# Harpo et al to extend Cdn. mission in Afghanistan



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

cons are looking to extend Canada's mission to Afghanistan by 2 years

debate to start at 3 pm Wed. for 6 hours and then a vote right afterwards

Afghanistan is not a threat to Canadian security and we should bring our troops home in Feb. 2007 as per schedule

make your voice heard - your MP is supposed to represent you
call or email your MP to voice your concern

find your MP using your postal code
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/PostalCode.asp?lang=E&source=sm


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Don't bother contacting your MPs--I've already got this one sewn up.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Don't bother contacting your MPs--I've already got this one sewn up.


Will you feel as smug when more of our soldiers come back in coffins?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> cons are looking to extend Canada's mission to Afghanistan by 2 years
> 
> debate to start at 3 pm Wed. for 6 hours and then a vote right afterwards
> 
> ...


Failed states are a threat to western security. I'd rather Canada part of the solution than part of the problem (i.e. apathy).

MACSPECTRUM, this isn't Iraq you know.


----------



## bandersnatch (Dec 26, 2004)

Exactly. 

Afghanistan was under Taliban rule when Osama bin Laden plotted and executed 9.11 and it still remains active within the country today, seeking to destablize it.

But as usual, you can count on liberals and lefists to give me another reason of their irrelevance.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Will you feel as smug when more of our soldiers come back in coffins?


I'm sure many would be smug if the country goes even further downhill; but as long as Canadians aren't dying that must be ok (to use the same style of argument). 

With all the factors in play, I think Afghanistan is a good benchmark of where we expect to act, versus Iraq, where we expect not to act. But the ratpack is going through a rebirthing. At least we'll finally have an effective opposition again.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ahem, but Canadians are dying in Afghanistan
Canada made a commitment until Feb 2007 and we should honour that commitment, but Afghanistan should be turned over to the UN for security and re-building

I guess keeping Canadian coffins off the tv screens must really be working since "the Beej" believes Canadians aren't dying

Harpo et al know that support for the war is waning and wish to sew up the 2 year extension, but with their poll numbers doing well and the Liberal still rudderless (altho' I do like Bill Graham's imitation ) the Cons would not be unhappy with a non-confidence vote and force an election

Perhaps it is time for Canadians to choose between war and peace
as good an election issue if there ever was one

so interesting to see ehmacers salivating for war
gives "chicken hawk" a new dimension

if you really believe that Afghanistan is a threat to Cdn. security then I guess you also believe that Iraq was a threat to Amerikan security with all of those WMDs, not to mention the daily sorties of US and GB air forces

interesting piece on CBC about Rona "don't you dare talk about that book" Ambrose heading up the Kyoto conference and the new European viewpoint that Canada is now an extension of US foreign policy

I guess that's where Harpo and I differ


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I think that most Canadians are not in favour of our deployment in Afghanistan. At least that's what the polls indicate. It's important to tell your MP what you think.

I find it odd that the debate does not include military personnel who can answer question about the deployment and cost involved. What happened to informed decisions?
Yes the Liberals are leaderless and this issue will define some of the candidates - may even hurt them in the long run. 

As for Rona:


> Climate strategy said to echo U.S. playbook
> 
> 
> Environmentalists say the Conservatives' communications strategy on climate change almost exactly echoes advice in a three-year-old briefing book written by U.S. pollster and communications adviser Frank Luntz.
> ...


http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=8ccaebe2-bc79-4e2f-bc75-4d1b073eded6

Wanting to stay in Afghanistan makes sense in the context that we are becoming nothing more than a branch office of the U.S. with Harper as manager...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> I'm sure many would be smug if the country goes even further downhill; but as long as Canadians aren't dying that must be ok (to use the same style of argument).


Ummm, not even remotely the same argument... you know that, it looks like you are trying to put forth a specious argument, but for what purpose in this case? Clearly you are not happy that our troops will have an extended stay in Afghanistan? Me, personally, I have far more respect for the lives of our soldiers and would never comment in glee or behave smuggly that they will be put in harms way.



Beej said:


> With all the factors in play, I think Afghanistan is a good benchmark of where we expect to act, versus Iraq, where we expect not to act. But the ratpack is going through a rebirthing. At least we'll finally have an effective opposition again.


As a matter of fact my opinion of Afghanistan, is that it is a case where nation-building (I hate this term) is in fact required. There was an order of magnitude in difference between the horrors entrenched by the Taliban in Afghanistan as compared to Iraq. 

What I dislike is the politicization of Canadian Soldiers... comments like "Don't bother contacting your MPs--I've already got this one sewn up." are disrespectful to the presence and use of our armed forces.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> With all the factors in play, I think Afghanistan is a good benchmark of where we expect to act, versus Iraq, where we expect not to act.


The role of Canada has changed - it's become aggressive. Where do we stand on that and are we ready for the consequences (everything from more deaths in combat to Canada finally becoming a terrorist target because of our foreign policies.)


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> The role of Canada has changed - it's become aggressive. Where do we stand on that and are we ready for the consequences (everything from more deaths in combat to Canada finally becoming a terrorist target because of our foreign policies.)



That is actually a very valid point... Canada's role up until now (with certain exceptions) has been that of maintaining order in populated areas.

This recent change to offensive operations does call into question a great many things. I for one feel very badly for our guys over there. They are being put into very difficult situations which will bring about very difficult outcomes.

Imagine yourself in a land where a portion of the population does not want you there. Where around every corner there may be an ambush. The enemy will be impossible to distinguish from the local population (it's not like the Taliban run around in orange jumpsuits with Taliban written across the back). There will be tragedies... and our men and women will be coming home with more scars than scars from battle that is for sure.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Will you feel as smug when more of our soldiers come back in coffins?


How will you feel when our soldiers leave and women are back under the repressive thumb of the taliban and the Saturday enterainment roster at the local soccer field returns to stonings and beheadings of the local ladies? Soldiers coming home in a body bag is terrible reality of war, but is it worse than rounding up women for execution for showing their ankles or learning to read? 

Afghan people depend on our troops to protect them from such a fate. Yes we should leave but not before the job is done. If Afghanistan is safe without us then lets come home. If butchery will resume when we leave, its a noble cause to stay on.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> How will you feel when our soldiers leave and women are back under the repressive thumb of the taliban and the Saturday enterainment roster at the local soccer field returns to stonings and beheadings of the local ladies?


And how do you feel about Darfur?

Using the excuse of humanitarian initiatives is fine, but are we really doing that? How are prisoners treated once handed over to Afghans? Why did Doctors Without Borders leave the area?

Jumping on the "security bandwagon" is a sham that only serves the interest of very few..


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> How will you feel when our soldiers leave and women are back under the repressive thumb of the taliban and the Saturday enterainment roster at the local soccer field returns to stonings and beheadings of the local ladies? Soldiers coming home in a body bag is terrible reality of war, but is it worse than rounding up women for execution for showing their ankles or learning to read?
> 
> Afghan people depend on our troops to protect them from such a fate. Yes we should leave but not before the job is done. If Afghanistan is safe without us then lets come home. If butchery will resume when we leave, its a noble cause to stay on.
> 
> ...


and as long as Harpo et al keep images of Cdn. coffins returning home we'll keep reading comments like "The Beej's" about how Canadians aren't dying.

My Canada is not a military aggressor. It is a peacekeeping nation.
time for the UN to step up

I don't want to see Afghanistan become another quagmire like Iraq


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> How will you feel when our soldiers leave and women are back under the repressive thumb of the taliban and the Saturday enterainment roster at the local soccer field returns to stonings and beheadings of the local ladies? Soldiers coming home in a body bag is terrible reality of war, but is it worse than rounding up women for execution for showing their ankles or learning to read?
> 
> Afghan people depend on our troops to protect them from such a fate. Yes we should leave but not before the job is done. If Afghanistan is safe without us then lets come home. If butchery will resume when we leave, its a noble cause to stay on.
> 
> ...


Lets just say that "smug" is NOT how I will be feeling... read further before you jump to any conclusions.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS and Jonesy are giving me an incredible sense of deja vu. Perhaps they should just provide links to the point where they said EXACTLY the same thing (can't blame them for going off-message). 

While I don't believe its desireable to see members of the Canadian military die--this is:
1) a volunteer army
2) the army.

People in the military sometimes die. Generals make recommendations to the political party in power--they don't debate in the House of Commons. We don't live in a direct democracy where every issue is decided according to insta-polls.

I also believe the Canadian military is more courageous than both AS and Jonesy. Your fear is not the defining issue.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> ahem, but Canadians are dying in Afghanistan
> Canada made a commitment until Feb 2007 and we should honour that commitment,* but Afghanistan should be turned over to the UN for security and re-building*


What exactly do you mean by this statement? This IS a UN mission and Canada is one of 30 nations taking part in Afganistan.

Are you saying Canada should back out of the UN and our commitments to that world body?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

adagio said:


> What exactly do you mean by this statement? This IS a UN mission and Canada is one of 30 nations taking part in Afganistan.
> 
> Are you saying Canada should back out of the UN and our commitments to that world body?


let me reiterate (my apologies for those of you that are not hard of reading)

Canada promised military involvement untiil feb 2007
I am not in any way opposed to this commitment

I AM OPPPOSED to lengthening the stay of our troops

Afghanistan doesn't present ANY sort of danger to our security or sovreignty

If Harpo wants to make this an election issue, let the Cdn. people decide


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and as long as Harpo et al keep images of Cdn. coffins returning home we'll keep reading comments like "The Beej's" about how Canadians aren't dying.
> 
> My Canada is not a military aggressor. It is a peacekeeping nation.
> time for the UN to step up
> ...



I'd point out a little history here: 

- 60,000 Canadians dead in WWI , 40,000 Dead in WWII (Not sure if that counts the contributions by Newfoundland at those times). Highest proportionate death rate of any country saving perhaps Russia.

-Largest merchant marine in the world for provisioning Europe at the end of WWII

- Used as shock troops by both the US and England in both wars, renouned for accomplishing "Aggressive Tasks" that other larger contingents could not do.

We became a peace keeping nation to minimize the requirements that we would have to do some of those things again. But do not ever make the mistake that we cannot be and have not been aggressive in the past. We have a history of doing what is required to win in any particular instance. We also have a history of being smart about it.

I would think that Afganistan is a case of doing what needs doing, in this case "Nation Building" what ever that means. This is the heart of religious extremism powered and financed by the world opium trade to the detriment of all of their citizens. We are most likely doing the proper thing or at least a good thing here.

If however, they do pull the troops out, do not believe that for one minute the body count is going to go down. There are already requests for our presence in Darfore for one and other African hot spots for another. The price of being known as an honest broker.

As to the rational of the "Stealth Debate", I don't know. They may be being very canny and consolidating their commitments to one location that they understand as opposed to being put into several locations with lack of control and insufficient resources. Only being fly on the wall at both the PMO and the various general's offices could tell us for sure. There are most likely many considerations in addition to gross politics behind this.


Just my $.02 on a Tuesday


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF has gone from debate to NeoCon parrot - bravo!



Macfury said:


> AS and Jonesy are giving me an incredible sense of deja vu. Perhaps they should just provide links to the point where they said EXACTLY the same thing (can't blame them for going off-message).


Maybe you can look up those links? 
The debate is still the same - and has been brought up again. Are we supposed to just give in to apathy because Big Daddy Stevie would like us to?





Macfury said:


> While I don't believe its desireable to see members of the Canadian military die--this is:
> 1) a volunteer army
> 2) the army.


And I have always stated that it's their job - maybe the reality of their job will be awakened when more come home in body bags. 



Macfury said:


> People in the military sometimes die. Generals make recommendations to the political party in power--they don't debate in the House of Commons. We don't live in a direct democracy where every issue is decided according to insta-polls.


Harper says we need to send a clear message about our commitment - sure but to who? What is the goal and what are the metrics that will judge if this mission is a success. 



Macfury said:


> I also believe the Canadian military is more courageous than both AS and Jonesy. Your fear is not the defining issue.


Care to define your statement or is this just another blind attack?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I also believe the Canadian military is more courageous than both AS and Jonesy. Your fear is not the defining issue.


Absolutely they are more courageous than I am, and more courageous than you I suspect (when was that last time you had someone shooting at you with an AK47?)... but what is your point?

My point is that sending troops into harms way is a non trivial event... and smug comments about "locking" the vote does our soldiers a disservice.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Absolutely they are more courageous than I am, and more courageous than you I suspect (when was that last time you had someone shooting at you with an AK47?)... but what is your point?
> 
> My point is that sending troops into harms way is a non trivial event... and smug comments about "locking" the vote does our soldiers a disservice.


I think his point is that you can't let fear dictate everything. Morals have a role as well. The arguments yourself and AS have presented all revolve around fear and having body bags come home. Sometimes you just have to do what is right and accept the risks and likelihood of deaths. Our troops understand this.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

The short debate is worrisome. There is no need to rush this debate or decision.

I am a bit of isolationist (what part of living on an island gave it away). I think we should stick to our initial commitment, but not extend our military campaign there. This is not a UN peace-keeping mission. It is a NATO led mission. There is concern over how prisoners are being handed over questionable handlers.

My main concern is that since we've been there for over four years, there is little to show for it. The more urban regions seem better, but the remote and rural areas are still controlled by war lords and taliban. The drug trade is still as strong as ever. That doesn't seem like much progress for the time we've been there.

What do the Afghans want? Do they want Canadians there? Perhaps those are key questions that need answers.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Morals have a role as well.


I'm the only one who mentioned Darfur, where are your morals on that one.
I'm the first to say that dying is a risk any soldier faces - go back to previous postings and you will see I got flack on that one.
Far from fear here - the ones fear mongering are stating that this mission is vital for Canada's security.

Maybe if we cared so much about democracy in Afghanistan, we'd remove the Warlords and Druglords from their Parliament.
Maybe if we cared so much about the Taliban, we would of not supported them in the first place.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Sometimes you just have to do what is right and accept the risks and likelihood of deaths.


Ohhh, I will absolutely agree with you on this point. Now the issue becomes, who decides what is right and what is not? And how much right does something have to be before we get involved?

Darfur?
East Timor?
Rawanda?
The West Bank?
Tibet?

At issue here isn't the fact that there are wrongs that need to addressed... How do we, as a society decide that we should "help" these people... and not help some one else?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> What do the Afghans want? Do they want Canadians there? Perhaps those are key questions that need answers.


Absolutely the right question to ask... bang on buddy.

Don't think for a second that the people of Afghanistan are simple. Their voice, should be the first voice to be heard on this issue.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Ohhh, I will absolutely agree with you on this point. Now the issue becomes, who decides what is right and what is not? And how much right does something have to be before we get involved?
> 
> Darfur?
> East Timor?
> ...


Then why is your argument so fixated on body bags? If you agree it is about morals, then present us with a moral argument.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Then why is your argument so fixated on body bags? If you agree it is about morals, then present us with a moral argument.


Clearly you haven't been following this thread... And I think I made one, yes, one comment about dead soldiers coming home.

I'll put the ball back in your court... Answer us oh sage of salt... sorry, oh sage of Vancouver. What moral situation requires our presence on the international stage?

Why is Afghanistan so deserving of our assistance as opposed to Darfur?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

For me, the real argument needs to be around where our troops can do the most good. Several military tacticians have suggested at great length that Haiti is that place. We have a long history there. We speak a variation of the same language. We are the largest recipient of Hatian refugees, or were of the first wave (may have changed with subsequent waves). Our GG was just there. We have had troops and RCMP there all along. I don't believe the debate should be between Afghanistan and home. And I think it is stupid to pretend we can be everywhere at once, and to get into this childish one-upmanship about "what about place x,y, or z?" Let's have an honest debate about where we are likely to be able to do the most good, and then let's go there whole heartedly. Sadly, the parliamentary debate will simply be yet another farce.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I agree if the Afghan people don't want us there we shouldn't be. I also agree with RevMatt that we can't be everywhere at once and we should be where we can do the most good. I have heard Afghanis express support for our soldiers in news reports, thankful they were there so their daughters would be free to get an education and not worry about being rounded up and killed. But I digress, if the general population want us out we shouldn't be occupiers. If our presence in another place would save more lives or be more beneficial in the long run we should concentrate our limited resources there.

I see a lot of contradictory statements coming from those that want us out.
You want our soldiers out of Afghanistan despite the fact they are making the country a safer place for millions then you decry the fact we are doing nothing in other hotspots like Darfur, East Timor, Rwanda etc?  I agree the UN should step up to the plate in these situations and stop the genocide and we should be willing to play our part. Rwanda could have been prevented but the UN sat on its collective ass.

As for concern expressed here by so many for our soldiers coming home in body bags. Lets apply your same logic to other professions. 
Should firemen leave people trapped in burning buildings if they risk injury or death? Should a police officer leave a crazed gunman running rampant through a school hoping he runs out of bullets because the risk of confronting him could cost his life? Why would this situation be any different?

sh&@ happens and someone has to deal with it! The brave men and women join the military are fully aware of that fact as are our firefighters and police force. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

"sh!t happens"
I have yet to speak to anyone against Canada being in Afghanistan up to Feb. 2007 - we promised and we should stay

Why this extension? Has a request been made by anyone?

harpo is promoting this extension to please his u.s. taskmasters and possibly force an election while his party is polling well

we're just going to get bogged down over there as the u.s. has been in iraq
more dead soldiers protecting harpo's relationship with the u.s. and their war machinery


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> sh&@ happens and someone has to deal with it! The brave men and women join the military are fully aware of that fact as are our firefighters and police force.


It's not the same situation... Firemen know there is a fire to fight, policemen know there are people to protect. 

Our soldiers are in situations that we can't possibly comprehend... looking for an enemy who does not advertise their presence until the roadside bomb goes off. You can't possible compare what our soldiers face to what policemen and firemen do here.

We need to find out, for real, what the Afghan people want (not just anecdotal evidence)... put it to a referendum. Do as best a job as you can in asking as many Afghanis as you can... do they want our presence?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> We need to find out, for real, what the Afghan people want (not just anecdotal evidence)... put it to a referendum. Do as best a job as you can in asking as many Afghanis as you can... do they want our presence?


No. There are far too many places in the world that really want us. Whether or not Afghanistan is one of them or not is only relevant if WE believe that, of all the best options, it is the BEST use of our very limited abilities. Our military brass don't believe that. Pundits don't. "Experts" don't. Hell, I don't think the UN would, if we ever asked. Should we honour our committment? Of course. That's a no brainer. It's what we do after that that is relevant.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

RevMatt said:


> No. There are far too many places in the world that really want us. Whether or not Afghanistan is one of them or not is only relevant if WE believe that, of all the best options, it is the BEST use of our very limited abilities. Our military brass don't believe that. Pundits don't. "Experts" don't. Hell, I don't think the UN would, if we ever asked. Should we honour our committment? Of course. That's a no brainer. It's what we do after that that is relevant.



So are you saying that we should force ourselves on another population against their will? I don't think you are saying that, but that is how it comes across.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> It's not the same situation... Firemen know there is a fire to fight, policemen know there are people to protect.


My brother was a cop in PEEL a few years back. He told me of a cop that went up to the window of a car pulled over for a traffic violation and got shot in the head when he got to the window. Did the young RCMP officers killed out west last summer have any idea what they were getting into? Did the more than 100 fireman know the World Trade Center was going to fall on their heads? I'm sure some if not all of them would be alive today had they had known of the danger. I agree the risk is greater for our soldiers but I also think a soldier realizes that fact. 

I agree we need to hear from Afghanis and assess our worth there.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> So are you saying that we should force ourselves on another population against their will? I don't think you are saying that, but that is how it comes across.


OK, then I communicated myself badly. No, what I mean is that among all of the nations who want us to come, and there are several, we need to choose the one where we can do the most good. Since very few people believe that that could possibly be Afghanistan, the question of whether or not they are on the list of places that want us is really moot.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> harpo is promoting this extension to please his u.s. taskmasters and possibly force an election while his party is polling well


I don't think so. Bush has already made a call for countries to take up his latest interest in Darfore (not sure of spelling ... sorry) with Canada being named by name.

Also, we went to Afganistan and did not go to Iraq. It was a political and a moral decision. We did not want to go to a non UN sanctioned war where the premis for agression was even then dubious to now laughable.

This seems more of staking a cause out before the cause stakes him out.

As for forcing an election when the polls are good ... that is a long standing liberal tradition and way of life ... So if Harper is guilty of that, he has had lots of company in the past... and not Conservative.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

I go to bed each night and thank the stars I'm not a woman in Afghanistan.

We all know I'm not talking about wearing a veil or having my ankles covered. I'm talking about basic rights such as access to medical attention and education. I'm talking about not bleeding to death during childbirth or being able to read and write. As things stand right now, woman do have those rights again. I wish them all the luck in the world.

I guess because it's mostly women who benefit from keeping the Taliban at bay then what Canada and other nations do there doesn't matter to any of the men here.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Some US citizens argue that it was right to go into Iraq to fix mistakes they've made there in the past. The same goes for the United Kingdom.

Afghanistan became a failed state because of the various wars that have gone on there for so long and foreign militaries in their land. A whole generation of Afghans have been born into a culture of never-ending war. The nation is mess because the Soviet Union and the US fought used Afghanistan to fight a proxy war there. They are the entities who are most responsible for redressing the consequences. However the US didn't really care about rebuilding Afghanistan. They were more keen on invading Iraq. So basically the US, while retaining a smaller presence in Afghanistan, it refocused it's military might on Iraq.

I think the US "cut and run" on its responsibilities to one nation, to go attack another based on speculative grounds. Rebuilding Afghanistan was necessary. Invading and occupying Iraq was not. Now, other governments are left to clean up after the US has changed it's priorities. All the foriegn nations in Afghanistan were left holding the bag for rebuilding Afghanistan.

Ultimately, Afghanistan is not our mess to clean up. And it's nowhere close to even being a neighbour. We have few cultural ties.

One poster here mentioned Haiti being a country that Canada is more able to help. Similar languages, closer geography, our large and growing Haitian community. Also they seem to want us there.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

:clap: :clap: :clap: 

well said Mr. O'Keefe


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

However, the U.S. has not "left" Afghanistan by any means.

But if Harper wants to win a majority, what possible reason would he have for extending the mission into Afghanistan, or allying himself with an unpopular president.

If this is a mere posturing, AS & Speccy, then what can Mr. Harper hope to gain from this?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

adagio said:


> I go to bed each night and thank the stars I'm not a woman in Afghanistan.
> .....
> I guess because it's mostly women who benefit from keeping the Taliban at bay then what Canada and other nations do there doesn't matter to any of the men here.


And I'm sure you had the same views before 9/11 :yawn: 
Wonder what you were doing then....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> However, the U.S. has not "left" Afghanistan by any means.
> 
> But if Harper wants to win a majority, what possible reason would he have for extending the mission into Afghanistan, or allying himself with an unpopular president.
> 
> If this is a mere posturing, AS & Speccy, then what can Mr. Harper hope to gain from this?


as i postulated earlier (again, apologies for those not hard of reading) Harpo sees his poll numbers and figures he;

1. gets in good w/ Amerikan admin. (war is good busienss y'all)
2. hopes to force an election while his numbers look good and Liberals are leaderless


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Speccy: I can read, but your sometimes your premise appears tortured. As best I understand your opinion:

1) With Canada's economy in good shape, Mr. Harper is aligning himself with an unpopular war and an unpopular president so he can get in good with that same president and improve the Canadian economy by keeping a small contingent of Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

2) Extending the commitment to Afghanistan is the issue Mr. Harper wants to use to force an election--despite your assertions that such a move would be extremely unpopular among Canadians and has no widespread support.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

haper's raison d'etre is to form a majority gov't and he, and his handlers, can't contain their glee over their poll numbers


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> I think the US "cut and run" on its responsibilities to one nation, to go attack another based on speculative grounds. Rebuilding Afghanistan was necessary. Invading and occupying Iraq was not. Now, other governments are left to clean up after the US has changed it's priorities. All the foriegn nations in Afghanistan were left holding the bag for rebuilding Afghanistan.
> 
> <span style="background:yellow"> Ultimately, Afghanistan is not our mess to clean up.</span>


:clap: 

Good post, Paul. That's the gist of what I was going to say as well.

Those who are opposed to the extension of the mission should immediately email their MPs at their parliamentary email address, if their MP is not a Conservative. I know mine, Dis-Hon. Gary Lunn Saanich-Gulf Islands, is a hawk who will be voting for it, as he voted for sending us into Iraq too, but I assume all Con MPs will be voting the party line. I would say that the focus should be on the Liberal MPs, who seem to be exhibiting some mixed signals.


MACSPEC said:


> find your MP using your postal code
> http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/PostalCode.asp?lang=E&source=sm


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

adagio said:


> What exactly do you mean by this statement? This IS a UN mission and Canada is one of 30 nations taking part in Afganistan.


No, this is under Operation Enduring Freedom - not a UN mission....


> Now the mission has moved to perilous Kandahar, and falls under the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom.


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...5d69c-31d4-438c-8026-e346630e0fd9&k=51750&p=1


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

AS, i think adagio is referring the new US version of the UN

you see? FAUX news and Global-Canwest are able to shape opinions and minds and create facts out of lies


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> ahem, but Canadians are dying in Afghanistan
> Canada made a commitment until Feb 2007 and we should honour that commitment, but Afghanistan should be turned over to the UN for security and re-building
> 
> I guess keeping Canadian coffins off the tv screens must really be working since "the Beej" believes Canadians aren't dying


The point, possibly a little too subtle, was asking if we'd be happier with no Canadians dying but Afghanistan getting even worse than it already is for its citizens. I don't consider that a reasonable way to discuss this sort of thing and was using that to complement the previous post in style. Sorry I wasn't clearer, I'm sure you did your best to try and understand before scurrying off on your usual rant.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The role of Canada has changed - it's become aggressive. Where do we stand on that and are we ready for the consequences (everything from more deaths in combat to Canada finally becoming a terrorist target because of our foreign policies.)


Good and consise statement, all without smugness. :clap: 

This is a tough issue and decisions need to made for the future (we can't just stay in or pull out based on the latest polls). So the discussion, in parliament, needs to acknowledge that this decision will apply for some time and will need to occur again (if we stay active) before the decision expires by a good margin of time.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> The point, possibly a little too subtle, was asking if we'd be happier with no Canadians dying but Afghanistan getting even worse than it already is for its citizens. I don't consider that a reasonable way to discuss this sort of thing and was using that to complement the previous post in style. Sorry I wasn't clearer, I'm sure you did your best to try and understand before scurrying off on your usual rant.


oodles of smugness


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and as long as Harpo et al keep images of Cdn. coffins returning home we'll keep reading comments like "The Beej's" about how Canadians aren't dying.


Your comments are getting more offensive, please desist or at least try to clarify with the poster about something like this.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Your comments are getting more offensive, please desist or at least try to clarify with the poster about something like this.


posted by "le Beej"


> I'm sure many would be smug if the country goes even further downhill; but as long as Canadians aren't dying that must be ok (to use the same style of argument).



a little butter for you to clarify?
and a big dollop of smugness


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Ohhh, I will absolutely agree with you on this point. Now the issue becomes, who decides what is right and what is not? And how much right does something have to be before we get involved?
> 
> Darfur?
> East Timor?
> ...


Good issues DJ. 

We have capacity constraints so when we decide I don't think we should then leave if a more needy area occurs because we would be backing out on a commitment. But, when that commitment comes up for review, an evaluation would be needed about the harm of withdrawing (or ability to find a replacement) before just looking at which area needs our help more.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Good issues DJ.
> 
> We have capacity constraints so when we decide I don't think we should then leave if a more needy area occurs because we would be backing out on a commitment. But, when that commitment comes up for review, an evaluation would be needed about the harm of withdrawing (or ability to find a replacement) before just looking at which area needs our help more.


what i find very interesting is that i have yet to hear from the mission commander asking for an extension of the Canadian military's stay in Afghanistan

Harpo seems very happy to volunteer Canadian lives for a mission that hardly promotes Canadian sovreignty or security


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> So are you saying that we should force ourselves on another population against their will? I don't think you are saying that, but that is how it comes across.


I think this was very good of you to go for the clarification. :clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> posted by "le Beej"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So I ask you to perhaps check with the poster and you requote the same post you misinterpreted (due to either my poor wording or your zealous joy in forwarding dishonest discussion or a little of both)? Thanks for trying your best.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> So I ask you to perhaps check with the poster and you requote the same post you misinterpreted (due to either my poor wording or your zealous joy in forwarding dishonest discussion or a little of both)? Thanks for trying your best.


I honestly believe that you forgot that Canadians are dying in Afghanistan because of your zealotry to believe all things harper

Now, if you wish to use my services as a proof reader for your posts, I could provide you with a price quotation for said services.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I honestly believe that you forgot that Canadians are dying in Afghanistan because of your zealotry to believe all things harper


If you believe this statement: "your zealotry to believe all things harper" then there's not much more to say to you, in my opinion.

AS, RevMatt, VanDave, Macfury, MacDoc, Da_Jonesy, Sinc: You're a core group of regulars with a variety of views (sorry if I forgot anyone). Do I seem to zealously believe all things harper?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ok, so _maybe_ not *all* things harper, but a vasty majority


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AS, RevMatt, VanDave, Macfury, MacDoc, Da_Jonesy, Sinc: You're a core group of regulars with a variety of views (sorry if I forgot anyone). Do I seem to zealously believe the vast majority of things harper?

Note to 'Spec: that's more consideration than you've given to others when they didn't mean what they said the first time. You're welcome.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> AS, RevMatt, VanDave, Macfury, MacDoc, Da_Jonesy, Sinc: You're a core group of regulars with a variety of views (sorry if I forgot anyone). Do I seem to zealously believe the vast majority of things harper?
> 
> Note to 'Spec: that's more consideration than you've given to others when they didn't mean what they said the first time. You're welcome.


ah, the price of smugness
plus I don't know if that's your "first time"

let me check your CSIS file


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Afghanistan is not a threat to Canadian security and we should bring our troops home in Feb. 2007 as per schedule


I agree the country is not a threat - but this is the case because Canada contributed to the downfall of a government that supported training camps. So the country was a threat, and I feel we have a duty to stay and do our utmost to contribute to stability so the threat does not return.

So what if the current contribution ends in 2007? These things evolve.

Just because Canada is on a combat mission there does not mean we have abandoned a peace keeping tradition. Peace keeping is to be used where needed, and combat deployments where needed.

For me this is not about the Conservative government. I don't think much of Harper. He had a real opportunity to do things in a better way, to rely less on spin, to make bold moves. I did not vote for his party, and will not, but it's sad to see squandered opportunities.

No, for me this is not about Harper. This is about being active where it matters.

If we cannot put much into a Darfur (or any other mission) then it's simply because our military has been left to rot. A real pity, because they appear to do great work.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> And I'm sure you had the same views before 9/11 :yawn:
> Wonder what you were doing then....


As a matter of fact, my views were the same prior to 9/11. I have been following the plight of women there for years. The day that the women rejoiced in the streets there, I too rejoiced. So did my daughter and my mother. Like I said... men couldn't care less.

I don't expect many men follow human rights issues if they pertain to women. Of all the countries in the world, Afghanistan was THE worst.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

adagio said:


> I don't expect many men follow human rights issues if they pertain to women. Of all the countries in the world, Afghanistan was THE worst.


Sorry to have misjudged you adagio.

Sometimes I feel that the only difference between Afghanistan and here is that we are better at hiding it when we beat up women...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: I didn't count you as a lapdog of Harper--you're an issues guy.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Beej: I didn't count you as a lapdog of Harper--you're an issues guy.


You mean he has_ issues_...  



Beej said:


> Do I seem to *zealously* believe the vast majority of things harper?


The short answer is no.
What I do observe at times, is a sort of playing devil's advocate without stating your position. The wording on this subject could of been better or it does show your bias. 
In the context of all your other postings, I'd say it was just a little clumsy.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MS, you are out to lunch on this one. Beej is many things, and some of them can be quite maddening, but he is no worshipper of Harper by any stretch. I would say, though, Beej, that even knowing you as I do your wording was sufficiently clumsy in that post way back there that it threw me. I quite seriously though: "what nutjob is this?" then "Oh, Beej's post. Must be a typo, or something." Which is not to excuse MS, who should know you well enough to at least request you clarify before going off the deep end.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Thanks. 

I'd like to hear from more.

*VanDave, MacDoc, Da_Jonesy, Sinc* Sorry to put you on the spot, but I really don't appreciate 'Spec implying that I'm not aware that Canadian soldiers are dying, much less that I zealously believe [Edit] the vast majority of things harper. 

I don't fully agree with AS (and we have grappled before) but thank you for taking context into consideration. :clap: 

Given that I'm asking what others think, my opinion is of lesser relevance. I asked for it. 

[Edit: I erroneously regressed to the original 'Spec statement of 'all' instead of the reasonably revised 'vast majority'. My fault and it was not intentional.]


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> MS, you are out to lunch on this one. Beej is many things, and some of them can be quite maddening, but he is no worshipper of Harper by any stretch. I would say, though, Beej, that even knowing you as I do your wording was sufficiently clumsy in that post way back there that it threw me. I quite seriously though: "what nutjob is this?" then "Oh, Beej's post. Must be a typo, or something." Which is not to excuse MS, who should know you well enough to at least request you clarify before going off the deep end.


Thanks. I will acknowledge that my wording could have been better. I do think there was a point to be made about pulling out the 'coffin' language but I could have done better. Beej is flawed but he does try (when he's not busy not trying  ).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I don't fully agree with AS


What, you don't have issues?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Thanks. I will acknowledge that my wording could have been better. I do think there was a point to be made about pulling out the 'coffin' language but I could have done better. Beej is flawed but he does try (when he's not busy not trying  ).


[marks date and time]

[off to paint one Beej-icon on the side of my laptop in the spirit of WWII aces]


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> *VanDave, MacDoc, Da_Jonesy, Sinc* Sorry to put you on the spot, but I really don't appreciate 'Spec implying that I'm not aware that Canadian soldiers are dying, much less that I zealously believe [Edit] the vast majority of things harper.


Spec, is way off on this one. You are quite independent in your thinking and take a balanced view of each Party.

I could see that criticism thrown my way since I agree with at least half of what the Conservatives and Harper stand for. I will often disagree with some policies, but they don't have any traction here because people only take exception to my pro-Conservative viewpoints.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Spec, is way off on this one. You are quite independent in your thinking and take a balanced view of each Party.
> 
> I could see that criticism thrown my way since I agree with at least half of what the Conservatives and Harper stand for. I will often disagree with some policies, but they don't have any traction here because people only take exception to my pro-Conservative viewpoints.


half?
you sell yourself short

you've "rightly" earned the moniker "Vanutt"


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Sorry to have misjudged you adagio.
> 
> Sometimes I feel that the only difference between Afghanistan and here is that we are better at hiding it when we beat up women...


Ah, I thought you knew me better by now. 

There is a huge difference here and you know it. Yes, men everywhere are good at beating up women. It makes their wee wee bigger. However, here, a woman doesn't have to put up with abuse. It's against the law... not the law of the land.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you've "rightly" earned the moniker "Vanutt"


Sad 'Spec.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Sad 'Spec.


I found it true and funny....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

My statement?


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

I think ultimately its important for the Canadian people to make this decision, and not corporations or the lure of economic benefit. I've already written an open letter to my MP, and I would encourage you all to as well.

You can read it at: http://ravijo.net/


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I could see that criticism thrown my way since I agree with at least half of what the Conservatives and Harper stand for. I will often disagree with some policies, but they don't have any traction here because people only take exception to my pro-Conservative viewpoints.


Vandave... I do give you credit on your counter conservative position in regards to same sex marriage. For that I do respect you.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

ravijo said:


> I think ultimately its important for the *Canadian people to make this decision, and not corporations or the lure of economic benefit.* I've already written an open letter to my MP, and I would encourage you all to as well.
> 
> You can read it at: http://ravijo.net/


Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> AS, RevMatt, VanDave, Macfury, MacDoc, Da_Jonesy, Sinc: You're a core group of regulars with a variety of views (sorry if I forgot anyone). Do I seem to zealously believe the vast majority of things harper?


Zealously believe all things Harper... No, I would not say that.

I've said it once, I'll say it again... for the most part I think you a pragmatist, however given that you are an economist I think that sometimes you use economics as the answer to many issues. My wife (the economics major in university) would argue that economics only provides numbers... not the answers.

One thing that I am curious about... do you actually work in the civil service? If so, I would imagine that saying anything publicly that would counter the current governments position would be a seriously career limiting thing to do.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

No, I don't DJ. I used to work in a federal crown corp. and for a provincial government. Economics doesn't provide numbers. Econometrics does.  And no, it doesn't provide answers on what society should (moral) choose. It provides advice on how to go about achieving the goals.

Edit: CLMs (career limiting moves). My career is riddled with them. I say what I want, with some degree of manners, and do what I want, with some degree of consideration. If I were to 'maximise' my career, I would have gone about things very differently. Instead, I try to land where I want to, which includes not only title and pay, but a certain Beejiness.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> No, I don't DJ. I used to work in a federal crown corp. and for a provincial government. Economics doesn't provide numbers. Econometrics does.  And no, it doesn't provide answers on what society should (moral) choose. It provides advice on how to go about achieving the goals.


Crap... yeah I forgot about Econometrics... all that Shazam software in university. Crap I thought I had recovered those brain cells.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Crap I thought I had recovered those brain cells.


Only beer can do that. A wise before his years economist once said to me, "Economists drink because that's all they have."

It is not called the Dismal Science because it's heartwarming (or a science).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> It is not called the Dismal Science because it's heartwarming (or a science).


Hell, I think you are trying to delude yourself if you call it a "science" - you may use science, but economics is not science...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Hell, I think you are trying to delude yourself if you call it a "science" - you may use science, but economics is not science...


Umm, that would be what he meant with the (or a science)...

Hell, I don't think computer "science" is actually a science. We call lots of things science that aren't.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Science refers to a logical and disciplined approach used to try to understand something. That perfect knowledge is not available doesn't mean that the discipline is not a science. Neither do all practitioners/adherents aim to be scientists.

Economics is a tough sell as a science when it's practised like a religion.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

debate in the House of Common re: extending the cdn. mission in Afghanistan begins today (wed, may 17) at 3 pm
call/write your MP to express your opinion on this very important issue

find your MP using your postal code:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/PostalCode.asp?lang=E&source=sm


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

This debate is not only to extend *but to EXPAND* our commitment.

Although this site is not Con blue yet, there has been a new change -
Canada: The True North Strong And Free
http://canada.gc.ca/

Big Daddy Harper is really following that NeoCon advice given to him....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS; Time to define those terms. You use "Con," "Conservative," "conservative," and "NeoCon" interchangably. I'm sure people here have no idea if you believe them to mean the same thing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm telling my MP to show a little Canadian muscle...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I'm telling my MP to show a little Canadian muscle...


asking him/her to do a little "shock and awe" ?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Just told them: "I have no problem with Canada taking on a more active role in
Afghanistan, provided the troops are well supplied and armed, and their
goals are clear."


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Updated Fri. Feb. 24 2006 8:51 AM ET
> In the exclusive poll for CTV News and The Globe and Mail, The Strategic Counsel asked Canadians if they would vote in favour or against sending troops to Afghanistan. Just 27 per cent were in favour and 62 per cent were against.
> 
> Furthermore, 73 per cent of respondents said the decision to send troops to Afghanistan should require parliamentary approval, while 20 per cent said it should not.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060223/oconnor_defence_plan_060223/20060223


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Quick! Send the new poll to Parliament before they vote!!!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Just told them: "I have no problem with Canada taking on a more active role in
> Afghanistan, provided the troops are well supplied and armed, and their
> goals are clear."


That should please the chicken-haws, the US puppet-masters and the military suppliers. Carry on Con soldier....

So what are the goals here? How do you define "success" here? Or will it be by the kill rate?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I'm telling my MP to show a little Canadian muscle...


Our soldiers deserve better than your support.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Heinlein's "The Puppet Masters" was a good book.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

NDP and BQ will vote against it.
Now it's the Libs to decide.


> "It's a serious issue, you don't debate sending people into harms way for two more years at 36 hours notice," Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh told CTV's Canada AM Wednesday.
> 
> Even Michael Ignatieff, one of the front runners for the Liberal leadership and one of the more bullish supporters of the Afghanistan mission, sounded a note of caution.
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...17/nato_afghan_060517/20060517?hub=TopStories


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> NDP and BQ will vote against it.
> Now it's the Libs to decide.
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...17/nato_afghan_060517/20060517?hub=TopStories


It's all up to the Liberal's now.

They can actually side step this, if their caucus still can't decide which way to go, by voting against this and then saying that they voted against it because they need more time to see the details/plans/objectives. As Dosanjh said, "It's a serious issue, you don't debate sending people into harms way for two more years at 36 hours notice."

I'm not sure what Harper's strategy was in springing this vote, but I don't think he's nearly half as clever as he thinks he is. The new poll numbers are interesting. Whether the vote is yea or nay, I think Harper's hawkishness will serve him and his party as badly in the long run as did his call to have us join the "Coalition of the Willing" in Iraq. Later he had to lie and say he never meant what he said. In my email yesterday to my Conservative MP and Cabinet Minister, I reminded him about how well that went.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Perhaps Harper knows he won't get the support he requires and this is part of an overarching strategy.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's not a confidence vote.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Perhaps Harper knows he won't get the support he requires and this is part of an overarching strategy.


I won't speculate on what his strategy might be, but it doesn't seem too bright to set up a vote thinking he might lose it. I suspect that a few days ago he thought he would win it.

I think Harper has shown a tendency to jump on what he thinks are slam dunk clever political strategies and then be surprised at the outcome. I don't think he gives a lot of credit to the public to think for themselves.

Two examples. (1) When Harper backed Gurmant Grewal in his quest to embarrass the Libs, he thought he had grabbed a winning issue, but most people thought it made his party look at bad as the Libs were perceived as being. (2) When Harper stood there during the Cabinet swearing-in ceremony with a giant s**t-eating grin on his face while Emerson and Fortier shocked the assembled media. In the end we know how badly that turned out for them.

I think this surprise vote may be another one of them, but that remains to be seen.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> It's not a confidence vote.


According to the Cons arguments from last year, when they thought the Liberal government should have fallen, maybe they consider it one. If Harper's strategy is to force his government to fall based on a vote he knows he would lose, I can't see how this would look good for him. It would be comical to see the Cons arguing that their government should fall based on a lost vote while the opposition would be saying the government should stay on.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall the rules about what is or isn't a confidence vote are entirely based on tradition, not legislation.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh I think Harper can MAKE it a confidence motion under parliamentary rules but I doubt very much he would. All he has to do is draft it as part of a money bill - ie extra funding.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

For all the conspiracy theory buffs here floating the idea of some "secret CON agenda" to force an election, score browny points with the "evil empire" etc. etc. the explanation is much simpler. NATO wants Canada to assume command in Kabul in 2008. NATO meets next week. Guess you can't answer that question without an answer from Parliament.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I won't speculate on what his strategy might be, but it doesn't seem too bright to set up a vote thinking he might lose it. I suspect that a few days ago he thought he would win it.


I agree. Losing votes this early in the game is not a good strategy. 

I think if the Liberals vote it down, they will come out not looking too good either. This whole mission was started by them.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Harper is presenting it now on CPAC, should be an interesting debate.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I agree. Losing votes this early in the game is not a good strategy.
> 
> I think if the Liberals vote it down, they will come out not looking too good either. This whole mission was started by them.


Well, started by Chretien/Martin, who many Libs are seeking to distance themselves from. Plus this isn't voting for an immediate withdrawal, only for or against an extension of the mission.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> score browny points with the "evil empire" etc. etc. the explanation is much simpler. NATO wants Canada to assume command in Kabul in 2008. NATO meets next week. Guess you can't answer that question without an answer from Parliament.er


The US has stated that it wants to reduce it's commitment in Afghanistan and leave it to other to clean their mess...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Well, started by Chretien/Martin, who many Libs are seeking to distance themselves from. Plus this isn't voting for an immediate withdrawal, only for or against an extension of the mission.


People don't seem to understand that part...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

OOooooo... I really dislike Harper's speech. The heaven in afterlife/hell on earth comment was not politically correct. He literally just dis'd about 1/4 of the worlds population.

That was terrible rhetoric.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Whoahhh did I understand that right? Did he just say that if they lose the will extend for one year... and then allude to going it alone and taking the issue to the Canadian people?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Harper sounds more and more like a cheap branch manager of the US...
Wonder what kind of embassy we will get - I'm sure that it won't be as spiffy as the US one in Iraq - but Big Daddy Harper can always dream...

The whole debate from the Cons side stinks of cheap patriotism. I don't support the extension...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Just started looking at CPAC via the web.

An NDP member just mentioned the government web site CanadianAlly.com. The site seemed to be solely concerned with linking Canada's involvement in the "War on Terror" to US - Canada trade. 

What the hell is this? Are they saying that our reasons for being in Afghanistan is just PR for better trade with the US?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Just started looking at CPAC via the web.
> 
> An NDP member just mentioned the government web site CanadianAlly.com. The site seemed to be solely concerned with linking Canada's involvement in the "War on Terror" to US - Canada trade.
> 
> What the hell is this? Are they saying that our reasons for being in Afghanistan is just PR for better trade with the US?


Go Big Daddy Harper - drag us into this quagmire!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Some quotes from CanadianAlly.com that are interspersed under the heading "Did you know? ..."



> Canada has the second-largest known oil reserves in the world
> Canada has committed over 16,000 troops to the war on terror
> Canada trades more with the U.S. than the entire European Union
> Canada has deployed 20 warships in the Global War on Terrorism
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What I meant by Harper not minding a loss on this--he could be shown to be a tough minded military guy, but then say he was shot down by the Liberals who had committed Canada to Afghanistan to begin with.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> What I meant by Harper not minding a loss on this--he could be shown to be a tough minded military guy, but then say he was shot down by the Liberals who had committed Canada to Afghanistan to begin with.


the Liberals have committed to a free vote on the issue
we'll just see how many vote yes or no

interesting how the current gov't, who when in opposition, pushed for free votes is not allowing their own MPs to do so

harpo will go ahead with a unitlateral ONE YEAR extension in the event his proposed 2 yr. extension gets voted down


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

(listening to the House debate)

Peter McKay gets the first reference to Hitler and wins the coveted Godwin Cup, when he refers to the NDP as "Neville Chamberlains". A stupid reference overused by hawks in every debate about any military conflict.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Amazing that the Dutch (whom Harper said they are going because of us) got 10 weeks of debate on the subject...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> the Liberals have committed to a free vote on the issue
> we'll just see how many vote yes or no


I wonder if there are 30 or so Libs who will vote for it - that's all Harper needs. I wonder how many still haven't made up their mind?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Ignatieff will be voting yes - another reason not to elect him as Liberal leader...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Amazing that the Dutch (whom Harper said they are going because of us) got 10 weeks of debate on the subject...


when i spoke with my MP he insisted that the urgency was great
hence the need to restrict debate

i asked him if a few days debate was too much to ask before putting cdn. soldiers in harms way - no reply from my Conservative MP


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

This is not our war and Harper and the Cons have only reinforced this in the debate. This is no rationale for extending and expanding our stay. It's a puppet US regime there with drug lords and war lords - they are just as barbaric as the Taliban was... "The War on Terror" is a farce and so is this....


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Fascinating strategy. Either Harper wins this vote, and looks the hero, or loses, and makes it the sole election issue. That's what his statement was. One year, no matter what, then for more after that it will go to the polls at the same time as he asks for a majority mandate. Will be interesting to see. Anyone done the math on how many Libs need to vote yes for this to fly?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ignatieff will be voting yes - another reason not to elect him as Liberal leader...


exactement


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

RevMatt said:


> Fascinating strategy. Either Harper wins this vote, and looks the hero, or loses, and makes it the sole election issue. That's what his statement was. One year, no matter what, then for more after that it will go to the polls at the same time as he asks for a majority mandate. Will be interesting to see. Anyone done the math on how many Libs need to vote yes for this to fly?


i'd like to see harpo sell this war in quebec which he would need (and has been paying for) to win a majority


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

He needs about 30, assuming a full House. That's about one-third of the Liberal MPs. I don't know enough about the Liberal caucus to speculate whether he'll get it or not. There's been a couple of Libs who have spoken out in favour, I believe.

Does anyone know if the vote is scheduled for a particular time?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

9:15 pm ET


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I came across an article that quotes 2 Liberal caucus members as saying they were 70 - 75 percent opposed at their meeting this morning. That 5 percent could be big. High drama, but I guess we'll know soon.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...b52c2-1b04-445e-ab30-750c9283acad&k=97949&p=1


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

But Big Daddy Harper has said he will not listen to democracy and extend the troops by one year, no matter what the outcome of the debate...

A flash vote like this stinks, we still don't know why there is a rush. It feels like writing a term paper a day before the assignment is due: just poor planning...


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Afghanistan doesn't present ANY sort of danger to our security or sovreignty


Yes, it does. Afghanistan is a hotbed of terrorist activity, and terrorism is a worldwide problem. There were terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, Washington D.C. and that little incident in NYC. Maybe Ottawa comes next? 

Iraq is another matter, another mess. Canadians are in Afghanistan protecting their homeland, as well they should. :clap:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

again, i would like to the harpo spin machine sell this cdn. military extension / expansion to quebecers

i'd like to see an election over this and if the cdn. electorate votes to support harper and his military expansionist policies, then so be it

let canadians decide what kind of canada they want
harper thinks he can win a majority over it
i'd like to find out if he is correct


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> Yes, it does. Afghanistan is a hotbed of terrorist activity, and terrorism is a worldwide problem. There were terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, Washington D.C. and that little incident in NYC. Maybe Ottawa comes next?


Ottawa maybe next if we mess where we don't belong.
Glad you drink the American kool-aid - go democracy! 
London = homegrown terrorist attack

Ever stop and think why the US was attacked?

Please link protecting our homeland with our aggressive moves in Afghanistan...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MissGulch said:


> Yes, it does. Afghanistan is a hotbed of terrorist activity, and terrorism is a worldwide problem. There were terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, Washington D.C. and that little incident in NYC. Maybe Ottawa next?
> 
> Iraq is another matter, another mess. Canadians are in Afghanistan protecting their homeland, as well they should. :clap:


Afghanistan's highest court couldn't deal with one of their own citizens coverting to Christianity

they exiled the person instead of striking down a law that is obviously unjust
is that the kind of democracy we are helping create?

have terrorists attacked Canada?
who created said terrorists?
you might want to look at U.S. foreign policy over the past 50 years
who's military weaponry did they buy?
why did the U.S. pull troops out of Aghanistan?
by your logic Canada should have supplied troops to GB when the IRA was attacking British troops/targets

we agreed to be there until feb. 2007 and we should stay until then

nation building hardly comes at the business end of an M-16

limiting debate to only 6 hours with only 36 hours notice while Holland debated for 10 months before extending their military stay in Afghanistan flies in the face of a truly democratic process


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MissGulch said:


> Yes, it does. Afghanistan is a hotbed of terrorist activity, and terrorism is a worldwide problem. There were terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, Washington D.C. and that little incident in NYC. Maybe Ottawa comes next?


I highly doubt that MissGulch. If you are a terrorist there are far softer, more effective targets than Ottawa. If anything, one would think that the intelligent terrorist would not want to call undue attention to a country bordering the US where you could quite easily set up a base of operations to conduct attacks at the US.



MissGulch said:


> Iraq is another matter, another mess. Canadians are in Afghanistan protecting their homeland, as well they should. :clap:


There is a term I can't stand... homeland. Sounds way to much like motherland or fatherland. Why they couldn't use the word "domestic" security or "public" security is beyond me.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ever stop and think why the US was attacked?


Yes. We love our oil too much, prop up dictators and generally stick our noses where we don't belong. But it still doesn't justify piloting jumbo jets into office buildings. 

I haven't drunk the Kool-Aid, nor even sipped it. But I do know that the Taliban is a terrorist menace that threatens the free world. It's nice having your autonomy, and feeling free to stick your nose at Uncle Sam, but there are still responsibilities and obligations when you're a part of the free world. "Freedom isn't free" says the bumper sticker on the guy's car next door. 

OTOH, I have a question. If so many nations are involved in the Afghanistan project, while is bin Laden still on the lam? He's probably having a falafel sandwich on a street corner as we read this.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MissGulch said:


> I haven't drunk the Kool-Aid, nor even sipped it. But I do know that the Taliban is a terrorist menace that threatens the free world. It's nice having your autonomy, and feeling free to stick your nose at Uncle Sam, but there are still responsibilities when you're a part of the free world. "Freedom isn't free" says the bumper sticker on the guy's car next door.


Actually that is part of the problem... The Taliban were only terrorists over their own population. While they may have harboured Al Qaeda, they certainly weren't and are not global terrorists.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ottawa maybe next if we mess where we don't belong.
> Glad you drink the American kool-aid - go democracy!
> London = homegrown terrorist attack
> 
> Ever stop and think why the US was attacked?


So you're saying the 2000+ people buried in a mountain of concrete that fateful September morning had it coming? 

MacGuiver


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Actually that is part of the problem... The Taliban were only terrorist over their own population. While they may have harboured Al Qaeda, they certainly weren't and are not global terrorists.


I know, the whole mess just sickens me. Iraq was a distraction from the unfinished business in Afghanistan, and believe me, I agree with you more than you know. The U.S. military kicked out an operational layer of the Taliban and declared "we won, YAY!" and moved onto that protracted disaster called Eye-Rak. 

What a freaking mess. All of it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> But I do know that the Taliban is a *terrorist menace* that threatens the *free world*. It's nice having your autonomy, and feeling free to stick your nose at Uncle Sam, but there are still responsibilities and obligations when you're a part of the *free world*. "Freedom isn't free" says the bumper sticker on the guy's car next door.


You sound like a GW Bush and his slogans....


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:



> You sound like a GW Bush and his slogans....


Comparing me to Bush is about the worst thing anybody on Earth could ever say to me.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> So you're saying the 2000+ people buried in a mountain of concrete that fateful September morning had it coming?
> 
> MacGuiver


It isn't a matter of having it coming... When a segment of people feel the need to fight back against an oppressor they use whichever tactics they think will work.

9/11 was a message and the people killed were certainly innocent victims... Some could argue just as the people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were innocent victims. Now some would argue that we were at war with Japan, which is very true, however to these Islamic fanatics they ceratinly feel that they are at war with us.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> 9/11 was a message and the people killed were certainly innocent victims...


If Canada is attacked... who will be the first to step up to the plate and blame the Americans?

Or declare that they were victims... sh!t happens.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> So you're saying the 2000+ people buried in a mountain of concrete that fateful September morning had it coming


Being simplistic again to garner sympathy. 
The US was not attacked without reason - whether you agree with Bin Ladens reasoning or not matters not in the least.
The US armed and trained Bin Laden for their own strategic purposes against their then "mortal enemy".
The US created that deadly force and the "win" against the USSR provided lessons to Bin Laden in taking on super powers which he promptly did to "rid the region" of meddling foreign powers.
Those that died in 9/11 were collateral damage as a consequence of US foreign policy choices.
There are risks in any course of action.
People died in London as a result of British Foreign policy in Ireland. Irish died as a result of British foreign policy.
Non combatants don't "deserve" to be caught in conflict. But there ARE consequences when sovereign powers meddle.
The US armed Saddam as well.
There are no "simple equations" - white hat black hats - despite the fondest wishes of some.

Interesting choice of word "fateful".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MissGulch said:


> I know, the whole mess just sickens me. Iraq was a distraction from the unfinished business in Afghanistan, and believe me, I agree with you more than you know. The U.S. military kicked out an operational layer of the Taliban and declared "we won, YAY!" and moved onto that protracted disaster called Eye-Rak.
> 
> What a freaking mess. All of it.


Sounds to me you are an American who is not fond of Bush. How your comments could be interpreted any other way is a mystery to me.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

SINC said:


> Sounds to me you are an American who is not fond of Bush. How your comments could be interpreted any other way is a mystery to me.


I LOATHE Bush, Sinc. I'm just not in 100% agreement with some of the posters here. I guess they feel either I'm with them, or against them.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> OTOH, I have a question. If so many nations are involved in the Afghanistan project, while is bin Laden still on the lam? He's probably having a falafel sandwich on a street corner as we read this.


perhaps if Bush put 1/2 as many troops into Afghanistan as he did into Iraq that Bin Laden and his conspirators would be captured or dead
after 911 the U.S. had world support for rooting out the Al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan
Unfortunately the U.S. used 911 as an excuse to invade Iraq which in no way was linked to 911

hence bin Laden is free, Al Qaed and Taliban exist, Afghanistan is in shambles as is the U.S. economy
on the good side (i'm being ironic here in case macfury takes me to task) oil prices are through the roof and Halliburton stock prices are doing very nicely
so all is good if you are Dick Cheney or his stock broker


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> So you're saying the 2000+ people buried in a mountain of concrete that fateful September morning had it coming?


Not saying they had it coming - 
We have been hearing nothing except "terrorism" for the past few years.
It's about time we get our sense of proportion and reality back. 
Every month, you have more American dying from gunshot wounds than they did in 9/11.
Sure the attack was shocking to Americans and the twin towers symbolic but does it justify the response that we have had?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> If Canada is attacked... who will be the first to step up to the plate and blame the Americans/


Canadians are quite capable of taking responsibility for their own choices in how to act.
If we choose to act as combatants - then we must accept the consequences.

...so does the US for it's choices....and the consequences....one of which was 9/11.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> perhaps if Bush put 1/2 as many troops into Afghanistan as he did into Iraq that Bin Laden and his conspirators would be captured or dead
> after 911 the U.S. had world support for rooting out the Al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan
> Unfortunately the U.S. used 911 as an excuse to invade Iraq which in no way was linked to 911
> 
> hence bin Laden is free, Al Qaed and Taliban exist, Afghanistan is in shambles


BINGO!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MissGulch said:


> If Canada is attacked... who will be the first to step up to the plate and blame the Americans?
> 
> Or declare that they were victims... sh!t happens.


Probably quite a few will blame the Americans through their foreign policy... And I think your are misinterpreting something... I'm not saying that the 2000 plus victims of 9/11 are inconsequential. 

But the US was at war with Islamic terrorists long before 9/11 so It should not come as that much of a shock that there are people looking to harm Americans.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MissGulch said:


> If Canada is attacked... who will be the first to step up to the plate and blame the Americans?
> 
> Or declare that they were victims... sh!t happens.


I would hope that the Americans would help us out as Canadians helped the U.S. on 911, (landing planes, housing and feeding thousands of U.S. citizens) but instead I hear our anthem booed in San Jose

how soon they forget


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> sh!t happens.


...no consequences happen.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> But the US was at war with Islamic terrorists long before 9/11 so It should not come as that much of a shock that there are people looking to harm Americans.


I'm going to promote you now to president of the United States, jonesy. The fruit effer avatar can be our little secret. 

The WTC and Pentagon have just been attacked. 3,000 are dead in a smoldering pit. Now that you're president, what will you do?


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I would hope that the Americans would help us out as Canadians helped the U.S. on 911, (landing planes, housing and feeding thousands of U.S. citizens) but instead I hear our anthem booed in San Jose
> 
> how soon they forget


Judging a nation by its sports fans? BOO! (That was for the post.)


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> The WTC and Pentagon have just been attacked. 3,000 are dead in a smoldering pit. Now that you're president, what will you do?


Call my friends at PNAC and say we have hit Jackpot!

No wait, say I'm going after Bin Laden as an excuse to invade IRAQ?

Wait, that's not it....

Read a story to schoolchildren? Yup that's the ticket


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The WTC and Pentagon have just been attacked. 3,000 are dead in a smoldering pit. Now that you're president, what will you do?


Exactly what the US did .......and finish it and not attack Iraq.
The US actually had an admirable efficient victory overthrowing the Taliban and garnered world support.

Then Bush and Co blew it big time.

One thing you fail to mention......."the US mainland was attacked as an ongoing part of a conflict with a power they armed and trained"

That's not a an inconsequential caveat.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Call my friends at PNAC and say we have hit Jackpot!
> 
> No wait, say I'm going after Bin Laden as an excuse to invade IRAQ?
> 
> ...


We already have a pinhead to do this stuff. I want better leadership. But thanks anyway.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Then Bush and Co blew it big time.


not at all
they did exactly what president cheney told them to do
just look at all the profits in the oil and military hardware industries


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

As was said much earlier in this thread, Afghanistan is not Canada's mess to clean up. Afghanistan troubles started decades ago when the United States decided to play power games there and armed and trained Osama and those who became the Taliban because of their paranoid anti-communism.

Canada volunteered to help, after 9/11 along with many other nations in a multi-lateral effort. Then the United States, instead of living up to their responsibilities in the country chose to invade Iraq and leave other countries to clean up the mess. As was also said earlier in this thread, it was the United States of America that cut and ran here. This is because the cynical Bush Administration doesn't give a damn about the people of Afghanistan.

Canada is not guaranteeing freedom or democracy in Afghanistan. The supposed democracy there is made up of elected drug lords and military thugs who are making deals with the US government and corporations. Canadian troops are helping to clear areas of the country so that a gas pipeline for export can be built.

Afghanistan is not a place where a war can be "won". In 2009 there will still be insurgents in the hills unless the United States government does an about face and puts some serious efforts into rebuilding the country, as they so solemnly promised. I won't hold my breath for that. Whatever Canada does or doesn't do will make little difference to the outcome.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MissGulch said:


> I'm going to promote you now to president of the United States, jonesy. The fruit effer avatar can be our little secret.
> 
> The WTC and Pentagon have just been attacked. 3,000 are dead in a smoldering pit. Now that you're president, what will you do?


 HHHmmmm... Three things. This will sound very Machiavellian, and I am sure to be flamed from both sides.

#1 Nuke multiple targets in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Afghanistan</st1lace></st1:country-region>.
<o> </o>
I would get best estimates as to where Bin Laden, et al were hiding and turn 20 square miles of desert into glass. This serves multiple purposes. It potentially (although not likely) cuts the head off of Al Qaeda. It sends a message to every other nation in the world that the US is not to be treated in this way… that regardless of sovereignty, the US will retaliate (not preemptive strikes) at any nation harboring those that would attack innocent US citizens. This would make nations harbouring terrorist think twice about their actions. Any rational government would not want agents of Al Qaeda operating within their borders knowing that the <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region> will respond with the harshest possible force should those terrorists attack the <st1lace w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region></st1lace> while based within their borders.
<o> </o>
NOTE… clearly 5 years after the fact this is no longer an option, however right after 9/11 the US could have done this, and while there would be certainly an outcry against this action, at that time there was sufficient pro US (long since squandered by Bush et al) that would have softened the international protests to such actions.

#2 <st1lace w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Manhattan</st1:City></st1lace> Project to develop petroleum replacement
<o> </o>
Immediately I would start a “<st1:City w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Manhattan</st1lace></st1:City>” like project to develop an alternative to petroleum based technology. Hydrogen, Ethanol, whatever… On the same scale the <st1:City w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Manhattan</st1lace></st1:City> project was during the forties. Take the best and brightest minds, provide relatively unlimited resources and militarize the project.
<o> </o>
The goal is to remove the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">US</st1lace></st1:country-region> from the influence of the need for foreign energy sources. In the end, if the middle east wants to implode… let them. 
<o> </o>
Being the dominant economy in the world and having developed a petroleum alternative would only solidify the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">US</st1lace></st1:country-region> domination of the world economy for the next century.

#3 Real UN reformations 
<o> </o>
Militarize the UN peacekeeping functions… make them proactive, rather than reactive. It is in the best interests of all nations to maintain peace and security. Turn the UN into a global policeman. 
<o> </o>
The <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">US</st1lace></st1:country-region> clearly acts the part of global policeman, however as an individual nation amongst many they are clearly mistrusted in this role. Move the policing under the auspices of the UN and never appear to act unilaterally, always act under the auspices of the UN. They tried this with <st1:country-region w:st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region>, however I think that world opinion would have been different if Blue Helmets had rolled into <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Iraq</st1lace></st1:country-region> as opposed to US Desert Camo Helmets.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The US is a rogue state - it will not listen to the UN.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Absolutely ridiculous - consider yourself flamed .

The US HAD Bin Laden - they failed to finish the job. Fanatics have no fear of massive retailiation.
Fanatics have to be dealt with by the communities they reside in and fuel for their recruitment removed.
By your lights Britain should have nuked Ireland.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Absolutely ridiculous - consider yourself flamed .
> 
> The US HAD Bin Laden - they failed to finish the job. Fanatics have no fear of massive retailiation.
> Fanatics have to be dealt with by the communities they reside in and fuel for their recruitment removed.
> By your lights Britain should have nuked Ireland.


Hey I said it was Machiavellian... And we were talking about the scenario right after 9/11, and no it is not exactly the same with Ireland now is it?

You can't fight fanatics, you can prevent those non fanatics from providing them shelter.

Yeah Item #1 would be the most controversial, however it does not work without Item #2. You have to remove the reason for the fanatics to attack in the first place. US Foreign Policy is absolutely the reason why Islamists are at war with the US. Remove the reason for the us interest in the region and you remove the reason for Islamists to be attack US interests.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> The US is a rogue state - it will not listen to the UN.


a rogue nation that has used nuclear weapons against another country


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MPs vote 149 to 145 to support gov't motion to extend, by 2 years, Canada's military mission in Afghanistan

today a big part of the Canada I knew died


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> MPs vote 149 to 145 to support gov't motion to extend, by 2 years, Canada's military mission in Afghanistan
> 
> today a big part of the Canada I knew died


Good thing it did too. Our troops deserve our support. Nothing less will do.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The U.S. still has 18,000 troops in Afghanistan--just to put a real number on it. It's not like they're gone.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> MPs vote 149 to 145 to support gov't motion to extend, by 2 years, Canada's military mission in Afghanistan
> 
> today a big part of the Canada I knew died


Iggy and Brisson have just killed their chances at the Liberal leadership.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The U.S. still has 18,000 troops in Afghanistan--just to put a real number on it. It's not like they're gone.


Another real number would be 133,000 troops in Iraq.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

... and plans to move more of those troops from Afghanistan to Iraq.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Good thing it did too. Our troops deserve our support. Nothing less will do.


So we support our troops by sending them to die in an unwinnable war, as proxies for US foreign policy? Tell me again in 2009.

Does anyone really know what we are doing in Afghanistan, besides the TV news soundbites? Are we really using our military to pursue a just cause and die for moral and noble ideas?

Afghanistan doesn't meet the test of a just war, in my opinion. It might have if the US hadn't lost interest in their promised nation building. Which they've now done twice to Afghanistan since the withdrawal of the Soviet Union.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> today a big part of the Canada I knew died


I'd say that the Libs have lost any chance at a majority. Many will not vote for the Libs because of this - nice to see a party self-destruct. Bill Graham has lost credibility in the eyes of his supporters. Well it narrows the fields of candidates now. 
This is not a UN mission but Operation Enduring Freedom - and Harper and the boys did not explain our role very well. 
Not that it mattered, Harper was going to ignore the vote and extend it by one year...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Iggy and Brisson have just killed their chances at the Liberal leadership.


I knew Iggy would support war, but was surprised by Brison and Bill Graham

is there some way we can send Iggy to Afghanistan?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'd say that the Libs have lost any chance at a majority. Many will not vote for the Libs because of this - nice to see a party self-destruct. Bill Graham has lost credibility in the eyes of his supporters. Well it narrows the fields of candidates now.
> This is not a UN mission but Operation Enduring Freedom - and Harper and the boys did not explain our role very well.
> Not that it mattered, Harper was going to ignore the vote and extend it by one year...



something harpo et al went to great lengths to ignore
my Canada just became an agressor nation


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> MPs vote 149 to 145 to support gov't motion to extend, by 2 years, Canada's military mission in Afghanistan
> 
> today a big part of the Canada I knew died


Welcome to democracy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Speccy: As I read your comments, the Conservatives are going against the will of the people by extending the Afghan mission and are dragging us into a quagmire--but the Liberals are self-destructing and won't win a majority? So what are you predicting--a Liberal minority?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Speccy: As I read your comments, the Conservatives are going against the will of the people by extending the Afghan mission and are dragging us into a quagmire--but the Liberals are self-destructing and won't win a majority? So what are you predicting--a Liberal minority?


i'm predicting that the Canada I once knew as a peacekeeping nation with a flag that was respected all over the world has fallen to become Amerika-lite


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ok, so that was just political posturing.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Ok, so that was just political posturing.


No silly MF, that was Big Daddy Harper posturing...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Ok, so that was just political posturing.


so 62% (as per ctv poll feb 26, 2006) of Canadians are against our military being in Afghanistan, but Harpo knows best

shame on our MPs - chicken hawks

smells very much like the fix was in since the Libs don't think an election is a good idea, but I would bet dollars to donuts that making war vs. peace an election issue would make for a great election


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

It was rather farcical this evening - how quickly it degenerated into flag waiving...

This report outlines part of the problems we are facing there


> Nato's Afghanistan troop dilemma
> 
> Most Afghans and many diplomats in the capital, Kabul, see it as the start of a US withdrawal from Afghanistan, no matter how profusely Washington's spin machine insists that "the US will never abandon the Afghans".
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS, if you're going to quote a big gob of text, please identify the source.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

My MP finally stood up and did something useful and voted against the extension.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

AS Source
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4526150.stm

••

Actually I didn't care a lot one way or another except int he manner in which it was undertaken.
Better it's off the table for the moment - let the Canadian Forces fulfill their role for NATO while Canada decides on what image it wants to project - peacemaker or combatant?
This role in Afghanistan sits right on the borderline.

Good article here
http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=841



> War and Military Issues: *To Save Afghanistan, Remove American Element as Essential First Step*
> 
> *"I did not join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy"*
> By Robert Billyard
> ...


Nato's Conundrum indeed .....ours too.

This certainly sounds familiar



> _The American approach to fighting terrorism conflates three types of activities-war fighting, peacekeeping and anti-terrorist police operations, arguably *to the detriment of all three.*_


Exactly right - to the detriment in particular for Canadians of our preferred role in the latter two. We squander that heritage in being seen as US "stand ins" in a strategic conflict not of our making.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> My MP finally stood up and did something useful and voted against the extension.


My MP stood up for Empire Lite.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Harper wins. He outplayed the Liberals. He moved fast, trying to outflank them, buried them in rhetoric, and forced them to waffle. The real result for him has nothing to do with our military choices, but lots to do with making the Liberals look like disorganised fools.

I'm sure it's a nice bonus that he also managed to effectively cut off any real intelligent debate about our military that might lead to us making choices based on effectiveness and what is best for us, rather than what is best for the current US administration.

You're right, Vandave, this is how the farce we call democracy works. I could live with the decision if it were the result of thought and debate, but once again the Canadian people, and our men and women in uniform, get bent over and diddled on the altar of Political expediency. Dammit, how many of these situations do we have to have before people get their heads out of their back passages and give their votes to a party that will actually reform the system?

Bah.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

An undercurrent was to destabilize the Liberals. That has worked. Many did not show up and they are to blame also. I have no objection to the Free vote that the Liberals did (too bad the Cons all voted en Bloc)....

Feel free to e-mail these boneheads and tell them off
Ray Bonin (Nickelback)
John Cannis (Scarborough Centre)
Raymond Chan (Richmond)
Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal)
John Godfrey (Don Valley West)
Ralph Goodale (Wascana)
Charles Hubbard (Miramichi)
Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt)
Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard)
Lucienne Robillard (Westmount-Ville-Marie)
Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill)


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

I have no problem with free votes! As far as I am concerned, that is the only kind of legitimate vote.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

This mission is moving Canada from peacemaker to search and destroy. There will be blowback and that will lead to more violence...
What strikes me is the ease of that we are using American catch-phrases "war on terror", "freedom" , "defending democracy" and other irrelevant snippets...

It seems that we truly have a polarized nation. If this looks a lot like American, it's because we are heading down that road.

The way that the Con government has acted cheapens the Canadian system. The guttersnipe tactics used in Parliament lower basic civility and I don't expect any political party to show higher moral ground - once you lower standards, they hardly rise again. 

David Orchard wrote this telling piece


> *We are wrong in Afghanistan*
> By David Orchard
> 
> But why is Canada in Afghanistan?
> ...


http://www.davidorchard.com/online/articles-2006/orchard-afghanistan-060510.html


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I had an though at lunch time. This who matter can be solved by an opposition bill or private memeber's bill to clairify the mandate of our mission, the command structure, the cost, the timetable, etc. The new *Canadian Mission in Afghanistan Clarity bill would supercede the bill that was passed last night*.

It's what much of parliament wanted. I think this is possible. Last night's vague bill can be cleaned up retroactively. I think the Liberals and the NDP would be for this. Probably the Bloc. The Conservatives would be hard pressed to vote against their current support for the mission.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> An undercurrent was to destabilize the Liberals. That has worked. Many did not show up and they are to blame also. I have no objection to the Free vote that the Liberals did (too bad the Cons all voted en Bloc)....
> 
> Feel free to e-mail these boneheads and tell them off
> Ray Bonin (Nickelback)
> ...


shame on them
shame on Paul Martin for weasling out of voting
and shame on Irwin Cotler, a supposed human rights advocate


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> I had an though at lunch time. This who matter can be solved by an opposition bill or private memeber's bill to clairify the mandate of our mission, the command structure, the cost, the timetable, etc. The new *Canadian Mission in Afghanistan Clarity bill would supercede the bill that was passed last night*.
> 
> It's what much of parliament wanted. I think this is possible. Last night's vague bill can be cleaned up retroactively. I think the Liberals and the NDP would be for this. Probably the Bloc. The Conservatives would be hard pressed to vote against their current support for the mission.


Sounds good to me. So why are we there?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> a supposed human rights advocate


Shame on you, oh 'shamer', for so transparently skirting around human-rights issues with your naive isolationist mentality. It's easy to complain about everything when you support nothing.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> I have no problem with free votes! As far as I am concerned, that is the only kind of legitimate vote.


Actually, a free vote can get you kicked out of your party. Let's be realistic. Most politicians get voted in based on the party they represent. That party has a political platform. To vote AGAINST the political platform you are supposed to represent doesn't make sense. If you don't support your parties political views, become an independent.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Shame on you, oh 'shamer', for so transparently skirting around human-rights issues with your naive isolationist mentality


Easy accusations without any arguments from The Beej - I see a pattern here, you can do better Beej....

You have a puppet government where some ministers are war lords. military men and drug lords. So far there has been no accountability there....Jamil Jumbish is happy....


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and shame on Irwin Cotler, a supposed human rights advocate


Yeah what's he thinking? Our presence in Afghanistan is denying the basic human rights of Afghani women to be publicly executed for dress code violations and we're forcing them to get an education.  

Shame shame!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Easy accusations without any arguments from The Beej - I see a pattern here, you can do better Beej....
> 
> You have a puppet government where some ministers are war lords. military men and drug lords. So far there has been no accountability there....


Take into consideration what was there and what could be there, not just noticing that things aren't up to our standards. 'no accountability' is over-the-top 'Specing (same as neocon fearmongering!  ) as is drawing a vague picture with empty 'bad' statements and ignoring what is going on or would go on without help. :clap: Do you expect our military to be placed in areas without serious problems? Perhaps in our streets. 

I'll gladly engage in a meaningful discussion (there was some very good stuff here from many participants) but 'Spec generally trolls them and things degrade to what we're doing now.  It's easy to say 'ignore him' but, in the end, a screaming baby can interrupt adult conservations despite the will to ignore. Still, that feature is ever-more tempting. Perhaps a trail-run is in order.

On the topic at hand I fall into the group that supports the decision but that is thoroughly unimpressed with the process. Politics is politics but it can, in cases like this one, be less blatant.

[Edit: Tried out the ignore feature. It's a little odd looking, but it didn't seem like such a bad option.]


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Actually, a free vote can get you kicked out of your party. Let's be realistic. Most politicians get voted in based on the party they represent. That party has a political platform. To vote AGAINST the political platform you are supposed to represent doesn't make sense. If you don't support your parties political views, become an independent.


That is the current system. And it sucks donkey balls. A party can just as easily be an alliance of people who generally think along the same lines. That is, in fact, a far more honest way description. No two people in the world think exactly the same way on all matters, let alone a whole party full of people. I do not believe that a whipped vote is democratic, nor do I consider it truly legitimate. It may be the best we now have, but that doesn't make it good.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah what's he thinking? Our presence in Afghanistan is denying the basic human rights of Afghani women to be publicly executed for dress code violations and we're forcing them to get an education.)


And were where you before 9/11 on this subject? 
Where are you now of Darfur? 
Should we start to name countries that are our "allies" that practice what you decry?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RM: Strangely enough, for a bit I've been thinking about a national independent party. No platform beyond independent voting, some fluff statements about common values and a mechanism to elect a leader (and how limited the leader's powers are). The party would use a consolidated budget and name to build national credibility and funding but with a heavy focus on 'get to know your Independent Candidate' (iCandidate?). No real policy advertising, more just brand-building to get people to start listening to the local candidate. 

There could be something here, although it will take a lot more thought. How are local candidates chosen etc. Worth considering, I think.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> There could be something here, although it will take a lot more thought. How are local candidates chosen etc. Worth considering, I think.


Something that seems to be happening around Quebec lately (provincial level) but any movement needs strong leaders...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Take into consideration what was there and what could be there, not just noticing that things aren't up to our standards. 'no accountability' is over-the-top 'Specing (same as neocon fearmongering!  ) as is drawing a vague picture with empty 'bad' statements and ignoring what is going on or would go on without help. :clap: Do you expect our military to be placed in areas without serious problems? Perhaps in our streets.


I will defer to Will Rogers on these
“When you get into trouble 5,000 miles from home, you’ve got to have been looking for it".
"If we ever pass out as a great nation we ought to put on our tombstone, 'America died from a delusion that she has moral leadership."

Hamid Karzai is a puppet for the most part - unless he is directly implied in something objectionable to the West, he will likely be there awhile. We will turn a blind eye to the abuses committed there and even some of the drug trade (Ahmad Wali Khan Karzai is a fine drug lord).




Beej said:


> On the topic at hand I fall into the group that supports the decision but that is thoroughly unimpressed with the process. Politics is politics but it can, in cases like this one, be less blatant.


... you let a Politician return home from Washington and announce, "Boys we lowered your taxes. We had to borrow the money to do it, but we did it." Say, they would elect him for life.
- Will Rogers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> And were where you before 9/11 on this subject?
> Where are you now of Darfur?
> Should we start to name countries that are our "allies" that practice what you decry?


Before 9/11 I was just as outraged. 
I'm just as outraged about Darfur however I don't favor African lives over Afghanis. We, and the world community should intervene there too if we can. I've seen enough pictures of African women with their hands cut off to say enough is enough.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> This mission is moving Canada from peacemaker to search and destroy. There will be blowback and that will lead to more violence...
> What strikes me is the ease of that we are using American catch-phrases "war on terror", "freedom" , "defending democracy" and other irrelevant snippets...
> 
> David Orchard wrote this telling piece
> ...


Orchard's article was exactly right. But the US isn't pulling out, they just want someone else to look after the need for soldiers. They'll keep their hand in and will keep making deals with warlords and military thugs outside of Kabul. This is about the huge reserves of oil and gas in Kazakhstan and securing a route through Afghanistan for pipelines. 

The US and other countries have ignored their promises of reconstruction aid by a huge amount. If this mission is all about the Afghan people where is the money? I found some interesting numbers on Afghanistan Watch. (link is to a .pdf document)



> • Afghan government and World Bank estimate of reconstruction needs: $27.5 billion, over 7 years
> 
> • Pledges by major international donors for Afghan Reconstruction, 2001- June 2004: $9.7 billion
> 
> ...


And by the way, there are estimates saying that the bill to the US for the Iraq war could now top *One Trillion Dollars*. Just imagine what a small fraction of that money could have done to help the Afghan people and ensure that their country doesn't return to chaos.

(later addition) If this is about reducing the chances for terrorists to develop in Afghanistan what better investment could we make there but to shower the country with rebuilding aid and humanitarian assistance. Instead we shower them with troops and weapons, torture facilities, make deals with hated drug warlords and thugs, thereby increasing resentment, and ensuring that there will be ever more terrorists. By 2009 the swamp will be bigger and the world will be less safe.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej, that is indeed something I have been kicking around for years. It would at least be a temporary way to bring something that actually resembles democracy without drastically changing the system.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A centrist version of Mannings effort.
The Ontario party is not a bad start point


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, re your comment that "And by the way, there are estimates saying that the bill to the US for the Iraq war could now top One Trillion Dollars.", check out this web site. $281 billion US and counting.

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> GA, re your comment that "And by the way, there are estimates saying that the bill to the US for the Iraq war could now top One Trillion Dollars.", check out this web site. $281 billion US and counting.
> 
> http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182


That's an estimate of the ongoing total Dr.G. and I've seen those counters before. I quoted the 1 Trillion figure from memory, but I looked up the story again and I was wrong. Including total costs such as long term health care to Iraq veterans, Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz estimated in January that the cost could top *Two Trillion Bucks*.

Other economists have said that figure might be conservative, one thing that might have been left out is a calculation including the rising cost of oil into that figure.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, I see your point. Re "long term health care to Iraq veterans", they shall sadly do what was done for Vietnam war vets -- forget about them once they return home. Those serving in Iraq from the National Guard are already returning home to find that the guarantee of their job being there upon their return is now worthless. Due to the "stop loss" clause in their agreement, men and women are finding that they are having their tour of duty extended because there are not enough troops to replace these men and women. Sadly, because they are now gone beyond their agreed upon tours, their employer is forced to fill their role. Some are coming back wounded and cannot do what they once did before going to Iraq. The VA is being flooded with requests for help, but it is falling on deaf ears.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Beej, that is indeed something I have been kicking around for years. It would at least be a temporary way to bring something that actually resembles democracy without drastically changing the system.


Aside from the wording about 'resembles democracy' we seem to agree that it would be a good thing. Do you think our system doesn't resemble democracy because it's not what you want? :heybaby: I'm not even sure I'm joking with that one. Sorry.

iParty still wouldn't be a likely option for me but I think their credible existence would improve the real parties.  In the end, I favour strong and unified national governance but right now the fearsome foursome just aren't creating a good set of choices. The demise of the Bloc may be all that's needed, but a solid independent's movement (non-ideological) would help to keep them in check.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

So back to Afghanistan - what if the USA had not been dragged into the Iraq quagmire by Bush, but instead put 2.5% of their estimated Iraq total ($50 Billion) into Afghanistan reconstruction aid? It really is their historical obligation to have done so anyway, having promised but never delivered aid to the country after the withdrawal of the Soviet Union and after using the Afghan Mujahadeen as their proxy in that war.

The United States has cut and run from their historical obligations in the region and now want Canada and other countries to clean up their intractable mess with the blood of our soldiers and billions from our citizens. Harper and a handful of Liberals have now obliged the US quite nicely. Maybe Dubya will throw a steak on the BBQ down at Crawford this summer for Stephen and give him a nice handshake.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So back to Afghanistan - what if the USA had not been dragged into the Iraq quagmire by Bush, but instead put 2.5% of their estimated Iraq total ($50 Billion) into Afghanistan reconstruction aid? It really is their historical obligation to have done so anyway, having promised but never delivered aid to the country after the withdrawal of the Soviet Union and after using the Afghan Mujahadeen as their proxy in that war.
> 
> The United States has cut and run from their historical obligations in the region and now want Canada and other countries to clean up their intractable mess with the blood of our soldiers and billions from our citizens. Harper and a handful of Liberals have now obliged the US quite nicely. Maybe Dubya will throw a steak on the BBQ down at Crawford this summer for Stephen and give him a nice handshake.


Afghanistan would still require military support so then you've got those cost multipliers again ($50B wouldn't do it) but that would have been a much better option. Of course, the whole Iraq thing was grossly mishandled by a couple top powers, the worst of which was the U.S. Saddam could have been contained (toppled if he continued to interfere with inspectors) if the empty rhetoric didn't accelerate so quickly. 

Afghanistan is not, however, just cleaning up their mess. Not everything can be pinned on 'Dubya' or historical grievances, especially if it's used as a reason to not help. There are humanitarian and strategic and peace reasons to help Afghanistan. They may not be the number one priority in the world (depending on how the issues are balanced) but we are there now and have seen good reason to stay. Placing all the blame on the U.S. (I'm not sure you are, but I'm sure some do) is misleading and, regardless, that doesn't help anyone. Place the blame but, does that mean we shouldn't help?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Of course, the whole Iraq thing was grossly mishandled by a couple top powers, the worst of which was the U.S. _Saddam could have been contained (toppled if he continued to interfere with inspectors) if the empty rhetoric didn't accelerate so quickly._


Was he really a that scary? Or did Amerika build him up to be that way? He's been demonized (he was a U.S. ally jadis), the ties between Bin Laden and him were farcical. Pax America by a rogue nation....  






Beej said:


> Afghanistan is not, however, just cleaning up their mess. Not everything can be pinned on 'Dubya' or historical grievances, especially if it's used as a reason to not help. There are humanitarian and strategic and peace reasons to help Afghanistan. They may not be the number one priority in the world (depending on how the issues are balanced) but we are there now and have seen good reason to stay. Placing all the blame on the U.S. (I'm not sure you are, but I'm sure some do) is misleading and, regardless, that doesn't help anyone. Place the blame but, does that mean we shouldn't help?


Well, yes it is cleaning up their mess. We would have never been in Afghanistan if it were not for 9/11. This was done at the request of 'Dubya'. Too bad Iraq caught his attention...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Was he really a that scary? Or did Amerika build him up to be that way? He's been demonized (he was a U.S. ally jadis), the ties between Bin Laden and him were farcical. Pax America by a rogue nation....
> ....
> Well, yes it is cleaning up their mess. We would of never been in Afghanistan if it were not for 9/11. This was done at the request of 'Dubya'. Too bad Iraq caught his attention...


The complementary problem was France's idiotic 'never' attitude. As I've stated before, Canada and the UK (and a couple others) could probably have come up with something reasonable involving strictly enforced inspections. Interfering with the inspections required a response for UN credibility but not a 'with us or agin us' cowboy crusade. 

In the aftermath, it seems to have been forgotten that there was reasonable discussion about the need to do something, but the U.S.-France clash sent everthing to heck. The U.S. was the key transgressor, but ignoring France's role in corrupting an international process seems unreasonably 'blame Bush for everything'.
....
'We would of never been in Afghanistan if it were not for 9/11' -- yes and that is a horrible thing (not meaning just Canada). Adagio had the point on this one. But MissGulch's comments are also very appropriate. Calling a widely agreed upon response 'cleaning up their mess' simply ignores the circumstances. 

The case can (easily) be made that the U.S. didn't do enough (they cut and run) but we did go there, and many nations went there. Blaming the U.S. for their 'cut and run' while expecting Canada to leave makes no sense. Must we follow Bush's horrid lead? Again: blame all you want, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't help.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Too bad Iraq caught his attention...


Iraq always was the target, oil and all
look at how many permanent military bases the U.S. is building in Iraq
it's about "presence" in the theatre
Afghanistan was merely a in/convenient stepping stone


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> The complementary problem was France's idiotic 'never' attitude. As I've stated before, Canada and the UK (and a couple others) could probably have come up with something reasonable involving strictly enforced inspections. Interfering with the inspections required a response for UN credibility but not a 'with us or agin us' cowboy crusade.
> 
> In the aftermath, it seems to have been forgotten that there was reasonable discussion about the need to do something, but the U.S.-France clash sent everthing to heck. The U.S. was the key transgressor, but ignoring France's role in corrupting an international process seems unreasonably 'blame Bush for everything'.
> ....


Why? Because the French and Iraq were on friendlier terms? Seems the old Empires were still jostling for positions....
Idiotic to you but not to France. 
There has not been a bigger nation than the U.S. to make a mockery of the UN. The U.S. has been called a rogue state with reason.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Why? Because the French and Iraq were on friendlier terms? Seems the old Empires were still jostling for positions....
> Idiotic to you but not to France.
> There has not been a bigger nation than the U.S. to make a mockery of the UN. The U.S. has been called a rogue state with reason.


I don't disagree with the first assertion, but nor does it contradict what I posted.

Nor do I disagree on the mockery statement but I think it's under-acknowledged that the biggest will be the least respectful of giving others power. Reality bites.

As for 'has been called'...meh. That's fine and I can see the reasoning. I'm more interested in the reasoning and discussion.


----------



## ROFF (Feb 21, 2001)

Somehow this whole mess smells of Vietnam. Here we have a people who have "God" behind them, a history of conflict that dates back centuries, and a willingness to wait out any foreign armies.

Their war with us has religous overtones. Their "Jihad" promises them marytardom, a free ticket to Heaven and the blessing of their society. Their dead are considered heros. Mothers are proud if their sons die for their cause.

To fight an invader for 50 or 100 years is part of their history and I feel they are willing to sacrifice a generation or two to rid their country of a foreign army.

The kind of Democracy that we would leave behind (if any) would be completely foreign to them and go against their culture and religion. They have to style their future form of government themselves. I do not think that anything imposed by "infidels" has a ghost of a chance to remain after we leave.


----------

