Afghanistan Poll

[M.Dancer]

Questions determine the answer......

[BC_chick]

Silly questions deserve silly answers.

Don't you usually knock Figleaf for these kind of polls?

[M.Dancer]

Silly questions deserve silly answers.

Don't you usually knock Figleaf for these kind of polls?

No. Figleaf's polls aren't worth shit. This question actually addresses what is at stake if NATO withdraws.

So you have to answer keeping in mind of what the consequences of withdrawal are.

If you are okay with the Taleban running the place, answer accordingly.

[BC_chick]

I think it's ridiculous to argue that NATO stays indefintely in case the Taliban come back and in case they allow Al Qaeda back in. September 11 allowed the US to seek and destroy its enemy, but not to stick around in whatever country it wants to without any plans of withdrawal just in case they come back.

As another poster said - the Taliban's only crime was harbouring terrorists. They are no longer harbouring terrorists, there is no legal grounds for NATO to remain there. Afghans should now be in charge of their own future.

[M.Dancer]

Afghans should now be in charge of their own future.

They are. They have asked for NATO protection.

[Army Guy]

A silly answer would be to answer yes we should allow the taliban to regain control of the country. Anyone with any knowledge of the the talibans escapades during thier rule would know this is not what the Afgan people want, it is not what they need. We as Canadians have agreed to help them, lets concentrate on that , pushing forward not backwards.

[Peter F]

A silly answer would be to answer yes we should allow the taliban to regain control of the country. Anyone with any knowledge of the the talibans escapades during thier rule would know this is not what the Afgan people want, it is not what they need. We as Canadians have agreed to help them, lets concentrate on that , pushing forward not backwards.

I gave one of the silly answers. The poll is silly. How about a poll like this: Do you approve of wife beating, even if the woman doesn't deserve it?

I agree that most Afghans had no use for the Taliban theocracy. I also believe that Afghans are quite capable of keeping the Taliban out entirely on thier own. This was proven many times during the Afghan civil war when anti-Taliban warlords with enough cash managed to give a thrashing to the Taliban. The Taliban got its support (in arms and personnel) from Pakistan - not Afghans (unless the Afghans were paid enough). The Northern Alliance swept through Afghanistan in very quick time once the flow of cash from America allowed them to undermine Taliban support.

Wich is to say, yes, Afghans really don't support the Taliban - Pakistan (the government) did, and Pakistan (elements within) still do.

Also agreed that since the civil war and subsequent Taliban government reduced Afghanistan to the dark ages in infastructure and economy, that the present Karzai government may need western $$$ to induce greater support amongst the Afghani's and also pay enough to keep a standing army.

So in the short term Afghanistan needs help. Fine. But what bugs me is nobody is willing to say how long is enough. 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? When the Religious Fundementalism no longer attracts recruits?

Its been 5 years now. How much longer? How much time doe's Karzai need ? 50 years? 100?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Silly questions deserve silly answers.

Don't you usually knock Figleaf for these kind of polls?

What's silly about reality?

This is a valid question - with much more attention to reality than the mookies out on the street screaming for an end to Canada's involvement - without any regard to what that means for the future, or what it means for the people living in that country.

When you march down the street with a placard stating "CANADA OUT OF AFGHANISTAN" the other side should read "TALIBAN BACK IN POWER!!" because that's tantamount to what you are ...in REALITY saying.

[Peter F]

Silly questions deserve silly answers.

Don't you usually knock Figleaf for these kind of polls?

What's silly about reality?

This is a valid question - with much more attention to reality than the mookies out on the street screaming for an end to Canada's involvement - without any regard to what that means for the future, or what it means for the people living in that country.

When you march down the street with a placard stating "CANADA OUT OF AFGHANISTAN" the other side should read "TALIBAN BACK IN POWER!!" because that's tantamount to what you are ...in REALITY saying.

Thank you for explaining what I think. Now I realize the truth - Canada is keeping the Taliban out of power. We are crucial to who forms the government of Afghanistan. I'm just curious about when we gained that power and why didn't we wield it before?

[Army Guy]

Your right it was a silly answer. In ensence you have agreed to all the reasons we are there assisting the Afgan government , except you wanted a time frame, rebuilding a nation has no known mathical equation that could possiably answer that question, except that we know it is a slow process, and since we are a fast food generation we want quick solutions...only this problem thier is none..and that was made known at the very start of this process...

so in protest you've answer let the taliban have it back...and lets move on...to the next noble deed like dafur...and when we get tired of that we'll move on not really solving or accomplishing anything, except wasting our soldiers lives, and proving the world we can't keep our word nor our commitments.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Your right it was a silly answer. In ensence you have agreed to all the reasons we are there assisting the Afgan government , except you wanted a time frame, rebuilding a nation has no known mathical equation that could possiably answer that question, except that we know it is a slow process, and since we are a fast food generation we want quick solutions...only this problem thier is none..and that was made known at the very start of this process...

so in protest you've answer let the taliban have it back...and lets move on...to the next noble deed like dafur...and when we get tired of that we'll move on not really solving or accomplishing anything, except wasting our soldiers lives, and proving the world we can't keep our word nor our commitments.

Exactly. That's because Canadian left wing politics is all about doing what "feels good".

It "feels good" to go to Afghanistan when the world is all a tizzy, but when it gets boring, and out of vogue, bring on BONO or DAVID SUZUKI and the next hot world crisis to temporarily masquerade as "saving".

bwaaaahahaa

[Figleaf]

There is no sensible way to respond to this poll. Who is meant by 'taleban'? The regime, the social movement, or the common Afghani of rural Afghanistan?

[M.Dancer]

Social movement.

Priceless.

I say Chadwick, have you considere joining our social movement, The Taleban? We have dances to raise funds for education, and it's a great place to meet girls and stone them.

[jdobbin]

Questions determine the answer......

I think we can stay there forever and still not fix the problem. Do you think Canada should build permanent bases in Afghanistan?

[Peter F]

Your right it was a silly answer. In ensence you have agreed to all the reasons we are there assisting the Afgan government , except you wanted a time frame, rebuilding a nation has no known mathical equation that could possiably answer that question, except that we know it is a slow process, and since we are a fast food generation we want quick solutions...only this problem thier is none..and that was made known at the very start of this process...

so in protest you've answer let the taliban have it back...and lets move on...to the next noble deed like dafur...and when we get tired of that we'll move on not really solving or accomplishing anything, except wasting our soldiers lives, and proving the world we can't keep our word nor our commitments.

Rebilding nations has no known mathematical equation that could possibly answer the question I asked...therefore you say rebuilding the nation is the proper course to take? Without definition and without limitation? This is an intelligent committment of our under-equiped and under-manned armed forces? Good strategy?

Who says I want to get our forces involved in Noble Deeds like Darfur? To make it very clear - I say stay the hell out of Darfur, Iraq, Somalia and wherever else Noble Deeds need to be done. The people of those places are quite capable of performing Noble Deeds without our help...unless, of course, they don't particularly give a shit...in wich case all our noble deeds will be for naught.

As for proving to the world that we cannot keep our committments; By committing our undersourced forces to open ended committments we are guaranteeing that such committments will not be honoured. We are stretched making it to 2009, as you well know.

[normanchateau]

I agree that most Afghans had no use for the Taliban theocracy.

The Taliban are no longer in power but the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan under Karzai remains the equivalent of a theocracy. ”No law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.”

http://anewerworld.org/?p=40

Why has Karzai proposed reconstituting the Taliban-style religious police?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGBGKLP871.DTL

Suppose another Islamic Republic with a democratically elected president, the Islamic Republic of Iran, was threatened by a more fundamentalist Taliban-style movement within Iran? Should Canada send troops there?

[ScottSA]

As another poster said - the Taliban's only crime was harbouring terrorists. They are no longer harbouring terrorists, there is no legal grounds for NATO to remain there. Afghans should now be in charge of their own future.

I love the meandering minds of the left. Most don't seem able to make a distinction between international law and their own emotional state. BC Chick doesn't have the faintest shadow of a clue as to whether the UN sponsored Nato occupation is "legal" (it is of course, given that it is there armed with several UNSC resolutions and an invitation from the recognized head of state), but she has no hesitation in making grand pronouncements about legality, mostly because she doesn't think it ought to legal, and therefore it can't be. She may have heard some pink clad bozo announce that it's illegal too, so that cinches it.

[Figleaf]

Algeria and Turkey too, normanchateau. Will we fight the menace in every corner?

[Figleaf]

Hm. A very complex response, ScottSA. Let's analyze it.

As another poster said - the Taliban's only crime was harbouring terrorists. They are no longer harbouring terrorists, there is no legal grounds for NATO to remain there. Afghans should now be in charge of their own future.

I love the meandering minds of the left.

Openning with an insult+gratuitous pidgeonholing.

Most don't seem able to make a distinction between international law and their own emotional state.

Generalized insult+poisoning the well.

BC Chick doesn't have the faintest shadow of a clue as to whether the UN sponsored Nato occupation is "legal"

Condescending dismissal+mere contradiction.

... (it is of course, given that it is there armed with several UNSC resolutions and an invitation from the recognized head of state),

Offhand recitation of false party-line duckspeak.

...but she has no hesitation in making grand pronouncements about legality, mostly because she doesn't think it ought to legal, and therefore it can't be.

Ad hominem.

She may have heard some pink clad bozo announce that it's illegal too, so that cinches it.

Once more with feeling.

[normanchateau]

Algeria and Turkey too, normanchateau. Will we fight the menace in every corner?

The menace of fundamentalist Muslims being threatened by more fundamentalist Muslims...

not quite equivalent to the noble 1939-1945 fight of democracy versus nazism.

[M.Dancer]

Questions determine the answer......

I think we can stay there forever and still not fix the problem. Do you think Canada should build permanent bases in Afghanistan?

No. Better to stay mobile and keep the enemy off balance.

[M.Dancer]

Hm. A very complex response, ScottSA. Let's analyze it.

As another poster said - the Taliban's only crime was harbouring terrorists. They are no longer harbouring terrorists, there is no legal grounds for NATO to remain there. Afghans should now be in charge of their own future.

I love the meandering minds of the left.

Openning with an insult+gratuitous pidgeonholing.

Most don't seem able to make a distinction between international law and their own emotional state.

Generalized insult+poisoning the well.

BC Chick doesn't have the faintest shadow of a clue as to whether the UN sponsored Nato occupation is "legal"

Condescending dismissal+mere contradiction.

... (it is of course, given that it is there armed with several UNSC resolutions and an invitation from the recognized head of state),

Offhand recitation of false party-line duckspeak.

...but she has no hesitation in making grand pronouncements about legality, mostly because she doesn't think it ought to legal, and therefore it can't be.

Ad hominem.

She may have heard some pink clad bozo announce that it's illegal too, so that cinches it.

Once more with feeling.

Well, at least Scottsa addressed buffy's main point. Where as figleaf managed to avoid the point and attack the poster's style, such as it is.

The reason for that is obvious. Scottsa is correct, NAtO's mission is 100% legal.

[jdobbin]

No. Better to stay mobile and keep the enemy off balance.

Perhaps that mobility will extend to Pakistan where al Qaeda does have bases according to the National Post in Saturday's edition.

[M.Dancer]

No. Better to stay mobile and keep the enemy off balance.

Perhaps that mobility will extend to Pakistan where al Qaeda does have bases according to the National Post in Saturday's edition.

That would be good, but considering we only have a few thousand, perhaps one of our allies would help. Pakistan would love to help too if they weren't scared to death of the extremists.....as such they would be more than thankfull if we took care of the pakistan taleban problem for them.

[Leafless]

Questions determine the answer......

Is this another crazy poll that has nothing to do with the real facts. Dancer is out to lunch on this one.

Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is all about oil and supporting U.S. led 'Operation Enduring Freedom'.

Due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. oil companies have been out to exploit Caspian Sea oil and gas.

Afghanistan is important to U.S. oil companies because it is the only route that will provide total control for them via the proposed Trans-Afghanistan pipeline.