing there is the right thing to do. Being said, we are a tiny nation of 30 million people. We can't do it alone, and that's essientially what we are doing now. Where is France? Germany?

There needs to be far more troops on the ground. There is evidence that once Canadians capture an area, they immediately must leave for other areas, allowing the enemy to return. Even if the French and the Germans provided the backup support, it'd go along way in dealing with the Taliban.

It goes beyond mutual defense though. Afghanistan was the staging grounds for al-Qaeda, which gives us a very justified reason to remove the Taliban from power and assist a democratic regime in establishing order. But the other effects have been tremendous and I'd hate to see those go to waste. Girls going to school is a big one, they are now be offered an acceptable level of freedom and control over themselves.

It's still an Islamic regime, but it's got boundaries. That's a big difference too. And if you give the people hope and confidence in their future, they are much less likely to resort to terrorism and oppression.

I think the idea that it's really just a matter of showing the savages the Way, the Truth and the Light of liberal democracy is incredibly naive. Respect for huiman rights, the establishment of democratic institutions requires a cultural shift . It's not a matter of painting schools and electing representatives. Are we prepared to tackle the task of transforming an entire culture?

I agree all Arab Muslims should be banned from immigrating or even visiting, as long as terrorism is a threat, originating from these Islamic countries.

What about non-Arab Muslims, like those from Iran or Afghanistan?

[M.Dancer]

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he could not live with himself if he reduced Canada's military mission in Afghanistan to further his own political self-interest, and adds he's prepared to lose the next election if it means standing by the military."

Blow me down with a feather....I will say this on record, I believe Harper has a shred of credibility.

[Black Dog]

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he could not live with himself if he reduced Canada's military mission in Afghanistan to further his own political self-interest, and adds he's prepared to lose the next election if it means standing by the military."

Wow, dig the Orwellian twisting of language where supporrting the mission regardless of anything is "standing by the military." By extension, then, opposing the mission must mean one is not standing by the military, even though that course of position is the one that would actually put troops out of harm's way. And all of this is from a headline. Your "liberal" media at work again.

[g_bambino]

I think the idea that it's really just a matter of showing the savages the Way, the Truth and the Light of liberal democracy is incredibly naive. Respect for huiman rights, the establishment of democratic institutions requires a cultural shift . It's not a matter of painting schools and electing representatives. Are we prepared to tackle the task of transforming an entire culture?

The entire population of Afghanistan doesn't consist of radical Muslims hell-bent on destroying the West, and like those living in other predominantly Muslim countries, a good number of Afghanis today probably don't want to live by repressive Koranic law, and already do, in principal, support human rights and democracy.

But Afghanistan has, due to the unfortunate twists of history, ended up as the country over which fundamentalist religious zealots have decided to fight, after failing to create massive uprisings in Egypt, Jordan, Libya, and the like. There have always been Afghanis who have been liberal thinkers, from time to time they have held power, and they still exist there today. But, until the tribes of uber-traditionalists and fundamentalists have been completely suppressed, or, at least suppressed enough to allow for the construction of a stable Afghani government, economy, and military, those libertarians will never be safe. Consequently, Afghanistan would most likely fall back into the hands of the extremists, who would support the training and export of terrorists to eradicate the corrupting ills of the West, which therefore threatens all of us against whom these zealots wish to exercise a Jihad.

So, it's not really a matter of transforming an entire culture, but of putting down the "bullies" and allowing the already present seeds of liberal democracy to take root and grow. Hence, the need for battle before reconstruction can take place. I think it is in our interest to support that fight for two reasons: 1) it allows for the freedom of people from an oppressive regime, and 2) it indirectly protects us (the collective West) from attackers who would thrive under said oppressive regime.

But, as someone already asked: where is Spain? Where is France? Where is Germany? As that second point above refers to a collective group of nations who stand to benefit, it should not be up to simply a select country or two to shoulder the burden - Afghanistan needs to be a collaborative effort, even involving "Muslim countries" (though liberal ones) like Egypt and Jordan.

[mikedavid00]

This interview is supposed to air on Saturday on CTV.

On one hand I support the mission...on the other hand, I sometimes tend to think the other way: let Afghans eke it out and we just beef up our security in our own soil (which is also a losing game if we don't beef up our immigration policy). But I'm behind our PM in his decisions....not because he is Harper, but because he is our elected leader.

I agree. I support the mission of course, but I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel I guess. Most Islamic killings are with other muslims in order to gain political power. Even where US has no involvment, these killings have been happening like this since Soney and Shiah factions were created.

Even if it's all Sonie, the proped up Afgani gov't will be seen as evil betrayors and attacks will always continue. I don't think we have the ability to change their mindsets. This enemy is a new enemy. A type that will kill due to brainwashing.

With all of our problems at home, I feel we should just protect our borders and stop these people from further settling in Canada after our mission is complete.

http://www.islamicinstitute.ca/documents/IITBrochure.pdf

http://www.islamicinstitute.ca/images/construction_001.jpg

http://www.islamicinstitute.ca/images/construction_004.jpg

[Ricki Bobbi]

Wow, dig the Orwellian twisting of language where supporrting the mission regardless of anything is "standing by the military." By extension, then, opposing the mission must mean one is not standing by the military, even though that course of position is the one that would actually put troops out of harm's way. And all of this is from a headline. Your "liberal" media at work again.

So it is Orwellian to stand behind the military?

Of course the military would be out of harm's way if it never entered combat zones. But the vast majority of our missions throughout history have been in combat zones, even those the left agree with and falsely call "peacekeeping".

Why have a military if they are never to engage in combat?

[guyser]

[ I agree all Arab Muslims should be banned from immigrating or even visiting, as long as terrorism is a threat, originating from these Islamic countries.

Should we ban Americans from our shores too? Think about your answer before you reply.

[Black Dog]

The entire population of Afghanistan doesn't consist of radical Muslims hell-bent on destroying the West,

Nobody ever said it did. But then, neither did the Taliban. They didn't have any particular beef with the west, but bin Laden offered money and muscle, so they tolerated and supported him.

and like those living in other predominantly Muslim countries, a good number of Afghanis today probably don't want to live by repressive Koranic law, and already do, in principal, support human rights and democracy.

A good number of people in Afghanistan, I'm sorry to say, can't even read or write, so I'm not sure what level of awareness they have of the concepts of human rights and democracy. What I do know is that life in most of Afghanistan is pretty much the same today as it was 100, 200 years ago. It's not a society big on radical change, let alone having change thrust upon it from the outside.

But Afghanistan has, due to the unfortunate twists of history, ended up as the country over which fundamentalist religious zealots have decided to fight, after failing to create massive uprisings in Egypt, Jordan, Libya, and the like. There have always been Afghanis who have been liberal thinkers, from time to time they have held power, and they still exist there today. But, until the tribes of uber-traditionalists and fundamentalists have been completely suppressed, or, at least suppressed enough to allow for the construction of a stable Afghani government, economy, and military, those libertarians will never be safe.

Total rot. The "uber-traditionalists and fundamentalists" you want to repress are most of the population (the Taliban were Pashtun and Pashtun make up the largest ethnic/tribal group in the country). It's not a question of "extremism" but of a way of life.

Consequently, Afghanistan would most likely fall back into the hands of the extremists, who would support the training and export of terrorists to eradicate the corrupting ills of the West, which therefore threatens all of us against whom these zealots wish to exercise a Jihad.

So your telling me that if we leave things will return to the status quo ante bellum just like that? Seems a bit unlikely to me. Now, I don't doubt the Taliban or some Taliban-esque group would probably emerge as the dominant force on the scene (and would be fiercely opposed by the Tajik and Uzbek minorities). But it's rathe rlarge assumption that such a group would actively pursue a campaign against the west if we weren't there under their noses.

So, it's not really a matter of transforming an entire culture, but of putting down the "bullies" and allowing the already present seeds of liberal democracy to take root and grow. Hence, the need for battle before reconstruction can take place.

I think most people recognize that Afghanistan won't be a liberal democracy in the way we understand the term to mean. As I alluded to above, its population is ethnically fragmented and uneducated. It's large, with no communications or infrasturcture to speak of. Any ghovernemnt that emerges from that mess will be conservative and heavily rooted in traditionalsim, with Islam still playing a central role in governance and society.

So, it's a bit disengeous to say the "seeds of liberal democracy" have already been planted when, even if the result is a successful central government (a faint hope at best), it won't be anything of the sort. I expect the best we can hope for in Afghanistan is relatively stable cities (Khandahar and Kabul) surrounded by a more or less lawless no man's land.

I think it is in our interest to support that fight for two reasons: 1) it allows for the freedom of people from an oppressive regime, and 2) it indirectly protects us (the collective West) from attackers who would thrive under said oppressive regime.

The only part of this theory that's actually compelling is 2). We didn't care when the Taliban were in, nor do we care about other oppressed peoples. The only time we sit up and take notice is when it serves our interests to do so. Afghanistan only serves our interests if one assumes a restored Taliban will actually threaten western interests. Given the improbability of that scenario, and the even greater improbability of a strong representative liberal (in any sense of the word) government emerging in Afghanistan in our or our children's lifetimes, it seems like we're asking a lot of Canada and Canadians to put blood and treasure on the line for a pipe dream.

But, as someone already asked: where is Spain? Where is France? Where is Germany? As that second point above refers to a collective group of nations who stand to benefit, it should not be up to simply a select country or two to shoulder the burden - Afghanistan needs to be a collaborative effort, even involving "Muslim countries" (though liberal ones) like Egypt and Jordan.

I'll wager that most of those states know a lost cause when they see one and having done the cost/benefit calculations, decided to stay out of it. (I also have to chcukle at the notion of Egypt and Jordan getting involved: both regimes are unpopular, and further kow towing to the hated west will only rile up the Islamist opposition in those countries further, which would be pretty dangerous for the regimes, not to mention counterproductive to our own goals.)

[jdobbin]

Here is one reason the battle will go on and on.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=4702

[Black Dog]

So it is Orwellian to stand behind the military?

No it's Orwellian to equate supporting the mission in Afghanistan with "standing by the military."

Why have a military if they are never to engage in combat?

You're missing the point. To me, it's bizzare and yes, Orwellian, to refer to a position that requires the military to take casualties as "standing behind the military." Unless one takes the position that, since militaries exist to fight, sending troops to fight and die is enabling it to fulfill its raison d'etre.

[mikedavid00]

[ I agree all Arab Muslims should be banned from immigrating or even visiting, as long as terrorism is a threat, originating from these Islamic countries.

Should we ban Americans from our shores too? Think about your answer before you reply.

Well they are making us use pasports now just to go cross border shopping.

They are doing this because they said our immigration system is too weak and poeple in our country pose a threat to the US.

Arar is a perfect example as well as the people from Canda who went to the US.. and,

and on that fateful sunny morning,

Flew the planes into the towers.

Guyser?

[Jean_Poutine]

[ I agree all Arab Muslims should be banned from immigrating or even visiting, as long as terrorism is a threat, originating from these Islamic countries.

Should we ban Americans from our shores too? Think about your answer before you reply.

Well they are making us use pasports now just to go cross border shopping.

They are doing this because they said our immigration system is too weak and poeple in our country pose a threat to the US.

Arar is a perfect example as well as the people from Canda who went to the US.. and,

and on that fateful sunny morning,

Flew the planes into the towers.

Guyser?

Explain two things:

1) How Arar is a threat to the US

2) How the 9-11 flights are connected to Canada

[madmax]

Arar is a perfect example as well as the people from Canda who went to the US.. and,

and on that fateful sunny morning,

Flew the planes into the towers.

Are you suggesting that people from Canada went to the US and Flew Planes into the towers?

[mikedavid00]

Explain two things:

1) How Arar is a threat to the US

Ask the US that. They said that he's still banned from the US and considered a threat, regardless of the political RCMP report. They based this off their own data on him which they are not sharing with Canada.

2) How the 9-11 flights are connected to Canada

9-11 Hijackers

Hani Hanjour "Hanjour's bank records indicate that he travelled to Ontario, Canada in March 1999 for an unknown reason."

Nawaf al-Hazmi "Police detective Mark Longo said Alhazmi entered U.S. from Canada and arrived in Cody, Wyoming on a Sunday afternoon"

[mikedavid00]

Are you suggesting that people from Canada went to the US and Flew Planes into the towers?

This is common knowledge.

This is why they have done the passport thing.

Plus they have voiced concerns that we have too lax of an immigration and refugee policy.

Everyone in the US knows this too. Even when the 18 terrorirst were arrested.

"Canada has long been known as a country with more generous social services for refugees and less stringent asylum laws." - Fox news

FOX NEWS APRIL 8TH 2004 - MENTIONS MARTIN - HERE'S WHY WE NOW NEED PASSPORTS

"Canadians who criticize their leaders say security and counterterrorism are still not high government priorities even though an intelligence report just concluded that every major international terror group has a presence there. And some terrorists are believed to view Canada as a place to seek refuge, raise money and plan attacks.

Former Canadian Ambassador Martin Collacott (search ) blames a lax immigration policy and growing anti-American sentiment that views the U.S. War on Terror as heavy-handed.

"It's been made an issue by some people saying if we do this we're giving in to American pressure and we're eroding Canadian sovereignty," Collacott said. "No we're not. If we can't control our borders, we're not controlling our own sovereignty."

The Bush administration is hoping that a new Canadian prime minister will help change the tone north of the border and perhaps will work to close the gaps in security that many insist are putting the citizens of both countries at risk"

[Topaz]

If Harper is ready to lose the election, then let see it happen in the spring and then he can go over and fight in the cause he believes in!! That war is between 2 different groups who have abused their own people but the Taliban is less absusive, if there is just a thing. The Taliban stoppped the drug trade while the Northern Alliance, are in the thick of it with many of them being within the government and Canadian soldiers are dying for this. The govt will always do what they want, and so if we succeed driving the Taliban out the Northern Alliance will still abuse their people. We should get out, its a civil war like Iraq is!!!