Canadian troops

[JMH]

While I don't agree with our deployment to this region and furthermore do not agree with the supposed mission objectives (pipeline concernes), It's immportant for Canadaians to know that this is an international

force that was called upon by the UN and taken on by all NATO forces. We, as a founding member of NATO have obligations in this regard and should continue to show the complete dedication of our Nation to the effort and unquestionable support to our soldiers.

I was pleased that our Prime Minister gave the "go ahead" regarding the deployment of our Leapord tanks for this endeavor. It seems as though this has helped our men and women considerably in both defensive and offensive capabilities as the casualties are markedly lower yesterday, today and hopefully tommorow...........this is my greatest happiness.

I fully support the Prime Minister sending our F-18's ...........if needed. Ground support is crucial in this territory, and any and all means at our disposal should be used to complete our mission objectives and keep our troops as safe as possible; what the hell do we have them for otherwise?

[Curiouscanuck]

It's immportant for Canadaians to know that this is an international

force that was called upon by the UN and taken on by all NATO forces.

It is astonishing how many of my otherwise knowledgeable university peers don't know this. Id say about 80% in my experience don't know this. Out of those 80% I can say that an overwhelming majority (if not all) do not support the war, and when I ask one further and describe the importance of contracts, they usually give me, "there is a better way" or "I do not agree with that". Of course I live in the Toronto area so maybe my results should be expected to be more like 95%.

These people... Educated? Sometimes. Opinionated? Yes.

[Curiouscanuck]

Let me expand on this as I can see people firing away. It is fine not to support war. I have no problem with that. But we signed an agreement with NATO for the protection of all nations that entered. In exchange for this protection the popular NATO statement, "a war against one is a war against all" means that we have to come through on our side of the agreement when called on by the NATO contract. No one should be asking if we should get out of the war in Afghanistan, we should be asking if we want out of NATO.

If we don't honour our side of the agreement why should NATO honour theirs?

Do I support NATO? Yes. In my eyes it means a smaller national army and greater protection.

[jdobbin]

Do I support NATO? Yes. In my eyes it means a smaller national army and greater protection.

Why doesn't the rest of NATO support Canada on the front?

And why is NATO in Afghanistan now? There may have been call for them at the beginning but they weren't called in the beginning.

Lastly, does Canada's commitment extend beyond 2009? Will this be a permanent posting? Could it be a very long term fight against Pakistani supported Taliban? Do we eventually have to fight in Pakistan?

[Argus]

Do I support NATO? Yes. In my eyes it means a smaller national army and greater protection.

Why doesn't the rest of NATO support Canada on the front?

Political weakness among notoriously unstable and reflexively anti-American European governments. As bad as the ignorant, knee-jerk, war-is-bad, anti-American anti-militarism is here it's ten times worse in France, Germany, Spain and Italy.

And why is NATO in Afghanistan now? There may have been call for them at the beginning but they weren't called in the beginning.

I think because the UN is incapable of any kind of strong action, and so, as in Yugoslavia, it has to be Nato forces.

Lastly, does Canada's commitment extend beyond 2009? Will this be a permanent posting? Could it be a very long term fight against Pakistani supported Taliban? Do we eventually have to fight in Pakistan?

That is four questions, which cannot be answered at this time.

[mikedavid00]

It's immportant for Canadaians to know that this is an international

force that was called upon by the UN and taken on by all NATO forces.

It is astonishing how many of my otherwise knowledgeable university peers don't know this. Id say about 80% in my experience don't know this. Out of those 80% I can say that an overwhelming majority (if not all) do not support the war, and when I ask one further and describe the importance of contracts, they usually give me, "there is a better way" or "I do not agree with that". Of course I live in the Toronto area so maybe my results should be expected to be more like 95%.

These people... Educated? Sometimes. Opinionated? Yes.

That's the thing. Lefties, students, and other emotionally charged people don't care to bother themselves with the fact. They just use emotions and idealism.

They also like to wave around their school flag to show they are elite and somehow their say is morer important then everyone elses.

I find people in Canadian academia to be the most un-experienced, idealogical, out of this world, self rightous, elite wanna-be's on the face of this planet.

They have a love on for the UN, Natives, and gay rights. I don't get it.

I'm just glad i'm finished and done school. I hope to never go back to those group of whining idiots.

[PolyNewbie]

Canadian troops are in Afganistan for the following reasons:

(1) to rebuild a drug trade that was nearly destroyed by the Taliban

(2) put a pipeline in

(3) get the IMF and World Bank in so that Afgan people can start working for the private banks like in all other Western Democracies.

(4) Put a corrupt government in power that will help them acheive these goals.

It wasn't to "restore democracy" or "find Osama Bin Laden". Thats media propoganda.

The rogue nations that Bush talked about at the start of these wars (all 20 of them) have one thing in common: Their currencies were not controlled by wealthy private bankers of the west. See Robert Gaylon Ross video on Google.

The Rockefeller Democrat agenda is no different than the Rockefeller Republican agenda. For people to understand how this world works they must learn about debt based fiat currencies and how the banks operate. This stuff is not covered in economics classes and its influence is carefully worked around in history.

See The Money Masters or read The Creature From Jekyll Island (griffin). The facts presented in these are not doubted by mainstream economists, just skipped over. John Kenneth Galbraith gives the fact that a handful of men actually control the USA through its money supply a single paragraph mention in his book Money. You would miss its importance if you are not aware of the Rothschild/Rockefeller influence on world affairs and how modern banks actually work.

[Curiouscanuck]

See The Money Masters or read The Creature From Jekyll Island (griffin).

That is an interesting take. I did watch the first 2 minutes and I can make an assumption that the reason economists have skipped over this idea is because they have an alternative answer and disagree with it.

here were the q's in the introduction. and the economists answers.

Why are Americans over there head in debt?

Because other countries, increasingly Asian, are putting their new found wealth in low risk accounts. American debt has extremely low risk.

Why has buying power has decreased so much in the last generation?

Before Reagan, inflation was out of control. The inflation rates in the teens in the US until this time. With

a quick calculation you would seen using this high rate it does not take long for prices to double. Currently however the range of 1-3% has been successful since Reagan.

Why are both parents working for low paying dead end jobs.

Well first off mean income has risen faster in the US than Canada since the 90's and we have paid down more debt than they have. Also, with globalization and the increasing push for free trade they have exported the US' middle class to countries where unskilled labour is paid much less. And both parents are much richer than their parents were and get paid more.

[madmax]

Canadian troops are in Afganistan for the following reasons:

(1) to rebuild a drug trade that was nearly destroyed by the Taliban

No, Canadian troops are not in Afghanistan to rebuild the drug trade. The Northern Alliance, and the Taliban Remnants are doing a good job on their own. To the dismay of Hamid Karzai the and the DEA.

(2) put a pipeline in

No, Canadian Troops are not putting in the pipeline. Ever since Unocal lost that pipeline deal to Brazil, the Taliban were falling out of favour. The pipeline is back in US hands, but this is also secondary. The US was considering using the Northern Alliance to put the pipeline back in US hands when the Taliban was in power, but didn't want to loose face and deal with Russian, Iranian, and Indian backed tribes and ethnic groups.

This was just a side benefit of the overthrow of the Taliban.

(3) get the IMF and World Bank in so that Afgan people can start working for the private banks like in all other Western Democracies.

The IMF and their Neocon policies have collapsed more economies then helped. I don't think it's helped any yet. But Afghanistan is a basket case, and I don't think there is any merit to your statement.

(4) Put a corrupt government in power that will help them acheive these goals.

You dance with the ones that brought you. As a longtime reader of the Afghan Mujahideen, Hamid Karzai is not one I would call corrupt. His problem is that his Northern Alliance co officials, are corrupt and want him dead. It will take a strongman to keep this country together, and they refer to Karzai as the "school teacher" in order to exemplify his weakness. Karzai was part of the "Gucci" Mujahideen, a Pashtun, whom formerly put his support behind the Taliban. His critism of the United States in the period of 1990 to 94 is well documented. He used to be an active participant in Pakistan during the fight the USSR. He knows how the game is played there and is outspoken in his critism of Pakistani support for the Taliban.

There is no government you could install in Afghanistan that would not be corrupt. 28 years of War will do that.

It wasn't to "restore democracy" or "find Osama Bin Laden". Thats media propoganda.

Canadian JTF 2 went looking for OBL. The US decided he really wasn't a priority.

The concept of restoring democracy to a country that never had lot before the USSR invasion leaves alot to be imagined. But to install a stable government is a possibility.

I do have a problem with Canadian involvement in Afghanistan for many reasons but I am not going into that today.

[Curtis Smith]

We are in Afghanistan not only as a NATO obligation, but also as an obligation to ourselves, freedom and defence. We are trying to hunt down the Taliban and prevent them from gaining a foothold in the democratic world by using countries like Afghanistan as a training ground.

I find it interesting right now that we, and NATO are not in Pakistan, I think they have a worse turnout for the Taliban than Afghanistan does and Pakistan is not fully co-operating with us, I think in order for this to be called a war on terror, we should be hitting all countries that support the Taliban with everything NATO has and that includes Pakistan and its corrupt military government.

[hiti]

It's immportant for Canadaians to know that this is an international

force that was called upon by the UN and taken on by all NATO forces.

It is astonishing how many of my otherwise knowledgeable university peers don't know this. Id say about 80% in my experience don't know this. Out of those 80% I can say that an overwhelming majority (if not all) do not support the war, and when I ask one further and describe the importance of contracts, they usually give me, "there is a better way" or "I do not agree with that". Of course I live in the Toronto area so maybe my results should be expected to be more like 95%.

These people... Educated? Sometimes. Opinionated? Yes.

Or maybe the "new" government hasn't clarified what we are doing in Afghanistan. I mean, Chretien and Martin didn't have much of a problem with the publics perception of our mission. Of course it could be that Chretien/Martin respected the troops, didn't use them for photo-ops, and flew the flag at half mast with respect and mourning when one of our soldiers sacrificed their lives in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

Then there is the fact that 38 soldiers died since Steve was elected.

[Saturn]

Let me expand on this as I can see people firing away. It is fine not to support war. I have no problem with that. But we signed an agreement with NATO for the protection of all nations that entered.

Good. Don't forget to state that next time Kyoto comes up for discussion.

[Einar the Dagger]

"NATO is a key component of the international community’s engagement in Afghanistan, assisting the Afghan authorities in providing security and stability, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance."

This is the description on the offical NATO site for the mission in Afghanistan. This states that the NATO forces are present to provide security and stability so the country can reconstruct and prosper. Taliban forces need to be removed for security. The government needs to be assisted for stabiliy, and forces assisting the country's people with food and saftey leads to reconstruction. This is the NATO mission and Canadian forces are present in Afganistan as peacekeepers to acheive this mission.

Einar the Dagger

[Curiouscanuck]

Let me expand on this as I can see people firing away. It is fine not to support war. I have no problem with that. But we signed an agreement with NATO for the protection of all nations that entered.

Good. Don't forget to state that next time Kyoto comes up for discussion.

Hey Saturn that's a valid point. But I believe you took that quote out of context. I stated that we shouldn't choose which parts of an agreement we should honour, but the whole or nothing. For NATO this means everything in the agreement, including Afghanistan. We can't choose not to go to Afghanistan and then count on NATO fulfilling their side of the agreement in the future. If we're included in NATO we must always be

included in NATO's projects. It is all commitments made or none.

Now bringing this point into Kyoto, it would be like us stating that we want to be part of the Kyoto contract, but after signing the agreement we say "but not the oil and gas sector of Canada". This is clearly a violation of the contract just like not going into Afghanistan is a violation of the NATO contract. So us saying we are doing our part after such a statement, and saying we are part of Kyoto is incorrect.

This is different than leaving an agreement completely. If we were to leave Kyoto we would not and should not expect to reap any of the rewards that Kyoto may bring to us, such as claiming we are part of it (but, of course, we would feel some positive externalities (if any?) being a global issue).

So to conclude, we have the opportunity to honour/leave, hounour/stay, dishonour/leave, dishonour/stay in both the NATO and Kyoto accords. Because of points stated above dishonour/stay is breaking the rules and would have bad consequences (NATO example). So that is out. Honour/leave doesn't make any logical sense as we would be benefited greater if we just stayed in the agreement. So the decision is between honour/stay and dishonour/leave.

I think we should dishonour Kyoto and leave. Reasons I've stated before, which come down to it was a horribly thought out agreement. Staying in the agreement will cost us much more, with in my opinion, close to absolutely no benefit. We could make our own/other agreement, hopefully much better thought out and have better results with a lower cost.

NATO I believe we should stay/honour. For reasons I stated above.

[madmax]

This is the NATO mission and Canadian forces are present in Afganistan as peacekeepers to acheive this mission.

Einar the Dagger

Canadian forces are in Kandahar, implementing the NATO mission, and engaging the enemy. They are not acting as peacekeepers.

[Curtis Smith]

Or maybe the "new" government hasn't clarified what we are doing in Afghanistan. I mean, Chretien and Martin didn't have much of a problem with the publics perception of our mission. Of course it could be that Chretien/Martin respected the troops, didn't use them for photo-ops, and flew the flag at half mast with respect and mourning when one of our soldiers sacrificed their lives in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

Then there is the fact that 38 soldiers died since Steve was elected.

Cretien and Martin were exactly the opposite of Harper, Harper visited out troops to show that we were behind them all the way and, that he did respect them. Cretien and Martin could not give a damn about our troops slashing funding, and than start pulling them out to safer areas once the going got rough.

Someone in this forum stated very well why we are not putting the flag at half mass, and that is because it will turn in to a "yo-yo."

To end this, 38 soldiers did not die since "Steve" was elected, 38 soldiers died because they are fighting courageously in the heart of the Taliban land to restore freedom to Afghanistan, and security to the western world, and to rebuild. As much as you do not want to here this our soldiers are KILLING Taliban and that does not come at no cost to our troops.

[madmax]

Of course it could be that Chretien/Martin respected the troops, didn't use them for photo-ops, and flew the flag at half mast with respect and mourning when one of our soldiers sacrificed their lives in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

Then there is the fact that 38 soldiers died since Steve was elected.

And Mr. "Respect" Martin, put them in this danger. Harper's only decision was to extend the mission.

If Martin really cared about our forces, he would have thought long and hard, about whom participated in the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism in Afghanistan. It wasn't us. He should have asked, why should we be covering this turf, while the US diverated troops and money to Iraq?

Regardless, we are there, I disagree with being there. We have two more years on this extension.

Don't go blaming Harper for these 38 deaths. There is plenty to go around.

The important thing is to get the mission right, and be able to get out of Afghanistan with a stable government and our heads held high. Something the US will not be able to achieve in Iraq. Maybe they will refocus, drop the Rumfeld Doctrine in Afghanistan, and perhaps, those deaths won't be in Vain.

It's too late for blaming. We need to be successful.

[madmax]

Cretien and Martin were exactly the opposite of Harper, Harper visited out troops to show that we were behind them all the way and, that he did respect them.

I think that was as much posturing towards the US versus showing respect for the troops. That was the intent of the photo op.

Cretien and Martin could not give a damn about our troops slashing funding, and than start pulling them out to safer areas once the going got rough.

But Harper and the Conservatives voted against a motion to support soldiers injured in Afghanistan. That isn't a sign of respect to me. The motion passed.

To end this, 38 soldiers did not die since "Steve" was elected, 38 soldiers died because they are fighting courageously in the heart of the Taliban land to restore freedom to Afghanistan, and security to the western world, and to rebuild. As much as you do not want to here this our soldiers are KILLING Taliban and that does not come at no cost to our troops.

The RCRs, were reduced to "combat ineffective". The first time in my lifetime, that I have heard that term used to describe Canadian Military Unit. That was the combination of Stiff Resistance, and two US Warthogs, targeting our troops once again.

Your statement above, is factual, although, I would refrase that to Security for the Karzai government. And the intent to provide security to the Western World requires the use of JTF2, SAS and US Special forces, as well as political pressure on Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The US's longtime partners in the spread of Islamic Fundamentalism.

The question is, how many "Taliban" do you expect to kill with 2,200 troops, and when do you expect the killing to stop?

PANJWAII DISTRICT, Afghanistan—One must turn back time several generations to find Canadian soldiers in the state that Charlie Company finds itself today. Not since the Korean War has a single Canadian combat unit been so cut to pieces so quickly.

Either of the two events that rocked their world in the dust-caked hills of southern Afghanistan one month ago might qualify as the worst day of their lives. That they came back-to-back — one disastrous morning followed by another even worse — is a matter of almost incomprehensibly bad fortune.

The epic double-whammy — a perfect Taliban ambush of unprecedented intensity, followed one day later by a devastating burst of "friendly fire" from a U.S. Air Force A-10 Warthog — reduced Charlie to a status of "combat ineffective." They were the ones to fire the opening shots of Operation Medusa. But even as the massive Canada-led assault was gathering steam they were finished.

[Curtis Smith]

I think that was as much posturing towards the US versus showing respect for the troops. That was the intent of the photo op

.

No, We do not have any reason to kiss Americas ass, we are working just as hard as them to restore freedom to Afghanistan and security to us, we may be doing even more than they are in fact, as we are currently in the most deadly region of Afghanistan well the United States is in Iraq and currently what few troops they do have in Afghanistan are only patrolling already contested regions of Afghanistan. If you ask me Harper is just simply trying to get us back up on the world stage and show everyone that we are not weak, and insignificant Canada that sits back and let's other countries get they're hands dirty.

But Harper and the Conservatives voted against a motion to support soldiers injured in Afghanistan. That isn't a sign of respect to me. The motion passed.

Never heard about this, can I have a reference? Even if it did happen, the point is we are there now.

The RCRs, were reduced to "combat ineffective". The first time in my lifetime, that I have heard that term used to describe Canadian Military Unit. That was the combination of Stiff Resistance, and two US Warthogs, targeting our troops once again.

Your statement above, is factual, although, I would refrase that to Security for the Karzai government. And the intent to provide security to the Western World requires the use of JTF2, SAS and US Special forces, as well as political pressure on Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The US's longtime partners in the spread of Islamic Fundamentalism.

The question is, how many "Taliban" do you expect to kill with 2,200 troops, and when do you expect the killing to stop?

We already have JTF2 in Afghanistan but they are currently focussed on the capture of Bin Laden and in doing so are working in the volatile mountains of Afghanistan. Although you have a point about political pressure on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, I think we should be doing more than that, I think NATO should be forcing them to either co-operate or risk having NATO soldiers blasting down the gates in to they're country, especially Pakistan, that is the only way this war will be effective.

As for how many Taliban we can expect to kill with so little troops, I really can not answer that, if I were Prime Minister, I would be boosting the defence budget significantly (definantly more than Harper has) and work on recruitment. I would say we need at least three times the troops we have in there now in order to be an effective, and more focused force in Afghanistan.

The killing will not stop until we have killed, turned, or captured every last Taliban fighter or terrorist supporter in the world. No one said this would be easy; I could be 60 before we ever finish this war.

[Jean_Poutine]

Of course it could be that Chretien/Martin respected the troops, didn't use them for photo-ops, and flew the flag at half mast with respect and mourning when one of our soldiers sacrificed their lives in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

Then there is the fact that 38 soldiers died since Steve was elected.

And Mr. "Respect" Martin, put them in this danger. Harper's only decision was to extend the mission.

If Martin really cared about our forces, he would have thought long and hard, about whom participated in the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism in Afghanistan. It wasn't us. He should have asked, why should we be covering this turf, while the US diverated troops and money to Iraq?

Regardless, we are there, I disagree with being there. We have two more years on this extension.

Don't go blaming Harper for these 38 deaths. There is plenty to go around.

The important thing is to get the mission right, and be able to get out of Afghanistan with a stable government and our heads held high. Something the US will not be able to achieve in Iraq. Maybe they will refocus, drop the Rumfeld Doctrine in Afghanistan, and perhaps, those deaths won't be in Vain.

It's too late for blaming. We need to be successful.

I agree with the part about getting the mission right, but I reject the anti-American tinge to your post.

The policy behind the Iraq war was more than a decade in the making by a small group that thought that the US should have used its military power to spread American influence after the fall of the Soveit Union. They also felt that the US should have gone after Saddam in Desert Storm. However, the problem for them was that Bill Clinton was elected. So, they went into think tanks where they continued to work on their view of what US policy should be, which lead to PNAC. They then resurfaced in George Bush's administration. Even if Al Gore was President, they'd still be sitting in think tanks waiting for their opportunity. One good thing about the Iraq war is that those people have discredited themselves.

However, to say that this is representative of the US as a whole is a gross generalization. For example, Scott Ritter was one of the most accurate voices on everything that has unfolded in Iraq before the war even started, and he's American. Regardless of what people think of his political views, Dennis Kucinich was against it from the begining and wants the troops out of Iraq ASAP. There are a wide range of opinions on it, but there's also growing regret by people that supported it initially. Your attitude towards Afghanistan is that we are where we are and that it's best to move forward. Well, Americans may feel the same way about Iraq. Americans are fully aware of the tough situation they're in. Personally, I don't believe in kicking people when they're down. Therefore, I don't see the point in rubbing it in their faces at every opportunity. I hope for the sake of Iraqi civilians and the soldiers serving there that they can find a way to bring some stability to the country.

As for Afghanistan, the Americans still have about 11,000 troops there, which is far more than any other country.

Rather than wagging a finger at the US and telling them what to do or not to do all the time, it would be better for other countries to step up by properly funding their armed forces so that they aren't so reliant on the US. In this regard, Canada's doorstep isn't clean; therefore, Canadians should think about that before talking about Americans.

I respect the people in the Canadian military and they do their jobs well, but the problems with budget cuts are well known. I would argue that the excellent reputation that the Canadian armed forces have is despite the government not because of it.

[Topaz]

Why are we in Afghanistan that is the question. Well, isn't the head of NATO a Canadian General? We all know it was the Libs that placed them there, but for another reason and it is the Harper govt that extending their time there. After doing my own research into this, we are trying to keep the present government in, for the other government, that was in before the US decided to take them out. As one General of the US military said before the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. what's the sense of having a military if you don't use them and they sitting around all the time JUST playing war! I, also wonder who in our government is making any money off this war.

[Curtis Smith]

Why are we in Afghanistan that is the question. Well, isn't the head of NATO a Canadian General? We all know it was the Libs that placed them there, but for another reason and it is the Harper govt that extending their time there. After doing my own research into this, we are trying to keep the present government in, for the other government, that was in before the US decided to take them out. As one General of the US military said before the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. what's the sense of having a military if you don't use them and they sitting around all the time JUST playing war! I, also wonder who in our government is making any money off this war.

We are in Afghanistan to hunt and kill the Taliban, it is our duty, we owe it to NATO and to our selves in the name of freedom and security to hunt and kill the Taliban before they hunt and kill us.

We have not been attacked yet because of this exact reason, we collect intelligence in Afghanistan about pending attacks on Canada and NATO allies, let us keep it that way, and god bless Canada, the Mission and our troops.

[jdobbin]

We are in Afghanistan to hunt and kill the Taliban, it is our duty, we owe it to NATO and to our selves in the name of freedom and security to hunt and kill the Taliban before they hunt and kill us.

We have not been attacked yet because of this exact reason, we collect intelligence in Afghanistan about pending attacks on Canada and NATO allies, let us keep it that way, and god bless Canada, the Mission and our troops.

It would be nice if the rest of NATO actually supported Canada rather than limit their own soldiers activities.

I certainly wish for success but the record for pacifying Afghanistan long term has not been a successful one.

Pakistan will continue the war and nothing so far is being done to stop that. In fact, part of Pakistan is essentially a Taliban mini-state.

[Jean_Poutine]

Why are we in Afghanistan that is the question. Well, isn't the head of NATO a Canadian General? We all know it was the Libs that placed them there, but for another reason and it is the Harper govt that extending their time there. After doing my own research into this, we are trying to keep the present government in, for the other government, that was in before the US decided to take them out. As one General of the US military said before the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. what's the sense of having a military if you don't use them and they sitting around all the time JUST playing war! I, also wonder who in our government is making any money off this war.

Canadian Brigadier-General David Fraser was in command of southern Afghanistan until recently when it was turned over to the Dutch.

There are 10 UN resolutions -- all available on the UN web site -- regarding Afghanistan.

Also, there is no shortage of disinformation and misinformation on the internet. Source checking is an important part of doing research.

[mikedavid00]

The killing will not stop until we have killed, turned, or captured every last Taliban fighter or terrorist supporter in the world. No one said this would be easy; I could be 60 before we ever finish this war.[/b]

I say we just pull out and stop letting them into OUR country in order to secure our own country.

I feel that is a bigger priority.