|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 8, 2007 10:19:22 GMT -5
I am absolutely disgusted by Rooster Layton's DEMAND of withdrawing immediately and Dion The EnviroMeToo of trying to portray brave soldiers of our country as some kind of VICTIMS of American policy. This is nothing more then creating a crisis of confidence in the Canadian people then reaping the votes from it. NOTHING MORE. How convinient it is for two faced Dion party to support the mission when they were in power but now to create an atmosphere of victimhood and doubt for our brave man and woman JUST FOR THE POLITICS OF IT. As for Rooster Layton, there is no cause that he will not embrace if it has votes for him. And now, Mr. Fake Backbone Harper told us he was beyond politics yet he is softening his tone to a message of political expediency. To hell with all of them.
Our brave man and woman BELIEVE in the cause. They want to be remembered as MAN and WOMAN who served their country PROUDLY and BRAVELY, not as pseudo victims of two faced vote sucking political agendas.
~~~~~~~~~~~ www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070706.wcomment0706/BNStory/Front~~~~~~~~~~~~ Why our Afghan sacrifices matter JAMES APPATHURAI Special to Globe and Mail Update July 6, 2007 at 12:04 AM EDT A few days ago, six Canadian soldiers and their Afghan interpreter were killed by a roadside bomb during an operation in the province of Kandahar. This was a heavy blow for Canada, whose forces have already paid a very high price in Afghanistan. Not surprisingly, this tragic event has renewed calls for Canada to either abandon the mission immediately or confirm to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that in February, 2009, it is definitely out of Kandahar. It is for Canadians alone to have that debate; as they do, there are a few key points to keep in mind. It might seem that this mission is all about fighting, but it isn't. Billions of dollars are being spent on development projects, on improving health care and education, on building a government that works for Afghans. And it is paying off. Compared to six years ago, 10 times as many Afghans have access to health care. Six times as many are in school, more than 30 per cent of them female. And they have an elected parliament that robustly challenges the elected President. Canada, and the many other countries investing in Afghanistan and its people, should be proud and encouraged. But that development needs security. Aid workers cannot go where their lives are at risk unless there are soldiers there to create a secure environment. It is a fiction to suggest that we can invest solely in reconstruction and development without investing in security. It is also a fantasy to imagine that security can take firm root unless development is taking off. These are two sides of the same coin. We must also imagine what would happen if our soldiers were not there. A few weeks ago, a major battle took place in the province of Uruzgan, next to Kandahar. Dutch NATO troops suddenly faced about 500 Taliban fighters who were trying to overrun the district. The Taliban committed the most profound war crimes: burning and cutting the throats of civilians, forcing civilians to fight with them, using civilians as human shields. The Dutch, heavily outnumbered, stood and fought, and regained control of the district. Had they been forced to retreat, there is no telling what more would have happened to the people of that region. Canadian soldiers can tell you stories that would make you just as proud. This is not hyperbole, but 20/20 hindsight. Until they were removed from power in 2001, the Taliban were among the worst human-rights abusers in the world. Tens of thousands of people were killed, often in the most brutal way; we all remember the weekly public executions and stonings of women in the main soccer stadium. Anyone who claims to defend the rights of women must support action against those who shut women up in houses, with even the windows blacked out so that they are never seen. Simply put, defending human rights in Afghanistan means sometimes having to fight. Some Canadians have concerns about the way that fighting is taking place — in particular, the level of civilian casualties. That concern is shared across the NATO alliance. Our military commanders are keeping procedures constantly under review, improving co-ordination with the Afghans and investigating allegations of civilian casualties promptly and rigorously. One innocent civilian life lost is one too many, and we will continue to make every effort to minimize them. We must, however, be honest with ourselves, and with the Afghan people. We will never be able to fully avoid civilian casualties — not while the Taliban wear civilian clothes, fight from civilian areas, retreat to civilian houses and use civilians as human shields. If we set ourselves that impossible standard, we play right into the Taliban strategy. This mission in Afghanistan is perhaps the most difficult operation the international community has taken on in decades: long, grinding, with no clear end date, complicated by an insurgency, poppy production and weak national institutions, and by neighbours that do not always help. Despite all that, it is the right thing to do. It is in our interest, to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming the terrorist's Club Med. It is also in our tradition, to defend basic human rights and the UN Charter. This week has been a bad one for Canada — and for others, such as Britain, which lost soldiers in the same period. It may not be the last. But when we lift our eyes from the tragedy of these events, we should be encouraged by what we have helped the Afghans to accomplish. And we should remain committed to this good cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 8, 2007 10:35:47 GMT -5
The editor of our local paper seems to think that the addition of the Van Doos to the war in Afghanistan is going to bring about a quick end to the war do to the political fall-out and Harper's goal to win Quebec votes. Here is the editorial.
Quebec and the war debate
The Telegram
It’s been a wretched, heartbreaking week for Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.
Nothing new in the wretched part; watching out for mines and snipers as you hump 30 pounds of gear through dust and stifling heat makes wretchedness a given for Canadian soldiers in Taliban country.
Tragically, there’s not much new in the heartbreak department, either, as word of fatalities now arrives with the regularity of monthly bills — trickling in two and three at a time, a grim reminder of the cost of war.
What made the week unusually brutal was the loss of six young men in one day — victims of a roadside bomb Wednesday.
An Afghani translator also died.
The day brought the number of Canadian soldier fatalities in Afghanistan to 66, with those soldiers coming from every province.
Atlantic Canada has borne the brunt of the deaths, along with Ontario, but there’s not a region that hasn’t seen a native son or daughter lost.
If the fallout of the war has been felt coast to coast, it’s also extended into Parliament, where debate has centred on how long Canadians should stay in Afghanistan. Pull out now, as the NDP suggests? Depart at the end of our current commitment, in February 2009? Or offer an open-ended promise to stay until the country is stabilized?
Talk to 10 people and you can bet you’ll likely get at least five opinions about what to do. You can also bet someone in Ottawa is tracking how those opinions are shifting.
Oh, the parties won’t admit it — they wouldn’t want to be so crass as to suggest their war policies are built on the shifting sands of public opinion.
But voters’ appetite for the battle — or lack of it — will play a very real part in the next election.
And that appetite is about to change.
That’s because the brunt of the fighting is soon going to shift to soldiers from Quebec, as some 2,000 members of the Royal 22nd Regiment ship out to Afghanistan in August.
No one doubts that the men and women of the famed Van Doos will do their job honourably.
But the Quebec society that’s home to many of them is much more anti-war than the rest of Canada, with polls suggesting 70 per cent of Quebecers are against sending troops to Afghanistan.
So far, that anti-war sentiment has been relatively quiet. But the volume will go up dramatically when young Quebecers begin returning home in flag-draped coffins.
That will happen — sadly, but inevitably.
And when it does, pressure will mount on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to end Canada’s fighting role — at the latest in 2009, if not before.
Fearful of losing Quebecois votes carefully cultivated over the past 18 months — and facing a Liberal party that’s already calling for a 2009 pullout — Harper will likely agree to bring the soldiers home, heeding the call of heartbreak and the ballot box.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 8, 2007 11:22:55 GMT -5
There you go Skilly, another article that goes to the heart of the matter. It's not about right or wrong, but about votes.
I keep saying that the masses are sheep. Has anyone seen how a flock of sheep react? If you want them to go in one direction, you push and yell at them from the other side, if you want them to go forward, you kick and yell of them from behind. Tis is what Rooster Layton and Dion The EnviroMeToo are doing. They want to push the flock to the direction that they lead and fleece the wool, or in this case the votes. Of course, Mr. Spineless fearful losing out on the fleece is also changing his yelps.
Same thing is happening with the "human caused" global warming "cause". Isn't it funny that it became a "cause" the minute the politicians saw the fleece, err, votes?
As for Quebec society?
There isn't ANY war that Quebec society will not object too. Although Quebec politicians really, REALLY like fat military procurement contracts. On the other hand, Quebec man and woman serve the forces with Honour and Pride.
And one more thing....no sheep ever walk into fire.
By definition, nobody who posts on THIS forum is part of the mindless flock. I am not saying this lightly. By definition, if one is concerned enough about a policy/events that one wants to express an opinion, then by definition, one is exposing themselves to fire of "hard" diversified discussions.
|
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Jul 8, 2007 19:03:44 GMT -5
I am absolutely disgusted by Rooster Layton's DEMAND of withdrawing immediately and Dion The EnviroMeToo of trying to portray brave soldiers of our country as some kind of VICTIMS of American policy. This is nothing more then creating a crisis of confidence in the Canadian people then reaping the votes from it. NOTHING MORE. How convinient it is for two faced Dion party to support the mission when they were in power but now to create an atmosphere of victimhood and doubt for our brave man and woman JUST FOR THE POLITICS OF IT. As for Rooster Layton, there is no cause that he will not embrace if it has votes for him. And now, Mr. Fake Backbone Harper told us he was beyond politics yet he is softening his tone to a message of political expediency. To hell with all of them.
Our brave man and woman BELIEVE in the cause. They want to be remembered as MAN and WOMAN who served their country PROUDLY and BRAVELY, not as pseudo victims of two faced vote sucking political agendas.
~~~~~~~~~~~ www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070706.wcomment0706/BNStory/Front~~~~~~~~~~~~ Why our Afghan sacrifices matter JAMES APPATHURAI Wow newsflash! NATO Bureaucrat applauds the work of NATO. This article typically hides the extent of the problem. No doubt life is better in the area of Kabul and that skews all statistics, but elsewhere in the country the challenges are mounting. As for myself, I am disgusted how the issue of the Afghanistan mission is inevitably dumbed down to simply supporting the troops. So, what is the mission? To bring democracy to a country that has never known democracy? Pakistan with a standing army of 600,000 can't even control its own borders and its own tribal areas that border afghanistan. To defeat the Taliban? I am most assuredly happy that the Taliban gov't fell, but why haven't they been defeated after a war of 5 years? I know the Afghan gov't is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent but why are they unable to fight for themselves? Is there even a timetable to the Afghan military to take up the slack? How long should we stay? 5 years? 30 years? Is this going to turn into another tragic farce like Cyprus? So many questions that we shouldn't ask because we have to blindly support the troops. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 8, 2007 20:05:45 GMT -5
Wow newsflash! NATO Bureaucrat applauds the work of NATO. This article typically hides the extent of the problem. No doubt life is better in the area of Kabul and that skews all statistics, but elsewhere in the country the challenges are mounting. As for myself, I am disgusted how the issue of the Afghanistan mission is inevitably dumbed down to simply supporting the troops. So, what is the mission? To bring democracy to a country that has never known democracy? Pakistan with a standing army of 600,000 can't even control its own borders and its own tribal areas that border afghanistan. True. This will take more time then current political self serving expediency allows. If Afganistan people have NEVER seen a decent government then is it not up to us to TRY to provide one if it is within our power? Or do their lives matter less then our own? To defeat the Taliban? I am most assuredly happy that the Taliban gov't fell, but why haven't they been defeated after a war of 5 years? I know the Afghan gov't is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent but why are they unable to fight for themselves? Is there even a timetable to the Afghan military to take up the slack? It will take at least several years of support to break the Talibans back. They KNOW that every soldier killed is treated like the end of the earth by some politicians so it's in their interest to make it seem like an impossible mission. How long should we stay? 5 years? 30 years? Is this going to turn into another tragic farce like Cyprus? At least several years. Right now, with mounting, self serving political agitation by OUR political mongrols, the Taliban don't need to be rocket scientist to know that it's a matter of a year or two before we pack it in and run. Western democracies are really, really good at that. Meanwhile, the Taliban, yet one more time will gain control the lives of people at the end of a gun. They will wait us out. BUT, if they know that we are there for the long haul, they will not be so bold or persistent. After all, they know fully well that they don't have a chance in hell of taking control as long as WE are there. My support is based on what good we have done, are doing and will do. What is your objection based on? Deaths? Money? War itself? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 8, 2007 20:27:34 GMT -5
Layton is a bandwagon jumper; nothing more, nothing less. He does not project the image I'd want as a prime minister. I honestly believe that their party would gain more credibility and votes if Ed Broadbent were to come out of retirement. IMHO, Dion is part of a party that was in power too long. Through internal bickering between party leaders and no strong central leadership, the Liberals simply lost their focus. And the country suffered for it. Yet, the NDP's stance has always been the same; no war, no conflicts, no military. That hasn't changed. However, the Liberals were the ones who committed to Afghanistan in the first place. I believe it was the right call at the right time. The LAV III vehicles that rolled off the planes with "I Love New York" written on the back doors, sent a message that we, as Canadians supporting our brethren to the south, were willing to take the fight to those who would destroy our beliefs and way of life. I still support this today. However, I also feel that other NATO countries could be doing much, much more as well. Canada has made a difference, but at the end of this commitment we should hand over the reigns to those who have yet to contribute. But, it's also important for us to finish our commitment, that is until 2009. I honestly feel that Canada has made, and continues to make, sacrifices in the fight against those who would see our society wiped off the globe. And while no one in my family has been affected personally, I've felt the sacrifices some Canadian families have had to make. Twice this year I've had to drive to CFB Trenton for what DND calls Repatriation Ceremonies, which honour those soldiers killed in action. Some of you already know of this. On April 11th of this year, Trooper Patrick Pentalnd, was killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. He was also the son of an extremely good friend of mine who I served in the UN with back in 1996. His dad, Jim, didn't recognize me at first because I've been out of the service for five years now. However, he asked me to stand with his family when he saw me at the terminal. Jim remains a close friend today.  On May 25th of this year, Cpl Matthew McCully, was killed by an IED in Afghanistan. He was a former student of mine back in the fall of 2002. I didn't know Matthew's family, so I stood on the tarmac with several other DND employees. Several of those who were either pallbearers or on the honour guard, were also former students of mine, who I met after Matthew had departed for home, Orangeville, ON.  One of the oddities in this war is that our country doesn't feel like it's at war at all. We continue to go about our lives virtually unaffected by what's going on in Afghanistan. However, both of these fatalities hit rather close to home for me. I never met Patrick, but served with his dad. In Matthew's case, I helped train he and several of those who helped lay him to rest. As for the mission, I still feel we should finish what we were committed to. I don't feel we should extend this mission mainly because there are so many other NATO countries who haven't given as much as Canada has, or who simply have yet to give at all. That said, we should continue to support these young men and women who are carrying the fight to those who would see our values and way of life eradicated. They represent the very best of our society and they deserve our unwaivering respect. If this conflict is all about votes then I think Harper will eventually see the light. Extending this mission past it's current deadline would be political suicide. Harper should be pressuring other countries to either crap or get off the pot, because hopefully Canada won't be there by the end of 2009. And please, wear red on Fridays. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 8, 2007 20:52:24 GMT -5
Hopefully I am not being blind, but I always thought this was a war on terror. Not for democracy, not against the Taliban ... they were just side issues that we solved trying to get to the terrorists. This was a country where these b*st*rds took safe haven and practically ruled like kings. We took the fight to them. Was it right? I think so .... have you seen Osama's ugly face lately? And mark my words ...we will get him. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 8, 2007 20:58:16 GMT -5
However, I also feel that other NATO countries could be doing much, much more as well. Canada has made a difference, but at the end of this commitment we should hand over the reigns to those who have yet to contribute. I agree Dis .... but who? We can't hand over the reigns to a European country not named Britain. They are only members of NATO when it suits them. A sure way to lose this war is to hand the reigns over to a country that shows weakness when it comes to fighting terrorism. Before this conflict I always thought Canada had a weak military. But looking at the rest of the world ..... we ain't that bad. For the low numbers we have, relative to the US, Britain, Russia, N.Korea, Israel, etc ..... we are now looked upon as a world leader militarily. We are not pushovers, and hopefully we don't give the reigns over to a pushover. (I'd rather not have the French or Dutch take over) |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 8, 2007 21:22:55 GMT -5
However, I also feel that other NATO countries could be doing much, much more as well. Canada has made a difference, but at the end of this commitment we should hand over the reigns to those who have yet to contribute. But, it's also important for us to finish our commitment, that is until 2009. I honestly feel that Canada has made, and continues to make, sacrifices in the fight against those who would see our society wiped off the globe. Yet these argument ring hollow to some. They would blame us for their hatreds far more easily then see the blindness of the haters. Poiliticians are the worse of all. They twist and turn every which way in order to manipulate for their thirst for votes.....for power. I went into a rage when I heard Rooster Layton say that our foreign policy is nothing more then the extension of Bush's policy and we are killing Canadians for NOTHING. There are so many innocent people who die in accidents every day and yet, politicians live on. That said, we should continue to support these young men and women who are carrying the fight to those who would see our values and way of life eradicated. They represent the very best of our society and they deserve our unwaivering respect. There is not ths slightest hesitation or question about that. Period. If this conflict is all about votes then I think Harper will eventually see the light. Extending this mission past it's current deadline would be political suicide. Harper should be pressuring other countries to either crap or get off the pot, because hopefully Canada won't be there by the end of 2009. And please, wear red on Fridays. I don't have any problem if the mission gets extended beyond that. Worse possible thing to do is to cut and run. Unlike Rooster Layton, I would be ashamed to call myself a Canadian. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 8, 2007 21:36:46 GMT -5
However, I also feel that other NATO countries could be doing much, much more as well. Canada has made a difference, but at the end of this commitment we should hand over the reigns to those who have yet to contribute. I agree Dis .... but who? We can't hand over the reigns to a European country not named Britain. They are only members of NATO when it suits them. A sure way to lose this war is to hand the reigns over to a country that shows weakness when it comes to fighting terrorism. I honestly don't know, Skilly. The EU is already committed in the Baltic and in the Middle East. The British public are war-weary now. Tony Blair basically went into Iraq as an opportunity more than anything else. He knew he was wrong from the beginning and as admitted to that without coming out and using those words. Now, he wants to be an international mediator. The Tory's have put Canada back on the international map and they have their military to thank for that. It's a very important thing to supply the troops with what they need to get the mission done; it's an entirely different matter getting that job done. And, our troops are getting the job done. IMHO, Canada can no longer be ignored on international matters. And we have the troops to thank for that as well. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Jul 8, 2007 23:48:03 GMT -5
Is it really about votes? Not for the governing party. Layton is a jackass. We should be proud to be such a respected player in world politics. Ask those who died in the subway's of London, New York on 911, Bali's nightclubs in Indonesia, Commuter trains in Spain, schools in Russia. The plague of radical Islam is spreading and were all the target. Better to attack it at the source than deal with it in our cities. Allow the training facilities for terrorists to flourish, in countries like Afghanistan, and we'll be allowing these sadists the time they need to spread their contempt of all things that are not Islamic. It's too bad that our so called allies from Europe wouldn't join the offensive and help eradicate the problem, instead of sitting it out in secure quarters, to the rear. The price of Liberal oriented political correctness is now being extracted on the west.
|
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Jul 9, 2007 3:26:34 GMT -5
Hopefully I am not being blind, but I always thought this was a war on terror. Not for democracy, not against the Taliban ... they were just side issues that we solved trying to get to the terrorists. This was a country where these b*st*rds took safe haven and practically ruled like kings. We took the fight to them. Was it right? I think so .... have you seen Osama's ugly face lately? And mark my words ...we will get him. "War on Terror" is a jingoism not policy. It is interesting how none of the bastards were actually Afghani. Should we attack Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Pakistan etc. as well? As for taking the war to them have you read any UK papers lately? I certainly think the initial invasion was the correct thing to do. but at some point diminishing returns set in and by the end of the current mandate it will be time to leave. |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Jul 9, 2007 4:11:08 GMT -5
Wow newsflash! NATO Bureaucrat applauds the work of NATO. This article typically hides the extent of the problem. No doubt life is better in the area of Kabul and that skews all statistics, but elsewhere in the country the challenges are mounting. As for myself, I am disgusted how the issue of the Afghanistan mission is inevitably dumbed down to simply supporting the troops. So, what is the mission? To bring democracy to a country that has never known democracy? Pakistan with a standing army of 600,000 can't even control its own borders and its own tribal areas that border afghanistan. True. This will take more time then current political self serving expediency allows. If Afganistan people have NEVER seen a decent government then is it not up to us to TRY to provide one if it is within our power? Or do their lives matter less then our own? Yes and Yes, if I have to choose. I do think we should try, but seriously look at the people we are dealing with. If you look at the profile of the population in the area where Canada patrols most are illiterate and have spent 100% of their lives within 10 km of their home town. You want to teach these people about the global war on terror and democracy? I suspect they view democracy as just some guy who shows up once and awhile to be bribed and we are viewed as his bodyguard. At some point the Afghan people have to take responsibility for themselves. If they don't want the Taliban back they know what to do. Don't tell me these people don't know how to fight for themselves. Right now, why should they? It will take at least several years of support to break the Talibans back. They KNOW that every soldier killed is treated like the end of the earth by some politicians so it's in their interest to make it seem like an impossible mission. How long should we stay? 5 years? 30 years? Is this going to turn into another tragic farce like Cyprus? At least several years. Right now, with mounting, self serving political agitation by OUR political mongrols, the Taliban don't need to be rocket scientist to know that it's a matter of a year or two before we pack it in and run. Western democracies are really, really good at that. Meanwhile, the Taliban, yet one more time will gain control the lives of people at the end of a gun. They will wait us out. BUT, if they know that we are there for the long haul, they will not be so bold or persistent. After all, they know fully well that they don't have a chance in hell of taking control as long as WE are there. My support is based on what good we have done, are doing and will do. What is your objection based on? Deaths? Money? War itself? I applaud your youthful idealism.  You honestly believe several years will be sufficient? part of what changed my thinking was when I recently learned more about the tribal areas of Pakistan that border Afghanistan, tinyurl.com/2j8d79. These areas are essentially outside the Pakistani gov't's control and are not democratic in any meaningful way. These inhabitants even view the Pakistani army as a foreign occupier. Pakistan has been around for 60 years now and has a military of 1 M. so I suppose I am pessimistic of our chances of success. I do think we should help prop up the Kabul gov't, but being army, police and general construction contractors to these people for a generation is asking too much. I short I think we achieved some good things in Afghanistan, but the wider goals of bringing democracy or defeating "terrorism" have little chance of success. That is my objection. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 9, 2007 6:56:19 GMT -5
However, I also feel that other NATO countries could be doing much, much more as well. Canada has made a difference, but at the end of this commitment we should hand over the reigns to those who have yet to contribute. But, it's also important for us to finish our commitment, that is until 2009. I honestly feel that Canada has made, and continues to make, sacrifices in the fight against those who would see our society wiped off the globe. Yet these argument ring hollow to some. They would blame us for their hatreds far more easily then see the blindness of the haters. Poiliticians are the worse of all. They twist and turn every which way in order to manipulate for their thirst for votes.....for power. I went into a rage when I heard Rooster Layton say that our foreign policy is nothing more then the extension of Bush's policy and we are killing Canadians for NOTHING. There are so many innocent people who die in accidents every day and yet, politicians live on. If this conflict is all about votes then I think Harper will eventually see the light. Extending this mission past it's current deadline would be political suicide. Harper should be pressuring other countries to either crap or get off the pot, because hopefully Canada won't be there by the end of 2009. And please, wear red on Fridays. The problem I have with our participation is the politics surrounding it. Harper said earlier in the year that "no one has asked us to extend our current mission," or something to affect. Yet, now, recently the NATO Secretary, General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, urged Canada to extend the mission past the 2009 deadline. Without getting too longwinded on it, this is too much of a coincidence for me. Based on these two comments I have a problem with extending past 2009. Right now Canadian troops are carrying the fight to the Taliban. However, they're also helping re-establish a lot of the country's infrastructure as well. In these contexts they're doing a lot of good. But, unless we're on the ground in Afghanistan we will never know the soldiers' perspective or the extent to which they are making a difference. This also holds true for our politicians as well, who, at times, I feel take us for granted. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 9, 2007 9:03:27 GMT -5
Sadly, those same politicians who want us to cut-and-run in Afghanistan would be the same politicians who would send our troops to the mess that is Darfur, if that’s what the people said would get them votes.
Anyways, I digress. I wrote this a while back, and I still think it’s pertinent:
[/size]
I am more convinced than ever that the invasion of Iraq was possibly the biggest foreign relations mistake of the last, oh 100 years or so. Certainly the biggest mistake our lifetime (and I’m counting Vietnam). As much as I hate quoting Democrats (who are as self-serving as any other politician, make no mistake), George Bush and the Republicans really did take their eyes off the prize when they gave up on Afghanistan, and went after Saddam Hussein. Yes, they still have what, 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, but how much better would that place be if the 100,000+ troops in Iraq were instead in Afghanistan? How much better would it have been if the Bush administration had of begged/bribed/brow-beat it’s allies to honor their commitments that they had already made to rebuild Afghanistan?
This isn’t about Afghanistan, or the Afghani people, or democracy, or anything like that. It’s not even really about the war on terror, if you ask me. It’s about dispelling the myths in the Islamic world that the West is out to get them. If you remove all the negative stereotypes that the Islamic world has about the West, that we want to conquer them, convert them, steal their oil, whatever, then what do you have? Nothing. There is no reason to hate us, anymore than there would be any reason to hate Buddists. Sure, you’ll your extremists, as you do in the West, but like the right/left wing nuts in the US or Canada, they’ll be mere annoyances on a societal scale.
I wrote this a while back too, while talking about the war in Lebanon:
[/size]
We had the table set for us in Afghanistan; we had the resolve, the capacity and the will to do it. From every nation in the world. In fact, I think the only nation that was against the invasion of Afghanistan was Iraq. Even Iran supported it. But we dropped the ball. And now, instead of being seen as a force for good (oh thank god, the world coalition is coming to save us, they’ll rebuild us like they rebuilt Afghanistan) the West is seen as invaders, occupiers, destroyers, pillagers, murderers.
The question is, is there enough political will in the world to finish the job in Afghanistan? To gain the trust of the Islamic world? Or will Canada be left to turn out the lights after every other country has cut-and-run? Is the war already lost?
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 9, 2007 11:15:32 GMT -5
Sadly, those same politicians who want us to cut-and-run in Afghanistan would be the same politicians who would send our troops to the mess that is Darfur, if that’s what the people said would get them votes. Yes, and they would send them in under the blue beret no less. Many of the Canadian public would like to see our troops back in blue berets, BC, and both the Liberals and NDP know that. However, far too often UN troops deploy with little-to-no direction or support from the UN security council. In fact, the UN security council couldn't be bothered sending troops anywhere if it doesn't meet with their best interests. So, if they go in under the UN banner, or under the NATO banner, what is changing here? Anyways, I digress. I wrote this a while back, and I still think it’s pertinent: This is akin to the jingoism TOTH was referring to. I feel it's an excellent argument and one that has taken it's time coming out. Far from BS, BC. Talk to the troops who are contributing on the ground. Yet, I'm one of those who feel this isn't a totally lost cause. The main target prior to the Afghan deployment, was the USA. And many of those who would see the USA turned into rubble, came through the Canadian borders to do it or plan it. [/size] Unfortunately, several of the countries capable of taking over from us made the initial mistake of supporting the Iraqi campaign. Public support isn't only waning for the Iraqi war, it's waning for war in general. The US public doesn't want another war and many want to see their troops pulled out of Iraq. Specific countries in the EU are supporting the effort in Afghanistan, but they could be doing more. However, their participation in the Baltics (Club Med actually) and in the Middle East are trump cards they can play when asked to further support the Afghan mission. "Look what we're doing now ... what will Canada be doing if she pulls out of Afghanistan?" [/size] Very well stated, BC. Bush lost his focus even before that. Consider these words from a Bush press conference in March 2002:"Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all ... So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you." You're asking Islamic extremists to promote freedom of speech, freedom of the press and individual rights. Where does this start? We may have our Western extremists but they are, as you say, annoyances only. And while our press isn't printing everything as accurately as they could, they do write opinions nonetheless. This part of your argument is a generalization and is not the concensus of the entire country. I've been told by soldiers who have been there that they weren't regarded very well in certain parts of the country. However, many, many locals detest the Taliban more. Once the job is done, NATO will not be welcome there any longer. Again, we're outsiders looking in. Why not ask some of the soldiers what they think? Why not ask them how restorations and rebuilding programs are going for them? As I was saying, I honestly believe Canada has done her share and by 2009, we will have done more than what was expected of us. As for the political picture, we can talk all we want about converting an autocratic society like Afghanistan into a democratic society. However, there are many who understand the benefits of keeping the little man where he is. And this won't change after we're gone. It's all about education or in some instances, brainwashing. We can blame the West for continuing a conflict with the extremist Islamic types. However, they are just as much to blame for some of the mess our soldiers are sorting out as well. It's not always us. But, it always seems to point back to us ... our fault or no. And I'm getting quite tired of this. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 9, 2007 11:40:26 GMT -5
Hopefully I am not being blind, but I always thought this was a war on terror. Not for democracy, not against the Taliban ... they were just side issues that we solved trying to get to the terrorists. This was a country where these b*st*rds took safe haven and practically ruled like kings. We took the fight to them. Was it right? I think so .... have you seen Osama's ugly face lately? And mark my words ...we will get him. "War on Terror" is a jingoism not policy. It is interesting how none of the bastards were actually Afghani. Should we attack Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Pakistan etc. as well? As for taking the war to them have you read any UK papers lately? I certainly think the initial invasion was the correct thing to do. but at some point diminishing returns set in and by the end of the current mandate it will be time to leave. If they were hiding there, yes. We asked the Afghan government to hand them over, they refused to do anything. If Osama was hiding out in Saudi Arabia and the Suadis were protecting them, we would have went in there too. I keep wondering if our grandfathers had of said "we are experiencing diminishing returns, its time to leave" back in 1946-7 when the Germans took most of Europe what your views would be? I mean there weren't no Canadians being overthrown, it was Europe's problem wasn't it? ... so why did we bother? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 9, 2007 11:57:01 GMT -5
By BS I mean the politicians who feel that we shouldn’t be running combat operations, and should only use our troops for reconstruction efforts. In my opinion you can’t have one without the other. If you build a school for girls, and the Taliban comes back the next day and burns it to the ground, what have you accomplished? You NEED to supply your reconstruction efforts with security, and there is only one way to do that – with combat operations. If not us, then somebody else providing the security. No matter what the politicians say.
Which is one of the reasons why I feel the invasion of Iraq was one of the biggest mistakes in history. A whole lot of good political capital was thrown away, and it will be years, decades maybe, before countries around the world are ready to leap back into combat zones. The US STILL has Vietnam issues. How long will they be having Iraq issues? If they had only stuck to Afghanistan they may have actually succeeded – and it’s a whole lot better to win a war, than it is to lose one.
It starts by taking away the breeding ground for Islamic extremists. Most people just want to live their lives, happily, with a little bit of comfort, and the belief that their children are going to be in a better place. If there is no hope, if you know that no matter what you do, you will never, ever get out of the misery and squalor you live in, and you’re children will never get out of it either, then suddenly it doesn’t seem so bad when somebody promises not only them, but you and your family eternal paradise. Remember, the families of martyrs also get into paradise. But if you remove that squalor, if you give them hope, then they’ll be less likely to take the extremist way. There will always be exceptions, just like there was the Unabomber, and Timorthy McVeigh and so on. But they won’t be lining up in quite the same numbers they are now. Even less so if they view the West as their allies.
And if the job is done, then there is no need for NATO to be there. I’m not advocating an occupation, I’m advocating a rebuild. And once the rebuild is finished, you leave. Very important because the next time you decide to do the same thing, you can then turn to that country’s populace and say “see, we left as soon as we were finished, we have no long term designs on your country/oil/women.”
I’m not blaming the West for anything, aside from bad judgement. What’s done is done, and whatever the root causes of the conflict are, doesn’t really matter all that much at this point. What matters is that we ARE in a conflict, a war if you will, and I don’t want to lose it. Since we’re not going to be able to kill them all, we’re going to have to find another solution. Also posted a while back:
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 9, 2007 16:51:15 GMT -5
By BS I mean the politicians who feel that we shouldn’t be running combat operations, and should only use our troops for reconstruction efforts. In my opinion you can’t have one without the other. If you build a school for girls, and the Taliban comes back the next day and burns it to the ground, what have you accomplished? You NEED to supply your reconstruction efforts with security, and there is only one way to do that – with combat operations. If not us, then somebody else providing the security. No matter what the politicians say. This is where the Afghan army might make a difference. I have a friend who was working very closely with these guys and apparently they're the real deal (unlike the police force). Also, from what I've read there is a plan in place to eventually hand over responsibilities to them. While the article, here, doesn't say so, training others to defend themselves is the first step to getting our troops home. Two battalions of Afghans have been trained with another one graduating in this month. And there's still 18 months to train additional soldiers. The problem is, and might remain, the Afghan police. Again, I've heard through testimonials that these people are not reliable. True enough. The decision on Iraq was one of the worst in history. As you said earlier, it also took the eye off the prize. Bin Laden is still free and Canada has been made the primary combatants against the Taliban. The theory is sound. But, who makes this scenario happen? In order to do this people need to be educated. Yet, in some of these countries, there are those who become educated, experience Western ideals and offer change to autocratic societies. And, depending on what is practiced, these people are often shunned, arrested or worse. In many cases the only hope you refer to the little man is paradise. That has to be better than what they have at present. But, who is it that suppresses these people from learning and why? OK. However, it would be much better if they rebuilt a lot of infrastructure themselves. Right now they're training an army. Are they also training craftsmen as well? I honestly don't know but it would seem to be a worthwhile endeavour. The Marshall Plan obviously worked very well. It also worked wherever Canadians went in as well; Bosnia, Cyprus, the Golan Heights. The local economies flourished. However, it also works for other countries who contribute to UN missions as well. In this case we have to change much deeper-rooted ways of thinking, ideas and perceptions. A "Marshall Plan" kind of deployment might work, but how do you convince the Islamic clerics that it will? Will they allow it? Somehow, they, the ones calling the shots, have too much to lose to allow that kind of freedom. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 9, 2007 18:25:42 GMT -5
It starts by taking away the breeding ground for Islamic extremists. Most people just want to live their lives, happily, with a little bit of comfort, and the belief that their children are going to be in a better place. If there is no hope, if you know that no matter what you do, you will never, ever get out of the misery and squalor you live in, and you’re children will never get out of it either, then suddenly it doesn’t seem so bad when somebody promises not only them, but you and your family eternal paradise. Remember, the families of martyrs also get into paradise. But if you remove that squalor, if you give them hope, then they’ll be less likely to take the extremist way. There will always be exceptions, just like there was the Unabomber, and Timorthy McVeigh and so on. But they won’t be lining up in quite the same numbers they are now. Even less so if they view the West as their allies. Here's something along those lines without radically removing extremist breeding grounds, BC. I remember reading something similar in an issue of McLean's earlier this year. It focuses mainly on dialog and mutual respect, and the Mennonites have picked up the conch so to speak: Mennonite conference in Canada promotes dialogue with Iranian scholars
MCC and Conrad Grebel University College
May 17, 2007
MCC and Conrad Grebel University College are co-sponsoring a conference May 27-30 to promote peace building through academic dialogue with religious scholars from Iran and Mennonite scholars from North America.
The upcoming conference, Shi'ah Muslim - Mennonite Christian Dialogue III, will be held at Conrad Grebel University College in Waterloo, Ontario. Although the overall theme of the conference is "Spirituality", there will be other opportunities for conversation between the two faith groups. A limited number of observers from both the local Shi'ite community and interested Mennonites will also be attending. The aim is to contribute towards further understanding and relationship building between the two religious communities at both the local and global level. The rest of the story.IMHO, the bottom line is at least both sides here are trying to establish some sort of dialog. It's a starting point any way we look at it. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Jul 10, 2007 15:10:08 GMT -5
"War on Terror" is a jingoism not policy. It is interesting how none of the bastards were actually Afghani. Should we attack Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Pakistan etc. as well? As for taking the war to them have you read any UK papers lately? I certainly think the initial invasion was the correct thing to do. but at some point diminishing returns set in and by the end of the current mandate it will be time to leave. If they were hiding there, yes. We asked the Afghan government to hand them over, they refused to do anything. If Osama was hiding out in Saudi Arabia and the Suadis were protecting them, we would have went in there too. I keep wondering if our grandfathers had of said "we are experiencing diminishing returns, its time to leave" back in 1946-7 when the Germans took most of Europe what your views would be? I mean there weren't no Canadians being overthrown, it was Europe's problem wasn't it? ... so why did we bother? Again, I am fully supportive of the original invasion of Afghanistan. If you argue that we should invade every country where terrorism is being supported at some level then we should probably invade Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. For example, through their funding of madras' that espouse islamic fascism Saudi Arabia can be considered a prime source of terrorism. Sorry, but I don't understand your comment regarding WW2. The war was over by 1946. It was in Canada's self-interest to engage and it was the right thing to do. But by 1945 a calculus of diminishing returns determined that the right thing to do (i.e. insist on freedom for all of Europe) did not match self-interest (i.e. the desire for peace) so half of europe was left to suffer for another 50 years at the hands of the Soviet Union. I would have no problem with the mission in Afghanistan if I could see clear objectives. Rather I see things sliding backwards. Why is that? why are there more casualties now than 2 years ago? Why can't the local police/army take up the slack? Why is the local population indifferent? If in 1946-7 there would be allied casualties of a couple hundred per week in Germany some very hard questions would have been asked at that time as well. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 10, 2007 22:31:25 GMT -5
Again, I am fully supportive of the original invasion of Afghanistan. If you argue that we should invade every country where terrorism is being supported at some level then we should probably invade Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. For example, through their funding of madras' that espouse islamic fascism Saudi Arabia can be considered a prime source of terrorism. Don't stop there. By that criteria, we should invade the United States, among many others. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 10, 2007 22:35:38 GMT -5
Why military might does not always winA new study suggests that involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan might be doomed from the outset Jul 08, 2007 04:30 Andrew Chung Staff Reporter Does this sound familiar? "A war with no visible payoff against an opponent who poses no direct threat will come under increasing criticism as battle casualties rise and economic costs escalate . . . " It was written more than 30 years ago, after the end of the ill-fated Vietnam War, in one of the first analyses of battles between states and insurgents or guerrillas who are weak in military might but pumped up on resolve. Experts call them asymmetrical wars. But, of course, it could very well have been written today, about Iraq – or about Afghanistan, where Canadian soldiers keep dying along dusty roadsides, blown up in their armoured vehicles by improvised yet powerful bombs. Six on Easter Sunday. Three more on June 20. Another six last Wednesday. The total number of casualties since Canada joined the Afghan mission in 2001: 66 soldiers, plus one diplomat. Criticism is increasing. Public sentiment about the war is primarily negative, polls show. Politicians are ratcheting up their opposition. "It's the wrong mission," NDP Leader Jack Layton argued last week, insisting troops leave the war-ravaged country now. "It's not working; it's not going to accomplish the goals." What's happening in this country is familiar among nations that carry out military interventions – and, new research shows, a prime factor in why they fail. Since World War II, the world's most powerful nations have failed 39 per cent of the time, according to a study by Patricia Sullivan, a professor of international affairs at the University of Georgia. Despite overwhelming military superiority, mounting human and material costs compel them to pull out their troops without achieving their political aims. continued
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 11, 2007 8:17:43 GMT -5
I am absolutely disgusted by Rooster Layton's DEMAND of withdrawing immediately and Dion The EnviroMeToo of trying to portray brave soldiers of our country as some kind of VICTIMS of American policy. This is nothing more then creating a crisis of confidence in the Canadian people then reaping the votes from it. NOTHING MORE. How convinient it is for two faced Dion party to support the mission when they were in power but now to create an atmosphere of victimhood and doubt for our brave man and woman JUST FOR THE POLITICS OF IT. As for Rooster Layton, there is no cause that he will not embrace if it has votes for him. And now, Mr. Fake Backbone Harper told us he was beyond politics yet he is softening his tone to a message of political expediency. To hell with all of them.
Our brave man and woman BELIEVE in the cause. They want to be remembered as MAN and WOMAN who served their country PROUDLY and BRAVELY, not as pseudo victims of two faced vote sucking political agendas.
Pretty contentious issue these days. Check out what Earl McRae had to say to Mr. Layton: Listen to vets, not Layton
By EARL McRAE
Should Canada pull its soldiers out of Afghanistan because some are being killed?
That's the question I asked several veterans of World War II at the Perley and Rideau Veterans' Health Centre. Not one of them said yes, not one had a good word to say about NDP leader Jack Layton, who the other day bleated once again that Stephen Harper should immediately get our soldiers to hell back to Canada -- thus abandoning the Afghan government and people -- because six more Canadian soldiers were killed and that, tsk, tsk, is just terrible.
It matters not to Layton that our soldiers do not want to come home, that they support the mission, that they believe progress is being made, that the families of the dead are not demanding their comrades come home, that they speak supportively of their dead loved ones.
They get it, Layton doesn't.
Jack Layton, leader of a party that supposedly anguishes for the oppressed and exploited in society, but when it comes to Canada being one of the NATO countries fighting -- at the request of the Afghan government, and at the gratitude of the Afghan people -- the oppressing and exploiting rogue Taliban, Layton's precious social philosophy goes flying out his window.
Layton's acting as if it's Canadian civilian tourists being murdered. No Layton, they're soldiers. Soldiers in combat. Soldiers who know in combat their job is to kill or be killed. Soldiers who, with their NATO allies, have killed more Taliban than have killed them. Soldiers, fine Canadian soldiers, who, despite the deaths, truck on willingly and bravely in the name of freedom and democracy, in the face of possible death, for fellow humans on this planet.
Does Jack Layton, for all his alleged brains, know that for the first three years of the six-year World War II, the allies were losing the war to the Germans? Does Mr. Jack Layton -- NDP weeping heart -- know that his grandfather, Gilbert Layton, minister-without-portfolio in the Quebec government of Premier Maurice Duplessis in World War II, resigned, yes, resigned, over its opposition to conscription?
But not all soldiers disagree with Canadian political leader Jack Layton's howling to bring the soldiers home. Nope. The Taliban love it. If Layton's views reflect the soft Canadian underbelly, goes Taliban thinking, let's keep pouring it on. Layton says he supports our troops. No he doesn't.
Several weeks ago on Gerry Cammy's CFRA talk show I asked Layton why he doesn't go to Afghanistan himself to meet the troops, assess the situation first hand. "You might come back with different views," I told him. "Do you not think you'd benefit from such a trip?"
He said that yes, he would, and that he had a request in to the government to go, but hadn't heard back. Not that he was making it a priority, he with all the answers and outrage. Send him over Stephen Harper, let us see him do what he's calling for: Negotiate peace with the Taliban in the best interests of the democracy-desirous Afghans. Let him do it to the violin strains of Beautiful Dreamer.
Jack Tarzwell, 86, RCAF, Flight Lieutenant, navigator in Dakotas, three years combat overseas: "No one likes to see deaths, but it happens. No, we should not pull out. That's not soldiering, that's cowardice. Wars can be long and frustrating. Challenging. Do it, dammit. Just do it. It's the name of the game."
Al Erickson, 83, RCAF, Flying Officer, anti-submarine, air-and-sea rescue, 18 months combat in Malta: "The NDP and Liberals calling for a pullout, it's a lot of humbug. We're there for a mission. You've got to do what you've got to do. You can't say 'come home' every time a soldier is killed."
Erickson's right arm is badly scarred. "I was in the gun turret at the back of the plane. I got hit by machine-gun bullets. But our plane survived. I shot the German plane down."
Bucky Stanton, 85, British Army, Devonshire Regiment, Corporal, combat in Italy, wounded in action, two buddies killed, emigrated to Canada in 1951, visiting a pal at Perley And Rideau: "We're slowly winning this war, winning the battles and the hearts and minds, but you'd never know it from the left-wing media and politicians. This bird Layton should just shut up. He's humiliating the Canadian soldiers and our great country on the world stage." The link. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 11, 2007 18:58:14 GMT -5
Jack Layton, leader of a party that supposedly anguishes for the oppressed and exploited in society, but when it comes to Canada being one of the NATO countries fighting -- at the request of the Afghan government, and at the gratitude of the Afghan people -- the oppressing and exploiting rogue Taliban, Layton's precious social philosophy goes flying out his window. This is nonsense IMO. What percentage of the Afghan people are "grateful"? Likely not the ones who's family members have been killed in the crossfire or by NATO bombs. Probably not the ones who's lives were actually better under the Taliban. And, the "Afghan government" controls what percentage of the country? And is Layton really calling for withdrawal because of Canadian casualties? Or is it because he thinks the fight is unwinnable without more international support, because the presence of NATO may now be doing more harm than good, and because it seems we are unable to be there without compromising our most basic principles and (indirectly) using torture? Criticising politicians for politicing is all well and good, but to suggest that Stephen Harper acts only according to his conscience while the other party leaders will do anything for votes seems absurd. And suppose that a strong majority of Canadians favour withdrawal - what other course of action is there in a true democracy? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 11, 2007 20:03:44 GMT -5
Jack Layton, leader of a party that supposedly anguishes for the oppressed and exploited in society, but when it comes to Canada being one of the NATO countries fighting -- at the request of the Afghan government, and at the gratitude of the Afghan people -- the oppressing and exploiting rogue Taliban, Layton's precious social philosophy goes flying out his window. This is nonsense IMO. What percentage of the Afghan people are "grateful"? Likely not the ones who's family members have been killed in the crossfire or by NATO bombs. Probably not the ones who's lives were actually better under the Taliban. And, the "Afghan government" controls what percentage of the country? I don't know, MacH. The lads I've talked to had differing opinions. I think we have two community members who served in Afghanistan. I'd really like to hear their opinions on this as well, but it might be difficult seeing how they are still serving members. I was listening to Gen Rick Hillier talking about welcome the troops are. He basically said that in some places the Canadians are tolerated only because the locals dislike the Taliban more. He went on to say that they'll be obliged to leave immediately after the mission is over. This is the thing about the NDP, MacH. They've always been anti war, anti military, et al. As far as Layton goes, he's nothing more than a bandwagon jumper. Even during the last election he didn't talk about his party platforms, but rather talked about how effective the NDP would be as the party with the swing vote. Well, firstly, while I like Harper as the leader of a minority government, I'm not all that confident in handing him a majority. That would stretch my trust a bit too far. Also, it's no secret that public support for the mission is waning. In addition to the fatalities, it also has to do with a lot of the reasons you've already cited. But, be that as it may, Canada is committed until 2009 and her troops have my support. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 11, 2007 23:10:37 GMT -5
Committed until 2009, Dis, but the political winds are blowing in such a way that no matter what Mr. Harper may want to do, the troops will be coming home.
This mission is a NATO failure: Canada is upholding her end, but cannot be expected to continue as she is, is the strong military zone, while the other NATO member say "uh-uh, no way we're going in there".
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 12, 2007 7:55:49 GMT -5
Committed until 2009, Dis, but the political winds are blowing in such a way that no matter what Mr. Harper may want to do, the troops will be coming home. This mission is a NATO failure: Canada is upholding her end, but cannot be expected to continue as she is, is the strong military zone, while the other NATO member say "uh-uh, no way we're going in there". Just heard on the radio this morning the Canadian focus is now shifting less on combat, to training the Afghan army to assume combat operations. They were doing it before but now it will be their primary task. Very encouraging news and very necessary if any pull out is to occur. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 12, 2007 10:15:47 GMT -5
Probably not the ones who's lives were actually better under the Taliban. And these would be...? The women who were not allowed to go out into public and who had the windows to their houses shuttered so that nobody could see them? The young girls who were not allowed to attend school? The non-fundamentalists who didn't really want to grow their beards to "fist" length? The university professors? The non-Pashtins? There are a lot to good arguments for and against Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, but to say that the people of Afghanistan were better off under the Taliban... That's akin to saying some people were better off under the Nazis... (and I am not one to throw out the "they're just like Hitler!" hyperbole all that often - but in this case, they probably weren't far off) |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 12, 2007 12:36:30 GMT -5
Probably not the ones who's lives were actually better under the Taliban. And these would be...? The women who were not allowed to go out into public and who had the windows to their houses shuttered so that nobody could see them? The young girls who were not allowed to attend school? The non-fundamentalists who didn't really want to grow their beards to "fist" length? The university professors? The non-Pashtins? Oh come on. The Taliban were a repressive regime but at least the country wasn't a war zone (to the same degree). Lots of Afghani's have expressed that sentiment, and whether they are "correct" is in some sense immaterial - they felt safer under the Taliban than they do now. I followed one of the ads at the top of this page and ended up at How They Found National Geographic's "Afghan Girl", which happens to have a relevant quote: A member of the Pashtun ethnic group in Afghanistan, Sharbat said she fared relatively well under Taliban rule, which, she feels, provided a measure of stability after the chaos and terror of the Soviet war.It seems like you have a very exaggerated view of the gains made since the invasion. As for the Hitler comparison, I'm no expert on the Taliban, but I think you'd fare better comparing Saddam to Hitler. The Taliban and Afghanistan are so different from the Nazis and Germany that the comparison doesn't make much sense to me. |
|
You honestly believe several years will be sufficient? part of what changed my thinking was when I recently learned more about the tribal areas of Pakistan that border Afghanistan, 
