# 1 Canadian killed and dozen wounded - friendly fire



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

CBC Newsworld reports that U.S. .plane in Afghanistan was initially cited as the cause, but NATO command has now changed that to "NATO" plane

don't tell me our boys and girls are being shot at by another "top gun"

this is starting to get very old, unlike our fallen soldiers

bring 'em home !!


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Reports I read said it was an A-10 Thunderbolt. I'm pretty sure only the US Air Force uses them.

More bad news.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Waits for AS's reply that claims the U.S. deliberately fired on Canadians, just to justify additional hatred for the Americans.


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

Lars said:


> Waits for AS's reply that claims the U.S. deliberately fired on Canadians, just to justify additional hatred for the Americans.


That's a foolish quip. Men died here.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Lars said:


> Waits for AS's reply that claims the U.S. deliberately fired on Canadians, just to justify additional hatred for the Americans.


Thanks Lars.
You'll be waiting a long time for that.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Yeah, A-10, and yeah, that means US plane. Two of them, the initial report said. Time to quote my Grampa again (WW2 vet): "When the British flew, the Germans ducked. When the Germans flew, the British ducked. When the Americans flew, everyone ducked."

No, these things are not completely unavoidable. But when one command has a clear history of mucking up more than any other, criticism is fair.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Let us not forget, seems it may be fairer to look at the whole picture ,rather than the Micheal Moore approach snip

“Kandahar — Canadian soldiers killed an Afghan policeman and wounded six others in the dusty flatlands west of Kandahar city today, mistaking their allies for enemies in the increasingly confused battlefields of southern Afghanistan.“

snip
August 18, 2006
The funeral for the Canadian soldier (Master Cpl. Jeffrey Walsh) was in Regina. It leaves St. Paul's Cathedral in downtown Regina, Saskatchewan on Thursday after the funeral service. The Regina soldier died August 9, 2006 after he was wounded by another Canadian soldier's accidental discharge with a weapon near Kandahar, Afghanistan.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Indeed. As I said, it's not completely avoidable.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> CBC Newsworld reports that U.S. .plane in Afghanistan was initially cited as the cause, but NATO command has now changed that to "NATO" plane
> 
> don't tell me our boys and girls are being shot at by another "top gun"
> 
> ...


This is exactly the kind of comments that drives the moral of our troops down the drain.

I live in a military town 10 km from Edmonton Garrison and my next door neighbour is in the forces. He is a veteran of five tours in the Balkans and will be serving in Afghanistan in 2007. He is training very hard for that mission and looks forward to it, as he is tired of being teased good naturedly by his fellow soldiers as "Balkan Boy". He and his wife have a girl and two boys, all under 10.

We discussed the US hit on our troops today and he says there are too many "jockeys" up there with itchy trigger fingers and it is not only the US. He also told me that friendly fire is much more common than reported in the media.

BUT he stated what bugs him most is the "idiots", his word not mine who are calling for our troops to be brought home. He says such callings are a direct insult to him and every other Canadian who is serving their country. Jack Layton falls in that category in his mind too. He says we are there for a reason, and we are not "following the Bush administration" nor is any other country involved in the NATO effort.

He tells me if anyone calls for withdrawal or bring him home when he is in ear shot, he will "hang one on 'em" for being a disgrace to Canada.

John is 34 and a 14 year veteran. He is a kind and considerate neighbour and an all round good guy. 

So if you are ever in the neighbourhood MACSPECTRUM, best keep you opinions to yourself about "bringing 'em home".


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The call for bringing home the troops has nothing to do with friendly fire. This mission is a joke and I would prefer that "John" serve (and possibly die) for another cause.

Nice to see that "John" would hang someone for having a different opinion - maybe he's the one with the itchy finger...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> The call for bringing home the troops has nothing to do with friendly fire. This mission is a joke and I would prefer that "John" serve (and possibly die) for another cause.
> 
> Nice to see that "John" would hang someone for having a different opinion - maybe he's the one with the itchy finger...


I guess you completely missed the point. 

Calling for bringing troops home lowers our military's moral and insults our troops. Support is what they need.

And they and many other Canadians believe it is an honourable mission, regardless of what you think.


----------



## Greenlion (Nov 19, 2002)

SINC said:


> I guess you completely missed the point.
> 
> Calling for bringing troops home lowers our military's moral and insults our troops. Support is what they need.
> 
> And they and many other Canadians believe it is an honourable mission, regardless of what you think.


Please explain how disagreement with the deployment of troops by members of a democratic society is an "insult" to our troops?? 

You'd think seeing your buddy killed by one of your own planes would have a more detrimental effect on troop morale? Or not being able to tell the "enemy" from the people you've come so far to help?

Speaking of coming from afar, I always find it a bit weird when NATO is mentioned in all this. Kinda far from the North Atlantic ain't we?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

> Please explain how disagreement with the deployment of troops by members of a democratic society is an "insult" to our troops??


I think it's because if you don't agree with the deployment of our troops, then you're obviously not supporting them, either. Or are you? And, if you don't support them, then you also don't believe in what their doing, hence taking a toll on their morale. (the soldiers.) Obviously, our troops in Afgan probably will never see your opinion, so I guess his point is in theory.


----------



## Greenlion (Nov 19, 2002)

Lars said:


> I think it's because if you don't agree with the deployment of our troops, then you're obviously not supporting them, either. Or are you? And, if you don't support them, then you also don't believe in what their doing, hence taking a toll on their morale. (the soldiers.) Obviously, our troops in Afgan probably will never see your opinion, so I guess his point is in theory.



Right! How does my opinion affect morale? It doesn't, or at least it shouldn't. The soldiers there are professionals are they not? Not drafted or conscripted but joined of their own free choice. If the dissenting opinion is enough to negatively impact their morale and therefore ability to perform soldierly duties I think maybe they shouldn't be soldiers!

The claim about criticism of a military campaign's political or moral underpinning being insulting to soldiers and therefore hampering their abilities is just another version of the tired tactic of labeling the critic of a government or regime a "Canada hater" or "America basher" or whatever.

Other than SINC's good neighbour, where is the evidence to support this claim?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Greenlion said:


> Speaking of coming from afar, I always find it a bit weird when NATO is mentioned in all this. Kinda far from the North Atlantic ain't we?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> I guess you completely missed the point.
> 
> Calling for bringing troops home lowers our military's moral and insults our troops. Support is what they need.
> 
> And they and many other Canadians believe it is an honourable mission, regardless of what you think.


how very Republican and Bush White House of you
what's next? Harpo flies in on Cdn. jet to an airbase with a big banner; "Mission Accomplished" ????

our Canadian troops need to be respected for putting their lives on the line to defend Canada, not help fulfill U.S. foreign policy

if you and you Cdn. Armed Forces buddy think that my calling to bring them home is "not supporting them" then so be it

i would rather our armed forces be used to defend Canada and only put our troops in harms way when absolutely necessary for the defence of Canada

in my Canada people are welcome to their opinions, well sort of anyway


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> in my Canada people are welcome to their opinions, well sort of anyway


Exactly, and remember it was our troops who fought from 1939 to 1945 that granted you that right.

What if we had asked them to be brought home?

Some people soon forget.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Greenlion said:


> Right! How does my opinion affect morale? It doesn't, or at least it shouldn't. The soldiers there are professionals are they not? Not drafted or conscripted but joined of their own free choice. If the dissenting opinion is enough to negatively impact their morale and therefore ability to perform soldierly duties I think maybe they shouldn't be soldiers!
> 
> The claim about criticism of a military campaign's political or moral underpinning being insulting to soldiers and therefore hampering their abilities is just another version of the tired tactic of labeling the critic of a government or regime a "Canada hater" or "America basher" or whatever.
> 
> Other than SINC's good neighbour, where is the evidence to support this claim?


Liken it to a sporting event where the two sides have fans in the seats.

When Canadians start "booing" their home team, morale drops like a stone.

"Bring them home" is devastating to soldiers trying to do their best on our behalf. Is that so hard to understand?

And think again about Bush being responsible. He has nothing to do with the decision to put our troops in harm's way. That was a decision courtesy of so many people's old favourite Paul Martin and his Liberals at the request of NATO.

And for those who think we are too far removed from the North Atlantic, try telling that to a Newfoundlander. When one is a member of NATO, one has commitments. Canadian forces of yesteryear honoured that commitment. So should we.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Exactly, and remember it was our troops who fought from 1939 to 1945 that granted you that right.
> 
> What if we had asked them to be brought home?
> 
> Some people soon forget.


fighting nazi german is a far cry from fighting in afghanistan
bringing our troops home because i don't believe in the afghan mission is hardly disrespecting our troops
in fact, it is respecting them even more since i believe that they should only put their lives on the line for the defence of our country
the afghan mission is hardly defending canada


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> fighting nazi german is a far cry from fighting in afghanistan
> bringing our troops home because i don't believe in the afghan mission is hardly disrespecting our troops
> in fact, it is respecting them even more since i believe that they should only put their lives on the line for the defence of our country
> the afghan mission is hardly defending canada


Today's Nazis are called terrorists. Think about that.

As for "hardly disrespecting our troops", that is EXACTLY what you are doing. Hardly respecting or disrespecting them. May you never need their defense of your home.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Equating the Afghan deployment with WWII is bunk, pure and simple.

Canadian troops were fighting in Europe against a dictator who was invading almost anyone who got in his way including Britain. Those troops *were* fighting for our freedom.

Canadian troops fighting in Afghanistan are not fighting for our freedom, or anyone else's at this point. They are involved in a losing cause of attempting to prop up a US installed puppet government, labelled as democratic for PR purposes, but made up of criminals, drug runners, fascists and tribal warlords. 

This was not the mission that a number of nations signed on to in 2001 and the aim of winning the hearts of the Afghan people has been utterly lost because the Western nations, primarily the United States, reneged on our promises of massive aid for rebuilding the country and instead cancelled all programs except the military one. We are now involved in a military action to make the region safe for massive oil and gas pipeline construction to benefit the west and an elite within Afghanistan.

I met one of the NDP MP's who spoke out against the Conservative extension of the mission in the House recently and I congratulated her on that stand. She told me she is getting rather sick of being proven right as we watch the mission turn into a guerilla war quagmire.

I am *not* dishonouring any troops by calling for our military to leave Afghanistan, whether some soldier that someone knows thinks so or not. He is entitled to his political opinions as I am to mine, wearing a uniform does not make his any more valid. We dishonour our soldiers when we put their lives on the line for a cause that is not just - this one has ceased to be and gets less so by the day.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I am *not* dishonouring any troops by calling for our military to leave Afghanistan, whether some soldier that someone knows thinks so or not. He is entitled to his political opinions as I am to mine, wearing a uniform does not make his any more valid. We dishonour our soldiers when we put their lives on the line for a cause that is not just - this one has ceased to be and gets less so by the day.


You do not know that at all.

Forget the NDP crowd and ask a soldier.

They are the only ones who qualify to give you an honest answer.

It is they who feel the weight of your dishonour towards them.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> fighting nazi german is a far cry from fighting in afghanistan
> bringing our troops home because i don't believe in the afghan mission is hardly disrespecting our troops
> in fact, it is respecting them even more since i believe that they should only put their lives on the line for the defence of our country
> the afghan mission is hardly defending canada


Oh, sure, because under Taliban rule people who don't practice the muslim religion must wear arm bands; women's rights are almost at par with cattle; basic human rights are non-existant; and the Afghan people are under the thumb of a despotic group of radicals who have launched various attacks on civilian targets all over the world in the hopes to get their message across? Life was SO much better before we came over there, right?

Perhaps the idea of turning a blind eye to those in need is far worse than committing senseless acts by those who would kill needlessly? Maybe it was time to finally do something about the Taliban and 9/11 was the final straw?

Don't dishonor and exploit the memory of those willing to give their life because it doesn't fall under your beliefs. You speak out of both sides of your mouth regarding our troops--you claim you support them, but actually liken them to the Americans in Iraq (re: Insinuating that they purposefully killed civilians last month, a la US Marines.) You and AS have been twisting every little incident over the last several months that you sound more and more like American tabloid news. There have been more than one occasion both of you have been caught omitting details of reports because it didn't appear as sensational.

Canada is trying to provide Afghans relief, aid, security, and a chance to rule themselves as they see fit--and in the instance of women, actually get an education and follow a path that they choose. If NATO pulls out of Afghanistan, what do you think the Taliban will do? Forgive and forget those who wanted their freedom?

You say Canadians are certainly welcome to their opinions, but only you and AS seem to intent on name calling and browbeating.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sorry. double post.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Oh, sure, because people who don't practice the muslim religion must wear arm bands under Taliban rule; women's rights are almost at par with cattle; basic human rights are non-existant; and Afghanistan is under the thumb of a despotic group of radicals who have launched various attacks on civilian targets all over the world in the hopes to get their message across? Life is so much better before we came over there, right?
> 
> Perhaps the idea of turning a blind eye to those in need is worse than committing the act by those who would senselessly kill? Maybe it was time to finally do something about the Taliban and 9/11 was the final straw?
> 
> ...


 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Today's Nazis are called terrorists. Think about that.


Yes - that has to be one of the stupidest statements by you SINC...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yes - that has to be one of the stupidest statements by you SINC...


Well, there you go with the insults again. Glad I don't stoop to your level.

But sorry, once again your all knowing and superior knowledge prevails. Even when you are dead wrong.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Okay SINC, please elaborate on your analogy: Today's Nazis are called terrorists.... 
Go on explain it please....


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Um, because they use violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims?

Oops. I spoke out of turn--I didn't raise my hand.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Okay SINC, please elaborate on your analogy: Today's Nazis are called terrorists....
> Go on explain it please....


Sure thing.

In the thirties and forties, Nazis plundered Europe and killed hundreds of thousands of people.

In the 21st century, terrorists have slowly began a systematic destruction of all they consider evil and have so far only killed thousands of people. But give 'em time. And give 'em space. They will catch up to the Nazis if we give them space like Afghanistan.

Some people just don't get that.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> You do not know that at all.
> 
> Forget the NDP crowd and ask a soldier.
> 
> ...


There's not much I can do if your neighbour feels dishonoured. He might feel dishonoured for a lot of reasons. That does not mean that what he says is true. His wearing a uniform doesn't make his political opinion about Afghanistan any more valid than any other Canadian's.

It is we, the civilians who decide where and when our soldiers go to put their lives on the line. We are the ones who decide to spill their blood as well as the blood of their combatants and any civilians who might get in the way. If we do that lightly, without the highest of moral reasons then we are dishonouring many more people than your neighbour. We should never use the extremely blunt weapon of military force without the highest justifications and unless we have no other alternative. I take that very seriously. I'm sorry SINC but I don't bow to your neighbour's opinion on this.

As they say every year on Rememberance Day - Lest We Forget.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MannyP - I used to agree with the mission in Afganistan until it became what it is now. 

Maybe you'd like some talking points from Potato Pete why we are there:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...le&cid=1157104868024&call_pageid=970599119419



Thanks to a blogger (http://liberalcatnip.blogspot.com/) we know how well we are doing...



> The liberal wind of change that swept the country in 2001 is being reversed. By the conservative estimate of the Afghan President Hamid Karzai, 100,000 students have been terrorised out of schools in the past year. The number is certainly far higher and many teachers have been murdered, some beheaded.
> 
> 
> 
> In the province of Zabul a teacher and female MP, Toor Peikai, said yesterday: "There are 47 schools in my province but only three are open." Only one teaches girls. It is 200 metres from a large US military base in the provincial capital.


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071106L.shtml



> *31% Afghan Child Labourers Work For 9-15 Hours Per Day*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.aihrc.org.af/pre_chi_labourer_10_06_06.htm



> The United States government is outsourcing key security and military support functions to private companies, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Government reports have implicated these private contractors in serious human rights violations ñ including participation by contractors in the torture at Abu Ghraib - yet only one civilian contractor has faced charges.


http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/afghanistan/index.do



> *How U.S. dollars disappear in Afghanistan: quickly and thoroughly*


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/03/INGR0KRGMF1.DTL


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Some people just don't get that.


Enjoy your "boogeymen" SINC....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There's not much I can do if your neighbour feels dishonoured.
> 
> As they say every year on Rememberance Day - Lest We Forget.


Sure there is. Stop.

As one who lost two uncles to war, I can tell you that I would never question a soldier's orders under NATO. Nor should any Canadian. We are there, we have a responsibility and our goal at all costs should be to fulfill our obligation. Anything less is cowardice and a failure to support our allies. The US is only one. There are in fact many more countries serving in Afghanistan. Are they all wrong too?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Are they all wrong too?


Whatever happened to finding Osama?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Whatever happened to finding Osama?


Ah yes, that old tactic!

When you don't know or have a comeback, ask another question.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

No SINC, question the "mission" - 
We are not doing much good if I'm to believe the official reasons for being there....


----------



## Sparhawk (Aug 19, 2006)

and again this happens and the US says, well, so many flights, not so bad eh!?
It should never happen! End of discussion.

I feel for the people left behind...


----------



## ROFF (Feb 21, 2001)

SINC said:


> ...I would never question...


Therein lies your problem.
Everything a Government does should be questioned.
A lot of soldiers died to give you the right to question.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ROFF said:


> Therein lies your problem.
> Everything a Government does should be questioned.
> A lot of soldiers died to give you the right to question.


Yeah, and two of them were my Mother's brothers, both born and raised in Saskatchewan like I was, one in France in WWII and one in the Korean war. If you think that doesn't drive a point home with me think again.

Supporting our military is necessary, even when our government is wrong. And remember, it was the Paul Martin Liberals who put us in Afghanistan.

So, knowing that, what is YOUR problem?

By the way, welcome to ehMac.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I support the mission in Afghanistan and I also support having a good debate about the subject. I agree with Sinc that we need to fulfill our obligations with NATO. I also think that it is in our interest to fix failed states, such as Afghanistan. 

I think that we (meaning NATO) need to define clear objectives and metrics of measuring our successes or failures. I believe that you can't manage something you can't measure.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The mission has changed SINC - there are no clear objectives and it's because a "seek and destroy" one. In the end, it does not protect Canadians - it actually does the opposite. 

You are the one equating questionning the Mission with not supporting the troops - a rather facile argument on your part....


----------



## ROFF (Feb 21, 2001)

SINC said:


> So, knowing that, what is YOUR problem?


I don't have a problem, I question the Government all the time.
That is any and every Government. I realize that Governments/Political Parties are made up of people and as such are fallible. Noone is perfect, myself included.
All of us hold beliefs and positions that are wrong.
The last person that was totally correct died about two thousand years ago.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

SINC said:


> By the way, welcome to ehMac.


SINC, ROFF's join date is the same as yours, you both have four-letter usernames, both all capitals... What are they calling schizophrenia these days? Bipolar? Are you (either of you) blacking out at times while the computer is on?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> The mission has changed SINC - there are no clear objectives and it's because a "seek and destroy" one. In the end, it does not protect Canadians - it actually does the opposite.


Why do u say that the mission does not protect Canadians?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

IronMac said:


> Why do u say that the mission does not protect Canadians?


did the Taliban / Al-Qaeda attack Canada?
Since Canada's mission in Afghanistan has changed to "seek and destroy" I feel LESS safe as I think Canada is more of a target for terrorism than ever before.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> did the Taliban / Al-Qaeda attack Canada?


Did the Nazi's attack Canada? 

Ahmed Rassam was trained in Afghanistan by Al-Queda and considered blowing up a neighbourhood in Montreal. This was before 911 and the recent war in Afghanistan.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The threat of terrorisms is so blown out of proportion that's it's completely ridiculous but seems to find an audience in those that want a "boogey man" everywhere....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> The threat of terrorisms is so blown out of proportion that's it's completely ridiculous but seems to find an audience is those that want "boogey man" everywhere....


seems that harpo et al want to follow the U.S. by leading through fear


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> seems that harpo et al want to follow the U.S. by leading through fear


And the ones standing up for Canada are oddly enough the Bloc


> Bloc wants urgent debate on foreign file
> Quebeckers fear PM is following U.S. lead on Afghanistan and Israel, Duceppe says
> 
> In a letter notifying Commons Speaker Peter Milliken of the debate request, Bloc House Leader Michel Gauthier says the Tories have strayed from Canada's historical position "of mediation and balance" and from the "major values of the Québécois and Canadian populations, which are, I am convinced by it, resolutely peaceful."
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060905.wxafghanpol05/BNStory/National/home


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

perhaps Quebeckers should be reminded of Harpo's comments to FAUX News before becoming PM



> Opposition leader Stephen Harper has told Fox News in the U.S. that most Canadians outside Quebec support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, despite our government's decision not to take part in the war.
> 
> In an interview with the American TV network, Harper said he endorsed the war and said he was speaking "for the silent majority" of Canadians. Only in Quebec, with its "pacifist tradition," are most people opposed to the war, Harper said.
> 
> "Outside of Quebec, I believe very strongly the silent majority of Canadians is strongly supportive," the Canadian Alliance leader says.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1049464033397_20?s_name=&no_ads=


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Interesting to hear some of the details of this individual's life coming to light. An immigrant, who ran for Canada in the Olympics (twice?), joined in peace time to give back to the community, but stayed in when war came.

That, and the story now is, for anyone who may have missed it, that it was a bombing run, not a strafing run as first reported. And the planes were definitely American. 6 soldiers have been evacuated to Germany for treatment, in serious but stable condition, which is military talk for permanently damaged in some kind of way, as I understand it. Of the 5 or 6 who died this weekend, all but one were from Petawawa military base, my old stomping ground.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Sure there is. Stop.
> 
> As one who lost two uncles to war, I can tell you that I would never question a soldier's orders under NATO. Nor should any Canadian.


As I said before I can't help it if your neighbour feels somehow dishonoured by me exercising my democratic right to have an opinion on this war, as he does. His opinion of the politics are no better or worse than mine, because he wears a uniform.

I would never question his bravery, his dedication to be there for Canada or his professionalism. But the "soldier's orders" you speak of are made by politicians, who are under the directions of the citizen's of Canada. The right to question this mission is *exactly* what your two uncles died to protect, and I thank them for that. All Canadians should *always* question our politicians use of the blunt and messy instrument of waging war to ensure that no one, soldier or civilian, dies for an unjust cause.

It's a bogus argument to say that questioning the Afghan mission "dishonours" the Canadian troops who are ordered to carry out that mission. Exercising our democratic right to question the government always honours those who died to protect our freedom. It is only in authoritarian states where one never questions the government's military adventures.

But some people don't seem to get that.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> did the Taliban / Al-Qaeda attack Canada?
> Since Canada's mission in Afghanistan has changed to "seek and destroy" I feel LESS safe as I think Canada is more of a target for terrorism than ever before.


Tell me something, do you believe that al-Qaeda's goals/aspirations/beliefs are inimical to the Western way of life as you and I know it? Personally, I'm not in the mood to wait around for those religious fundamentalists to come knocking on the door of this godless unbeliever.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Tell me something, do you believe that al-Qaeda's goals/aspirations/beliefs are inimical to the Western way of life as you and I know it?


Inasmuch as I feel the same way about God loving Jesus freaks....


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Inasmuch as I feel the same way about God loving Jesus freaks....


I think those are a bit more "tolerant" than the other at the moment. They had their moment up until the 20th century. 

And I'd like to know what your answer is on that question, AS?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Tell me something, do you believe that al-Qaeda's goals/aspirations/beliefs are inimical to the Western way of life as you and I know it? Personally, I'm not in the mood to wait around for those religious fundamentalists to come knocking on the door of this godless unbeliever.


What are their goals first of all?


> The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.


http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html

Now, you have to look at the popularity of al-Qaeda pre and post 9/11. 
I don't think they speak for most Muslims. 
Their goals are as stupid as PNAC's. 
I also think that we have exaggerated the importance of al-Qaeda and actually made them stronger. 
In the end, al-Qaeda is a very small group and of little importance. 

So to put in in perspective, no al-Qaeda's views don't scare me. They were a small nuisance that got lucky and our response has made things worse.
I don't agree with any of their goals, and in particular vis-a-vis Israel.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> What are their goals first of all?
> 
> http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html
> 
> ...



Actually, in the reference that you used, al-Qaeda is serving as a source of inspiration worldwide to Islamic fundamentalists because they are showing others that it is possible to take on a superpower. The Mujahadeen did that in Afghanistan to the Soviet Union and al-Qaeda's continued existence shows that it is possible to take on the US.

You also seem to dismiss one of Bin Laden's goals which is:



> Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.


I'm not going to place al-Qaeda on the same level as Muhammed and his band of followers in the desert but even small groups can become very dangerous. Wilful blindness doesn't hide the truth.

This is not simply a war on terror; this is a war to destroy the dangerous spector of religious fundamentalism.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I dismiss some of Bin Laden's goals becaused he was viewed as a crackpot by many. 
As for the danger of religious fundamentalism - maybe we should look at the proponants of ID... 
The blindness comes from those who elevate Bin Laden and his lot to boogeymen. Sure they have become an inspiration, mostly because of our muddled foreign policies. 

The war on terror is a joke, a waste of money and is dangerous because of PNAC goals - not the terrorists...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Here we are having the war on terror discussion for the umpteenth time.

Wars on terror have never been won, and can never be won. Bush himself admitted this in an interview in 2004, of course followed quickly by denials and clarifications. 

If we believe that terror comes from fundamentalist Islam, than we had better be prepared to exterminate hundreds of millions to "win". The extent that we would have to become terrorists ourselves to fight them, guarantees that they will have no problem finding greater numbers of new recruits to their cause. 

We can spend vast billions and we will never be able to protect ourselves from terrorists. If we cut off access to planes, they will take out trains, if we cut off access to trains they will attack public spaces such as markets. We will have to shut down our society and give up all civil liberties to feel safe from terror.

Although terrorists around the world have identified with religious groups, including Christian by the way, their primary fight has always been to expel those they view as foreign occupiers. Suicide terrorists, although cloaking themselves in religious fervour are usually from the most educated classes of these societies who are the least likely to have literal religious beliefs. But people anywhere can be willing to kill and die for what they see as a just cause whether they believe they will end up in heaven or not.

Although the majority of the world's Muslims want peaceful co-existance with Western nations, a large number of those people are willing to rationalize the use of terror tactics against countries they see as bullying them, just as many in the West are willing to rationalize abuses like Abu Ghraib or Guantánamo Bay as "fighting fire with fire".

But there is one big reason why we won't stop interfering in those Muslim countries and why we will guarantee no end of terror directed at the West. 

Oil.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> I dismiss some of Bin Laden's goals becaused he was viewed as a crackpot by many.
> As for the danger of religious fundamentalism - maybe we should look at the proponants of ID...
> The blindness comes from those who elevate Bin Laden and his lot to boogeymen. Sure they have become an inspiration, mostly because of our muddled foreign policies.
> 
> The war on terror is a joke, a waste of money and is dangerous because of PNAC goals - not the terrorists...


Your answer is no answer. Bin Laden's goals cannot be dismissed because there are some who do not believe he is a crackpot. C'mon, a crackpot should not be able to elude a superpower's efforts to find him despite strong evidence that said superpower is run by half-wit incompetents. al-Qaeda is a source of inspiration and is an enabler for groups who would love to impose their way of life upon us.

Whether or not you like it, the truth is that we're in a war against religious fundamentalism and we'd better be win it because there is no negotiation.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

IronMac said:


> Your answer is no answer. Bin Laden's goals cannot be dismissed because there are some who do not believe he is a crackpot. C'mon, a crackpot should not be able to elude a superpower's efforts to find him despite strong evidence that said superpower is run by half-wit incompetents. al-Qaeda is a source of inspiration and is an enabler for groups who would love to impose their way of life upon us.
> 
> Whether or not you like it, the truth is that we're in a war against religious fundamentalism and we'd better be win it because there is no negotiation.


we're in this war because of failed american foreign policy, PNAC and the Bush admin.

Al-Qaeda/Taliban is an American invention created to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.
The U.S. has been meddling in middle east geo politics since the end of WWII.
When you give tons of money and arms to USAma bin Laden et al you can't just turn them off when the Soviets left.

CBC Newsworld reported today, quoting the NY Times, that suicide bombings and roadside bombings are now dramatically higher in southern Afghanistan, where our brave soldiers are fighting (oops, I mean "peacemaking")
The NY Times went on to say that being a soldier in Afghanistan is now as dangerous as being in Iraq.

Afghanistan could have been properly dealt with if the U.S. had not turned their (gun)sights on Iraq. The U.S. is now taking troops from Afghanistan and moving them into Iraq.
Instead the U.S. is leaving the Afghan mess to NATO.

Would it not have been better to concentrate on Afghanistan, then create some sort of Marshal plan to transform Afhganistan into a democratic state?
The question is rhetorical, since it was never the U.S.'s intention to transform Afghanistan, but instead focus on Iraq.

On the coming eve of the 5th year anniversay of Sept. 11, 2001, USAma is still at large, Afghanistan is a war torn country, Iraq is a disaster.
Tens of thousands of civilians and thousands of soldiers are dead.

A just recent war in southern Lebanon has just cost about 1,000 Lebanese lives and over 100 Israeli. The war with Hamas continues with the death toll mounting.

Are we really any safer?

Pakistan (reported by CBC Newsworld) announced a peace deal with a Taliban held area. Does the Pakistan know something Canada and the U.S. do not?

Halliburton stock has almost quintipled since Sept. 11, 2001.
Oil companies are announcing historical record profits.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Your answer is no answer. Bin Laden's goals cannot be dismissed because there are some who do not believe he is a crackpot. C'mon, a crackpot should not be able to elude a superpower's efforts to find him despite strong evidence that said superpower is run by half-wit incompetents. al-Qaeda is a source of inspiration and is an enabler for groups who would love to impose their way of life upon us.
> 
> Whether or not you like it, the truth is that we're in a war against religious fundamentalism and we'd better be win it because there is no negotiation.


Apart from echoing what MS wrote...
You don't like my answer because it does not feed into the hyped fear that we are supposed to feel....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Finally Someone Gets It!*

All those who cry bring 'em home should read this entire article. It is time the truth was exposed:

"Was nobody listening a year ago when then defence minister Bill Graham -- one of the few Liberals who has acted with honour on Afghanistan -- repeatedly warned us that we were undertaking a dangerous new mission in Kandahar?
That our soldiers would be helping to free Afghanistan from the iron grip of the terrorist-loving Taliban and that there would be heavy Canadian casualties?
Was no one listening when Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier warned us our troops would be hunting down "murderers and scumbags" who would be firing back and that our soldiers would be killed?"

*And oh yeah,* try and get over your anticipated ravings about it being a Sun columnist who enlightens you. His opinion rivals yours any day. 

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2006/09/06/1806205.html


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

i'm sorry, but i have to chime in... 

In the past, Canada accepted every single mission the UN had for peacekeeping. all of them. until recently Canada has denied quite a few. recently means after Brian Mulroney. We have the most outstanding peacekeeping history in the world. (not looking at the fact that Bangladesh and Pakistan give the most troops per capita in the UN). I live in ottawa and i spend a lot of time downtown with my camera looking at the monuments, one of which is the peacekeeping monument. some of you would piss yourselves when you see the amount of things we have taken part in.

I Believe it is our duty, as we live in a safe and healhy country compared to MANY, and MANY poorer ones, to help the ones in need whether by sword or hand. sure every country has it's bad sides, we're no perfect country. we have our own cases of poverty and hunger. but NOWHERE near some other countries. not even close enough to TRY and argue it. Canada is a better off country, and out respect in peacekeeping has gone down.

(for those of you who haven't seen the monument, take a look... it's on sussex dr. just north of Rideau/wellington street across the Art gallery.)

P.S. My colleague was telling me when her sister was sworn in to the infantry, and Stephen showed up and gave a speech. it was the first time our P.M. came for a swearing in of troops, in something like 13 odd years? whether that's true or not, a leader should show support for his own troops. because they are the ones who are running ahead for him.


----------



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

When Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier, who is from Newfoundland and Labrador, came here in the Spring, he forewarned us here in NL that there might be a disproportionate number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians killed in Afghanistan. Of the 32 Canadian soldiers killed so far in this mission, 4 have been from NL. Each time, our provincial flags throughout the province have been lowered to half staff in recognition of their sacrifice.

As it said in the TO Sun article, peacekeeping has never been without risk.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

............
It means deciding -- before we put our soldiers in harm's way -- whether we have the stomach for it. Because if we don't, we should never have sent them in the first place. 
............



A point that needs to be made. Thanks for the opinion piece, Sinc. I too have been wondering what people thought we were getting in to in Afghanistan (a couple years of brick-laying?).

This line, however, was very funny in an unrelated way:
............
The sad spectacle of Layton going wobbly on a mission he supported a year ago speaks to why the NDP isn't up to the job of running a lemonade stand, let alone the country. 
............

:lmao: :lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> All those who cry bring 'em home should read this entire article. It is time the truth was exposed:
> 
> "Was nobody listening a year ago when then defence minister Bill Graham -- one of the few Liberals who has acted with honour on Afghanistan -- repeatedly warned us that we were undertaking a dangerous new mission in Kandahar?
> That our soldiers would be helping to free Afghanistan from the iron grip of the terrorist-loving Taliban and that there would be heavy Canadian casualties?
> Was no one listening when Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier warned us our troops would be hunting down "murderers and scumbags" who would be firing back and that our soldiers would be killed?"


The truth is that the mission changed and is not supported by the majority of Canadians.
Bill Graham (as well as Iggy) are some of the few Liberals that voted to extend the mission. 

"grip of the terrorist-loving Taliban" - I know he does not want to be comical but the hyperbole is hilarious.... What next? Godless Commies?

The Sun appeals to the lowest common denominator.....'nuf said.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC, here is someone else who gets it:


> *Harper has botched Afghanistan: Hébert*
> By committing quickly to an extension, Stephen Harper has foreclosed on the option to bring the troops home in February as had originally been planned, leaving him with no political exit strategy from the Afghan file.
> 
> But even if there never was a scenario under which the Prime Minister would have declined to extend the mission, the way Harper has gone about taking ownership of the file has done a disservice to it.
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Blame the Liberals again SINC....

Don Martin (Harper's old buddy) has suggested what the Cons need now is a strike against Canada....


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

I don't necessarily support the original decision to send troops to Afghanistan but this jibberish about bringing the troops home is something that has to stop.

The new model of Support the troop, hate the war, doesn't work. Its a moral killer. Soldiers don't understand how the people back home can support them but not what their doing. This is a committment we've engaged in and its something we'll have to remain in until peace and stability can restored, or a viable solution to the problem is established. 

If we bring our troops home now, it just shows that anyone who alittle opposition and kills a few Canadians will make them go home. The people we hurt most are the people who need our help there. 

I support our troops, I support the mission until completion.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the original mission started under the Martin gov't had Canada in a much different role and with a time limit of Feb. 2007

now our forces are into the crap where the Americans used to be and we're committed for an extra 2 years at least

bring 'em home, because I support our troops


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> the original mission started under the Martin gov't had Canada in a much different role and with a time limit of Feb. 2007
> 
> now our forces are into the crap where the Americans used to be and we're committed for an extra 2 years at least
> 
> bring 'em home, because I support our troops


Well if that wasn't the biggest pile of crap I've ever read. You still likened our troops to the US Marines who deliberately killed Iraqi civilians. Nice show of support! :clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Maybe the initial communication of our role was off. An initial role and timeframe (X years) does not mean it ends at that time and everyone goes home. Right from the start this was going to be a very long series of missions, not just one or two sequential commitments. Nor is each commitment the same: the current one is in a leading role, instead of having all our troops commanded by other countries.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Jacklar said:


> I don't necessarily support the original decision to send troops to Afghanistan but this jibberish about bringing the troops home is something that has to stop.
> 
> The new model of Support the troop, hate the war, doesn't work. Its a moral killer. Soldiers don't understand how the people back home can support them but not what their doing. This is a committment we've engaged in and its something we'll have to remain in until peace and stability can restored, or a viable solution to the problem is established.
> 
> ...


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: 

Someone else "gets it". Demoralizing our troops is something to be ashamed of and demanding they be recalled is just that.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

That's right SINC, be a good little neocon.... Papa would be so proud of you...

I'm tired of the Cons telling me I don't support our troops because I question the "mission" shoved down our gullets by Big Daddy Harper. You and your ilk have politicized the troops in Afghanistan and continue to use it for political gain.
I don't know of anyone who has said we don't support our troops. 

What we don't support is the waste of their lives with people that have little respect for the situation and prefer to play the "terror" card, the "hate" card all the while trying to instil a "you're either with us or against us" bias at every turn.

Bring them home in body bags - maybe then you'll wake up and see that we have not helped the situation down there....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> I don't know of anyone who has said we don't support our troops.
> 
> What we don't support is the waste of their lives with people that have little respect for the situation and prefer to play the "terror" card, the "hate" card all the while trying to instil a "you're either with us or against us" bias at every turn.
> 
> Bring them home in body bags - maybe then you'll wake up and see that we have not helped the situation down there....


The fact of the matter is that every time a member of the Canadian Forces hears someone make comments about what they are doing is wrong or "bring 'em home" you DO demoralize them. And apparently you don't even realize it.

Until people understand the damage they do by speaking out in public, they are better off keeping quiet about it. But that won't ever sink in to some members here.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

trying to keep our troops alive is hardly NOT supporting them

"war is peace"

must be emblazened on Harpo's wall


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC, I agree that one needs to be careful about phrasing. And I agree that some of the posters here are not. But surely you can understand that stifling debate altogether is not the way to go?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RevMatt said:


> SINC, I agree that one needs to be careful about phrasing. And I agree that some of the posters here are not. But surely you can understand that stifling debate altogether is not the way to go?


I understand that completely. All I am saying is complain to your MP or whatever. Voicing that kind of attitude with troops waiting to serve our country in Afghanistan who read it in the media is most definitely demoralizing, like it or not. If you support them, show it by protesting in ways that are not in their face.

I liken it to booing the home team.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> I understand that completely. All I am saying is complain to your MP or whatever. Voicing that kind of attitude with troops waiting to serve our country in Afghanistan who read it in the media is most definitely demoralizing, like it or not. If you support them, show it by protesting in ways that are not in their face.
> 
> I liken it to booing the home team.


OK, but voicing it my MP is pointless, since they are not in cabinet, and not in government. Besides which, one of the hallmarks of intelligent society is the ability to have open debates. We NEED to be able to talk to each other, and learn from each other. I have learned more than a few things from the good folks here, and I would like to think one or two of them have learned from me. Sure, there are time when I (and you ) degenerate into pointless name calling, and sure, there are some here who never seem to rise above that level. That's the price of anonymity. But just passing concerns into the aether of nothingness that is our political system is useless.
So how can we have the debate that we need to have?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RevMatt said:


> OK, but voicing it my MP is pointless, since they are not in cabinet, and not in government. Besides which, one of the hallmarks of intelligent society is the ability to have open debates. We NEED to be able to talk to each other, and learn from each other. I have learned more than a few things from the good folks here, and I would like to think one or two of them have learned from me. Sure, there are time when I (and you ) degenerate into pointless name calling, and sure, there are some here who never seem to rise above that level. That's the price of anonymity. But just passing concerns into the aether of nothingness that is our political system is useless.
> So how can we have the debate that we need to have?


Well, for starters, NDP supporters could demand Layton stop with the present message. 

That would help the troops and come to think of it, probably the party.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm tired of the Cons telling me I don't support our troops because I question the "mission" shoved down our gullets by Big Daddy Harper.


Clearly, you and MacSpectrum haven't been listening very well. :clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Ahh yes Manny -- you prefer that we just shut up and say "go kill those terrorist bastards, make sure they are good and dead"...

Sorry but it's a waste of their lives. The war on terror is a joke....

Maybe a little remedial reading would help you...


> Bullets fly. Ottawa ducks
> 
> How Canada slipped into a war our leaders can't -- or won't -- explain
> 
> ...


http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/canada/article.jsp?content=20060828_132392_132392

What a waste of human live....


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ahh yes Manny -- *you prefer that we just shut up and say "go kill those terrorist bastards, make sure they are good and dead"...*


Typical, once again, twisting facts once again to suit your skewed perception of the world. I commend you on not resorting to name calling with that post. It must have been very difficult for you. beejacon


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Now, Manny you can do better than that - I've seen it...


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

ArtistSeries said:


> Now, Manny you can do better than that - I've seen it...


I know I can... as can you. So the question begs to be asked: Why would you bother omitting information for the sake of your point of view?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060906.wndp0906/BNStory/National/home

...............
A Vancouver Island NDP riding association has withdrawn parts a controversial resolution that calls for the federal government end its combat role in Afghanistan, after saying that the mission is being guided by the United States and that Canadian troops are acting like “terrorists.” 
...............


Ah, nothing like the smell of grassroots politics being plowed under.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Al-Qaeda/Taliban is an American invention created to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.


Wrong. al-Qaeda was not developed by the Americans despite some of its members being supported during the Mujahadeen years.

The Taliban is also not an American invention.



MACSPECTRUM said:


> Afghanistan could have been properly dealt with if the U.S. had not turned their (gun)sights on Iraq. The U.S. is now taking troops from Afghanistan and moving them into Iraq.
> Instead the U.S. is leaving the Afghan mess to NATO.
> 
> Would it not have been better to concentrate on Afghanistan, then create some sort of Marshal plan to transform Afhganistan into a democratic state?
> The question is rhetorical, since it was never the U.S.'s intention to transform Afghanistan, but instead focus on Iraq.


Do you even have your timeline straight because it seems to be a mishmash of the last 15 years?



MACSPECTRUM said:


> Are we really any safer?
> 
> Pakistan (reported by CBC Newsworld) announced a peace deal with a Taliban held area. Does the Pakistan know something Canada and the U.S. do not?
> 
> ...


I think that we'd be safer if people actually knew what they were talking about rather than ranting. If the Bushies don't know squat and the libs don't know squat...well, we're all in trouble then!

P.S. Apple stock had septupled since 9/11...is there a connection there? :lmao:


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> You don't like my answer because it does not feed into the hyped fear that we are supposed to feel....


No, I don't like your answer because it's vague and naive.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Jacklar said:


> I don't necessarily support the original decision to send troops to Afghanistan but this jibberish about bringing the troops home is something that has to stop.
> 
> The new model of Support the troop, hate the war, doesn't work. Its a moral killer. Soldiers don't understand how the people back home can support them but not what their doing. This is a committment we've engaged in and its something we'll have to remain in until peace and stability can restored, or a viable solution to the problem is established.
> 
> ...


This sort of talk only affirms my belief that democracies are unable to sustain any sort of long-term military effort.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

IronMac said:


> This sort of talk only affirms my belief that democracies are unable to sustain any sort of long-term military effort.


You say that like it's a bad thing....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

RevMatt said:


> You say that like it's a bad thing....


the people can be fooled for a while, but long term they know what is good and what is bad

had America routed the Taliban with a major (see Iraq) military effort and re-built Afghanistan like they did Japan with some sort of Marshall plan "democracies" could and would have supported the long term effort, but when the majority of the military effort gets put into Iraq (for some, now you see 'em, now you don't WMD) the support wanes

please see how cdn. support for the war in Afghanistan is waning
i guess SINC et al would say that mean a majority of Cdn. are showing dis-respect towards our troops, eh?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Actually, I don't think that majority rule should be the deciding factor here. What I really think this tells us, is that democratic governments who behave like secretive dictatorships can't deceive the people about a poorly chosen military effort despite their best efforts. But that's not as good a soundbite, I know...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

RevMatt said:


> Actually, I don't think that majority rule should be the deciding factor here. What I really think this tells us, is that democratic governments who behave like secretive dictatorships can't deceive the people about a poorly chosen military effort despite their best efforts. But that's not as good a soundbite, I know...


some would say you're not supporting the troops


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> Actually, I don't think that majority rule should be the deciding factor here. What I really think this tells us, is that democratic governments who behave like secretive dictatorships can't deceive the people about a poorly chosen military effort despite their best efforts. But that's not as good a soundbite, I know...


Bush finally admitted to secret CIA torture prison camps but no ones care. Soundbytes don't always work...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> some would say you're not supporting the troops


There will always be people to stupid/self absorbed/shallow to read the full text of what anyone writes. That's their problem, not mine.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Bush finally admitted to secret CIA torture prison camps but no ones care. Soundbytes don't always work...


I suspect no one cares because it isn't news. Bush admitted what was already proven beyond doubt. Big deal.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

RevMatt said:


> You say that like it's a bad thing....


Yes, it is a bad thing. And, no, it's not because of some idiotic idea that people cannot be fooled as to the reasons why.

When you look at the 20th century's wars, you can see that one of the greatest weaknesses of democracy is that it cannot stomach a fight for the long-term. Would the Western Allies in WWII have gone on to campaign against the Soviet Union? No.

Would the Americans have resorted to the atomic bomb if they weren't so concerned about finishing off the Japanese quickly and bringing the boys home? No.

Would the Americans still be in Vietnam right now if they weren't so concerned about casualties? More than likely.

Unfortunately, democracies today don't seem to have "grit" or staying power for long-term military conflicts. An enemy only has to inflict a few casualties and the public immediately starts turning tail. Even Rumsfeld seems more concerned in Iraq with a fast and furious campaign and a quick exit. In Afghanistan, it's the same thing, go in and kick things around and, then, leave.

Heaven forbid that we're ever in a situation like the Thirty Years' War or the Hundred Years' War because we may as well surrender and save everyone the trouble of buying materiel. XX)


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Yes, it is a bad thing. And, no, it's not because of some idiotic idea that people cannot be fooled as to the reasons why.
> 
> When you look at the 20th century's wars, you can see that one of the greatest weaknesses of democracy is that it cannot stomach a fight for the long-term. Would the Western Allies in WWII have gone on to campaign against the Soviet Union? No.
> 
> ...


If it was our own land at stake I think you'd see plenty of "grit" (visualise Chretien with a knife in his mouth and combat gear creeping through a B.C. forest  ). Beyond our own land, things get more conceptual and debateable, which means more diversity of the conditions of support or whether there's support at all. Meanwhile you're in someone else's land, so they will have grit. Also, even the Soviets got tired of war.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here's a bit of insight into "liberation"

BTW last week's Economist has mind bending articles on the world 5 years after Sept 11th



> After three and a half years' occupation, the Iraqis themselves hold no doubts about the country that delivered them from Saddam Hussein. Another opinion poll asked them the reason for America's invasion of their country. The top three answers were to control Iraqi oil (76%), to build military bases and to help Israel.





> The same angry message echoes across the Arab and Muslim worlds. The antipathy is not merely political. *An opinion poll in April, for instance, suggested that 90% of Iraqis would refuse to live next door to Americans.*


http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7854433

90%  .Yanqui go home writ large.

*How soon is we will be painted with the same tar and feathers?? *..... 

More from the same article - the main features of the issue are on changes wrought since 2001



> *A big and then a bigger mess*
> 
> Aug 31st 2006 | CAIRO
> From The Economist print edition
> ...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> *How soon is we will be painted with the same tar and feathers?? *.....


We already are, at least somewhat. The idiotic comments after the Israeli invasion more or less cemented that opinion of us, I suspect.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Too many people
Too little planet
Too much stupidity all around
.......and the wrong great ape lineage.....sigh - give me a bonobo engendered world.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

The very fact that the U.S. refrains from ending wars the way it did WWII makes your post specious.

Every time the U.S. goes to war and doesn't drop a nuclear bomb, that war by definition is drawn out and long-term.

The problem isn't staying power, the problem has to do with the "reason" they go to war in the first place. War is always idiotic, it's just stupendously idiotic when you lie to your citizens about why you're going to war, and then later on lie again, but this time about whether or not you lied to them when stating your reasons for going to war.




IronMac said:


> Yes, it is a bad thing. And, no, it's not because of some idiotic idea that people cannot be fooled as to the reasons why.
> 
> When you look at the 20th century's wars, you can see that one of the greatest weaknesses of democracy is that it cannot stomach a fight for the long-term. Would the Western Allies in WWII have gone on to campaign against the Soviet Union? No.
> 
> ...


----------



## guyfidelity (Jul 21, 2006)

Here's me thinking this forum would be apolitical. The right wing rightousness is really wearing thin. If this cause means so much to those of you on the right, spare us all the rightous tough guy shame on you for questiong left bashing message board routine and put on a uniform and serve.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

guyfidelity said:


> Here's me thinking this forum would be apolitical. The right wing rightousness is really wearing thin. If this cause means so much to those of you on the right, spare us all the rightous tough guy shame on you for questiong left bashing message board routine and put on a uniform and serve.


Not all of us on the right agree with SINC.

I think public debate about our military and supporting the troops are two separate things. It is not unpatriotic to criticize this war, not should it be considered being disrespectful to the troops. If anything, it sends a message that Canadians are actively engaged in debate and care about what their country does.

Personally, I support this mission. 

Please don't stereotype.


----------



## ROFF (Feb 21, 2001)

I am afraid that Afghanistan could become Canada's Vietnam.

The Afghani people have been invaded many times over the centuries and realise that all they have to do is wait. 25, 50 or a hundred years is a small price to pay for their own self-determination.

The original reason for Canada to invade Afghanistan ( to catch Osama Bin Laden ) was probably understood by the average Afghani as a reasonable response to 911. The new reason (nation building), will probably resisted to the best of their ability.

I wonder how long Canadian resolve will last? 5 10 20 years?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Beej said:


> Also, even the Soviets got tired of war.


If Stalin had told the Red Army to march to Gibraltar it would have done so. The Western Allies would have balked at going past Berlin.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

HowEver said:


> The problem isn't staying power, the problem has to do with the "reason" they go to war in the first place. War is always idiotic, it's just stupendously idiotic when you lie to your citizens about why you're going to war, and then later on lie again, but this time about whether or not you lied to them when stating your reasons for going to war.


No, it's staying power or squeamishness. Look at various actions over the past 20 years. The Americans congratulated themselves on letting the Air Force win the war in Bosnia; they beat a retreat from Lebanon and from Somalia. And, now, the Canadians are going to want out of Afghanistan because they lose a few men.

Like I said before, the Western democracies have gone soft. Every potential enemy out there knows it...sure, the West talks a good game but bloody their nose a few times and they'll go home.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


>


http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?p=450802#post450802


----------



## guyfidelity (Jul 21, 2006)

Vandave said:


> Not all of us on the right agree with SINC.
> 
> I think public debate about our military and supporting the troops are two separate things. It is not unpatriotic to criticize this war, not should it be considered being disrespectful to the troops. If anything, it sends a message that Canadians are actively engaged in debate and care about what their country does.
> 
> ...


Sorry if I offended as that was not my intent. To suggest that SINC is the only one espousing the as you deemed it stereotypical mindset I am criticizing is misleading. Furthermore I find it interesting that you simply dismiss SINC's comments but feel the need to chastise me and accuse me of stereotyping. I'm well aware of the need to make a distinction between supporting our troops and criticizing the mission.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

guyfidelity said:


> Sorry if I offended as that was not my intent. To suggest that SINC is the only one espousing the as you deemed it stereotypical mindset I am criticizing is misleading. Furthermore I find it interesting that you simply dismiss SINC's comments but feel the need to chastise me and accuse me of stereotyping. I'm well aware of the need to make a distinction between supporting our troops and criticizing the mission.


You have a long way to go before I get offended. Ask ArtistSeries.

My 'concern' was you lumping all right wingers together. Since, I am a right winger, I am more likely to take exception to such a statement. If SINC has criticism for left wingers, I don't take it as personally because those aren't my beliefs. Hence, a lack of commentary.

I am sorry you took my post as chastising you. Read it again and you might find that what I said actually supports you (i.e. making distinctions).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> You have a long way to go before I get offended. Ask ArtistSeries.


Yes Vandave is offensive....

wait...

No. VD takes in like a man...

wait...

I've offended VD in the past. It was hard and took alot of work on my part... 

wait...

Vandave, what's my line here? The tin foil hat does not work like it used to...

....

Stephan Harper eats baby seals? beejacon


----------



## guyfidelity (Jul 21, 2006)

Vandave said:


> You have a long way to go before I get offended. Ask ArtistSeries.
> 
> My 'concern' was you lumping all right wingers together. Since, I am a right winger, I am more likely to take exception to such a statement statement. If SINC has criticism for left wingers, I don't take it as personally because those aren't my beliefs. Hence, a lack of commentary.
> 
> I am sorry you took my post as chastising you. Read it again and you might find that what I am said actually supports you (i.e. making distinctions).


Well, we could play these semantic word games all day long. Fair enough, I'm not nearly clever enough to decipher the wisdom in your right wing missives.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Not all of us on the right agree with SINC.
> 
> I think public debate about our military and supporting the troops are two separate things. It is not unpatriotic to criticize this war, not should it be considered being disrespectful to the troops. If anything, it sends a message that Canadians are actively engaged in debate and care about what their country does.
> 
> ...





Vandave said:


> You have a long way to go before I get offended. Ask ArtistSeries.
> 
> My 'concern' was you lumping all right wingers together. Since, I am a right winger, I am more likely to take exception to such a statement statement. If SINC has criticism for left wingers, I don't take it as personally because those aren't my beliefs. Hence, a lack of commentary.
> 
> I am sorry you took my post as chastising you. Read it again and you might find that what I am said actually supports you (i.e. making distinctions).


I think you've been clear.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> I think you've been clear.


Me too.

But I don't think that "supporting our forces" and "demanding they be brought home" can be one and the same in meaning.

One is the opposite of the other in my mind, as it is in the minds of the military families in this city they call home, 10 km from Edmonton Garrison.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

IronMac said:


> No, it's staying power or squeamishness. Look at various actions over the past 20 years. The Americans congratulated themselves on letting the Air Force win the war in Bosnia; they beat a retreat from Lebanon and from Somalia. And, now, the Canadians are going to want out of Afghanistan because they lose a few men.
> 
> Like I said before, the Western democracies have gone soft. Every potential enemy out there knows it...sure, the West talks a good game but bloody their nose a few times and they'll go home.


I think you're mistaking squeamishness and "going soft" with having moral issues with the wars in question. Look - if the Taliban were landing troops on Canadian soil there would be no moral issues. We would fight them with all the grit and determination that you say we don't have.

The question in all liberal democracies and even within much of the USA is: is the war justified? In all the recent wars there are huge questions about whether they are just wars or not. You seem to think that Afghanistan is a just war, I don't believe it is, especially since the original mission has morphed and the western countries have given up on their massive aid commitments.

War is a terrible blunt instrument and should only be used when the cause is just. We are not "soft", we just don't want our soldiers and Afghani citizens dying for a cause that is not clearly just. In my mind what is soft in our society is the mindset of those who would justify death and destruction in the name of our imperial hegemony or strategic concerns about access to oil.

Besides the Afghan war, the "War on Terror" is misguided and is not even a war anyway. I don't want anyone dying for that mistake.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I think you're forgetting that Afghani citizens were NOT in charge of Afghanistan before the west invaded, the Taliban was. That is no longer the case, and the Afghanis have had something like an election that installed Hamid Karzai as president.

Does that justify the war? In itself? Perhaps.

While women are no longer stoned for attending school or committing adultery, the new rules and conditions are _obviously_ less than perfect; and many on all sides have died.

The Taliban invited this our war by allowing and supporting Al Qaeda. There is no question that Canada should have made some attempt to go after Al Qaeda after Canadians--and others from nearly 100 countries--were killed on September 11, 2001.

This may not be the perfect response, but it did result in the reduction of capabilities of Al Qaeda and the removal of the Taliban from power. That's a start.





GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think you're mistaking squeamishness and "going soft" with having moral issues with the wars in question. Look - if the Taliban were landing troops on Canadian soil there would be no moral issues. We would fight them with all the grit and determination that you say we don't have.
> 
> The question in all liberal democracies and even within much of the USA is: is the war justified? In all the recent wars there are huge questions about whether they are just wars or not. You seem to think that Afghanistan is a just war, I don't believe it is, especially since the original mission has morphed and the western countries have given up on their massive aid commitments.
> 
> ...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think you're mistaking squeamishness and "going soft" with having moral issues with the wars in question. Look - if the Taliban were landing troops on Canadian soil there would be no moral issues. We would fight them with all the grit and determination that you say we don't have.
> 
> The question in all liberal democracies and even within much of the USA is: is the war justified? In all the recent wars there are huge questions about whether they are just wars or not. You seem to think that Afghanistan is a just war, I don't believe it is, especially since the original mission has morphed and the western countries have given up on their massive aid commitments.
> 
> ...


Tell me something, do you believe that there are al-Qaeda operatives in Canada? Even if they weren't here originally to attack us the balloon has gone up and we're in the fight. Do you actually believe that it's possible to negotiate or reason with religious fundamentalists? Do you think that it's possible to make peace with them?

Or, do you believe that it's ok to allow them a secure sanctuary anywhere in the world?

The truth of the matter is, the Taliban gave sanctuary to al-Qaeda which has no love for the West. That's right, the *West*, which means we Canadians are lumped in with the Brits, the Americans, the French, etc.

Leaving Afghanistan now, will allow the Taliban to once again establish a fundamentalist state. What some of you "moralists" don't realize are the consequences of that. The Afghans will be back to living under a state of religious terror.

I swear, the liberals around here are as stupid as the bushies sometimes. Neither side seems to grasp the idea of "unintended consequences". The idiot neo-cons didn't understand that in Iraq and now the lefties are doing the same thing in Afghanistan.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

IM- Have you read the letter Bin Laden wrote.?
Even not so long ago he said to the US - stay home be happy.

The problem with Al Qaeda all along is these are not unthinking zealots - they are very rational hardened warriors on a mission to change things in Middle East - no more or less than US and Britain and with few resources as given them black eyes as they did the Russian Bear.

Canada will be included in targeting only if they engage - which we have. It's not a role or a stance I would choose for Canada.

North Korean, Myanmar, the Congo, Sudan - there are far worse situations on the planet - we are not engaged there.
Save for harbouring Al Quaeda the Taliban likely provided a more stable post - Russian existence than any any other - it might not be to our taste in government types but then how far off is Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Southern Afghanistan and the tribes there have been in conflict with the north for 5000 years or more - what hubris do we as Canadians have that we can change that mindset.

In my mind Canada should be.

Safe harbour for victims of conflict

A model for diverse cultures and religions thriving under a body of law that treats all equally

A specialist in peace keeping under the UN and humanitarian missions such as the plane that tours doctors for eye surgery.

I think ourselves and some of the other "middle states" need to be, and be seen to be....reallllllllllly neutral buffers and under present policy and stance we are drifting further away from that than even under the previous Liberal government which gave lip service but no substance to Canada as peacekeeper and friend to all.

I think NATO needs rethinking and our role in it as well. I only tolerate the present situation as it's under the NATO commitments even if it's vague how the commitments come about with regards to Afghanistan.

Time after time Bush was warned meddling in the Middle east would make it worse - it has. .
WE are meddling - I don't care ...good intent or not...we are effectively mercenaries for "powers unseen".
I DO NOT LIKE IT.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

What bin Laden writes can and will depend on battlefield conditions. Besides, what better way to further divide your enemy than when you offer a carrot of peace versus unremitting war? Unfortunately, what some people don't realize is that a real warrior would put razor blades in that carrot. (Why razor blades and not poison? A wounded enemy is much more detrimental to their war effort than a dead one.)

I agree that the religious fundamentalists are rational. In fact, they are more rational than their opponents. They think things through and the soft-hearted libs don't. As I pointed out before, the consequences of withdrawing from Afghanistan will open up that country to be a safe haven for al-Qaeda not to mention condemning the Afghan people to religious terror by the foreign-sponsored Taliban (Money and protection come from Pakistan's secret service and overseas while some recruits do come from the south but others come from elsewhere. This is not a tribal conflict in disguise.). We all know that it was done before and that it can happen again.

The idea of withdrawing from any conflict zone now is foolhardy and the idea of allowing bin Laden to establish any sort of caliphate in the Middle East is alarming in the extreme. People on both sides of the war debate buy into this idea of a "war on terror". No no no! This is a religious war, pure and simple.

Before anyone puts any words in my mouth, I am not advocating a crusade against Muslims. Just that al-Qaeda must be neutralized and the Western powers have to work towards cleaning up the mess that has been made in the Middle East.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MacDoc, Canada has been specifically named by bin Laden as a target.

Our role in Afghanistan has confirmed it, as have the cells that have been arrested so far operating here.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Our role in Afghanistan has confirmed it, as have the cells that have been arrested so far operating here.


What cell would that be? The little weekend warriors you could not do much on their own?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Remember also what Ahmed Ressam had in his trunk when he crossed over from B.C. to the U.S.? Wasn't he from Montreal, where there was also a plan to blow up gas stations in certain areas?

Life in a cell, live in a shell, your choice.



ArtistSeries said:


> What cell would that be? The little weekend warriors you could not do much on their own?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Tell me something, do you believe that there are al-Qaeda operatives in Canada? Even if they weren't here originally to attack us the balloon has gone up and we're in the fight. Do you actually believe that it's possible to negotiate or reason with religious fundamentalists? Do you think that it's possible to make peace with them?
> 
> Or, do you believe that it's ok to allow them a secure sanctuary anywhere in the world?
> 
> ...


Funny you should use the term "unintended consequences" and then make an argument for prosecuting the useless "War on Terror". And then call others "stupid".

You seem to want to cling to the hyperbolic image of raving mad fundamentalist bombers. As has been noted by many, while the actions of those who are willing to take innocent lives to further their political cause may be repugnant these people are very rational and not raving mad. The motivation of these people is political, not religious, they just use religion as a convenient prop for their cause, just like the Bush-ites do in their own bible-belt.

They have settled on a strategy for their criminal actions that is based on a logic, and one that appears to be quite effective in provoking the required response. Their bombings, while horrific are meant to serve as the red flag to the bull, to initiate the West into pursuing a clash of civilizations course, which will serve to radicalize the people in their countries into joining with them against the Western occupying forces. As has already been said many times there is no end to a "War on Terror", because there is no way to win it. Some within the M-I complex are only too happy to embark on an endless war.

Are there Al Queda plotters in Canada? Quite likely there are at least home-grown sympathizers and dealing with these criminals is a matter for the police.

You say, "The Afghans will be back to living under a state of religious terror". C'mon let's be honest here, I know some people seem to think we went to Afghanistan to liberate the masses under fundamentalist tyranny, but that isn't true in the least. We went there to support the US's stated mission of deposing the Taliban and hunting down the Al Queda leadership that they protected. It was supposed to be quick and we had promised to leave billions there to help reconstruct the nation and win hearts and minds. The western countries reneged on that promise and the United States cut and ran off to Iraq.

As an aside, now that it is widely surmised that Osama is hiding out in Pakistan, why haven't the US led forces gone after him there. In fact the Pakistan military government has just signed a treaty with the tribal people of that area of Pakistan that essentially gives over that area. I suspect that in reality Osama is more useful to US purposes as a cartoon fugitive, raving mad, terrorist dark-overlord, out on the loose, then he would be captured and on trial.

We cannot take a country like Afghanistan and force it to become a liberal democracy. The harder we try the more we are seen as invaders and the stronger the Taliban and it's supporters become. We will surely leave the Afghanistan quagmire one day, but in the meantime we will spill the blood of thousands of innocents as well as that of our own people.

The aim of the US led effort is to install a strongman, who we can dress up in democratic clothes and who will safeguard strategic access to areas needed for oil and gas pipelines. Our leaders Harper, Blair and Bush, even though they vociferously claim to be working for the Afghan people, don't give a sh*t about democracy or human rights.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

IronMac said:


> The idea of withdrawing from any conflict zone now is foolhardy and the idea of allowing bin Laden to establish any sort of caliphate in the Middle East is alarming in the extreme. People on both sides of the war debate buy into this idea of a "war on terror". No no no! This is a religious war, pure and simple.


So it's OK to have despotic religious fundamentalists in charge, as in the rulers of Saudi Arabia, as long as they will give the West what it wants - access to oil. They can chop off hands and heads, make their women into second class citizens as long as they don't rock the oil boat. Fundamentalists could rule every country in the Middle East and subjugate their populations into the ground as far as the West is concerned, as long as they don't close them piplelines - right?

This is not a religious war, it is and has always been a territorial conflict.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So it's OK to have despotic religious fundamentalists in charge, as in the rulers of Saudi Arabia, as long as they will give the West what it wants - access to oil. They can chop off hands and heads, make their women into second class citizens as long as they don't rock the oil boat. Fundamentalists could rule every country in the Middle East and subjugate their populations into the ground as far as the West is concerned, as long as they don't close them piplelines - right?
> 
> This is not a religious war, it is and has always been a territorial conflict.


by george (bush), i think you've got it !

watch the movie "Syriana" - very scary


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So it's OK to have despotic religious fundamentalists in charge, as in the rulers of Saudi Arabia, as long as they will give the West what it wants - access to oil. They can chop off hands and heads, make their women into second class citizens as long as they don't rock the oil boat. Fundamentalists could rule every country in the Middle East and subjugate their populations into the ground as far as the West is concerned, as long as they don't close them piplelines - right?


No, it's not ok but leaving Afghanistan will put one more country under religious fundamentalists. But, I guess it's ok so long as we do so for reasons other than "oil" or "imperial hegemony".

I'll deal with your earlier post next.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Funny you should use the term "unintended consequences" and then make an argument for prosecuting the useless "War on Terror". And then call others "stupid".[
> 
> You seem to want to cling to the hyperbolic image of raving mad fundamentalist bombers. As has been noted by many, while the actions of those who are willing to take innocent lives to further their political cause may be repugnant these people are very rational and not raving mad. The motivation of these people is political, not religious, they just use religion as a convenient prop for their cause, just like the Bush-ites do in their own bible-belt.


First off, I don't see you criticizing me when I call neo-cons idiots.
Second, I've already pointed out that the religious fundamentalists are a lot more rational than the libs and I've never characterized them as stark raving mad.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You say, "The Afghans will be back to living under a state of religious terror". C'mon let's be honest here, I know some people seem to think we went to Afghanistan to liberate the masses under fundamentalist tyranny, but that isn't true in the least. We went there to support the US's stated mission of deposing the Taliban and hunting down the Al Queda leadership that they protected. It was supposed to be quick and we had promised to leave billions there to help reconstruct the nation and win hearts and minds. The western countries reneged on that promise and the United States cut and ran off to Iraq.


Do you even realize what will happen if NATO cut and runs now? You may go off on some sort of high horse and say that the original mission was morally bankrupt and that the mission has changed. Well, tough, no mission plan survives the first encounter with the enemy. Leaving now without finishing the job will condemn the Afghans to religious tyranny. That would look great wouldn't it? We'll be back to women being oppressed, artwork being destroyed, terrorists being sheltered and the lesson reinforced that the pampered masses of the West can't take a few deaths. Thanks libs, go pat yourselves on the back!



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As an aside, now that it is widely surmised that Osama is hiding out in Pakistan, why haven't the US led forces gone after him there. In fact the Pakistan military government has just signed a treaty with the tribal people of that area of Pakistan that essentially gives over that area. I suspect that in reality Osama is more useful to US purposes as a cartoon fugitive, raving mad, terrorist dark-overlord, out on the loose, then he would be captured and on trial.


I agree with this. I don't believe that the US is persecuting the manhunt on bin Laden as they should be and I'm very skeptical as to the reasons why.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> We cannot take a country like Afghanistan and force it to become a liberal democracy. The harder we try the more we are seen as invaders and the stronger the Taliban and it's supporters become. We will surely leave the Afghanistan quagmire one day, but in the meantime we will spill the blood of thousands of innocents as well as that of our own people.


No one if forcing them to become a liberal democracy. What people seem to forget is that the majority of Afghanistan's provinces are not seeing the Taliban and that the insurgency is only active in about 2 provinces.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The aim of the US led effort is to install a strongman, who we can dress up in democratic clothes and who will safeguard strategic access to areas needed for oil and gas pipelines. Our leaders Harper, Blair and Bush, even though they vociferously claim to be working for the Afghan people, don't give a sh*t about democracy or human rights.


First off, it's no longer US-led. Second, while you may accuse them of not caring about democracy or human rights, libs are more than happy to abandon all democratic efforts and welcome human rights abuses too. Those will be the consequences of leaving Afghanistan to its fate.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

IronMac said:


> First off, I don't see you criticizing me when I call neo-cons idiots.
> Second, I've already pointed out that the religious fundamentalists are a lot more rational than the libs and I've never characterized them as stark raving mad.


I wasn't part of the group being called idiots. I'm not the forum police but I do tend to react when name-calling is directed my way.

I was writing that post before you clarified your opinions about the fundamentalists reasoning abilities. I still think you're not looking closely at why they are doing what they do. I don't condone terrorism in any way, but there are reasons and strategies beyond some blind adherence to fundamentalist faith, which seems to be what you are characterizing.


IM said:


> Do you even realize what will happen if NATO cut and runs now? You may go off on some sort of high horse and say that the original mission was morally bankrupt and that the mission has changed. Well, tough, no mission plan survives the first encounter with the enemy. Leaving now without finishing the job will condemn the Afghans to religious tyranny. That would look great wouldn't it? We'll be back to women being oppressed, artwork being destroyed, terrorists being sheltered and the lesson reinforced that the pampered masses of the West can't take a few deaths. Thanks libs, go pat yourselves on the back!


"Finishing the job" is impossible and our continued presence there as a military occupier is doing just the opposite. I would have liked to have seen the Western countries make good on their 30 billion dollar promise to rebuild the country. So far only a fraction of that has gone there even though we are willing to commit untold billions towards military operations. 


IM said:


> I agree with this. I don't believe that the US is persecuting the manhunt on bin Laden as they should be and I'm very skeptical as to the reasons why.


I'm glad we agree on something. 


IM said:


> No one if forcing them to become a liberal democracy. What people seem to forget is that the majority of Afghanistan's provinces are not seeing the Taliban and that the insurgency is only active in about 2 provinces.


Then my ears deceive me because that's exactly what I've been hearing Harper, Blair and Bush claim is our aim there (even though those claims are only for public consumption.) In reality we are siding with crooks and warlords against other warlords and fundamentalists who have sided with the Taliban. There is no democracy coming there any time soon.


IM said:


> First off, it's no longer US-led. Second, while you may accuse them of not caring about democracy or human rights, libs are more than happy to abandon all democratic efforts and welcome human rights abuses too. Those will be the consequences of leaving Afghanistan to its fate.


Yes, technically not US led, but don't tell them that. The war was US initiated and when Bush decided that Iraq was the real target they did their best to cut and run from the commitments they had made to the country. 

You talk about abandoning democratic and human rights efforts, as if that is what we are doing there. From what I can see, we are doing the opposite. Didn't we go there to catch a criminal and his organization? As far as whether Afghanistan falls under a fundamentalist government again, that's up to the Afghan people to decide. I think our actions there and US actions elsewhere are ensuring that this will happen.

I entered into this debate with some trepidation, knowing IronMac to be a pretty tenacious debater, based on some long running past threads. I think I have made my position clear enough and I really don't have the time to enter into a long running debate thread on the issue. I'm not conceding any points but I doubt if I'll respond much further to this.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gauntlet thrown......



> NDP backs Afghan pullout
> *Layton gets massive endorsement from NDP grassroots for Afghan pullout*
> Sep. 9, 2006. 03:13 PM
> CANADIAN PRESS
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Liberals gonna be a hinge pin on this.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Liberals gonna be a hinge pin on this.


Well, at least the NDP wingnuts are consistent in supporting Layton. The man really needs a beanie with a prop on top.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Classic - you have a knack of one line summaries of all that's wrong with the Cons. 

You think Jack's a wingnut??!! then what the hell is a Security Minister who thinks man walked with the dinosaurs.......a throwback to his piscine ancestry I guess. I've caughter brighter perch.

Layton and party have taken a stance diametircally opposed to Con policy. Good for them.
The Libs and Bloc will now have to play twister.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

This rather telling article seems to indicate that we the hawkish element of the military wanted to show their bravado to the world.
{quote]At an afternoon meeting in Ottawa, a decision was made that would cost soldiers' lives, billions of taxpayers' dollars and, perhaps, Canada's reputation

Martin had called the meeting to discuss an array of foreign-policy issues.
But Hillier and planners in the defence department were fixed on one thing and one thing only: Afghanistan.
[/quote]
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...549&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

{quote]
How long it will actually take to stabilize Afghanistan, nobody knows. But former Canadian ambassador to Kabul Chris Alexander has been quoted as saying: "Five generations."
[/quote]
Assuming we win, of course, we are there for 100years!.....


> A number of people in the process were uncomfortable with the fact that to go south to Kandahar, Canada was going to have to *step outside of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and once again sign up with the American-led Operation Enduring Freedom. (OEF).*
> 
> Operation Enduring Freedom was an American-led, counter-terrorism mission, aimed at rooting out and killing Taliban.
> 
> he Dutch were hesitant in the extreme. The British would debate the issue in Parliament. *So would Canada — but only after the decision was already taken.*


Nice to see that we are American lackeys... 



> This matters to this White House. And things that matter to this White House can't be taken lightly, because these guys take it personally ... So, we really have to evaluate the importance of making a decision that runs counter to this White House.'"
> 
> It was, if not payback time, then pay-up time.


I guess Martin was only willing to stand up so much to the American...


> No one would ever call Hillier "arrogant," but some say another prevailing view emerged in the room: that if you couldn't embrace the new and more dangerous world order you were just "naive."
> As for Martin, he saw Afghanistan as an "obligation" from the Chrétien era, one he had to honour.





> Before endorsing Hillier's battle-group plan, *Martin wanted Hillier's assurance that if Canada was called upon to participate in a mission in Darfur, Haiti* or — say several who were in the room — *even the Middle East, that there would be sufficient Canadian troops available to respond.*
> Martin made it plain, says one, that he didn't want to be "patronized ... he didn't want any `Yes, Minister' business. He looked Hillier squarely in the eye and demanded his commitment."
> He got it.


Wonder what made Hillier change his tune?



> You cannot underestimate the *desire of soldiers to prove themselves in combat*," says Paul Heinbecker, a former foreign senior policy adviser under the Chrétien and Mulroney governments; *nor of commanders to finally show their skill in managing real battlefields,* he says.


And another reason why I don't find talking to soldiers to be all that elucidating...
Of course they want to go into battle...



> "And even more important is the fact that this is* identifying us with American foreign policy*. And in this world, that's a dangerous proposition."


This war on terrorism is bunk and has endangered Canada. When we do get attacked, the right will pronounce "I told you so" - not realizing the "why's" of said attack...



> "The United States, for a whole series of reasons, from exceptionalism to neo-conism to hubris to ignorance about the world, is conducting itself in a way that is creating a lot of enemies. And I just don't see how our association with that helps," he says.


When O'Connor saying we can't win (not to Canadian but foreign press), bring them home - this is futile...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I'm also expecting the usual cries of "we are there for reconstruction" and "they need us for their freedom"....
Maybe we should ask them...


> Canadian troops making things worse: Afghan legislator
> 
> "If (Canadians) want to prove themselves as real friends of the Afghan people, they must act independently," said Joya, who has escaped several assassination attempts since she was first elected in 2003. "They continued the policy of the U.S. and our people don't agree with U.S. policy, and this is why there is no positive results right now."


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=5dac8c63-42f2-42d3-b12c-7c5c27e12a56


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Well, at least the NDP wingnuts are consistent in supporting Layton. The man really needs a beanie with a prop on top.


At least he'd have a reason to be so indignant. 

I was watching some of the NDP convention on CPAC and it had more than its share of shouters and grand pronoucements of nothing. Simpson has written a couple columns on the NDP recently. Here are some excerpts from both:

...................
The New Democratic Party, largely because it has never known the responsibility and discipline of power, views a frequently immoral world through the prism of moral crusades. 
...................
Anti-Americanism reflects New Democrats' suspicion of market capitalism, transnational corporate structures, free trade, wealth and, most profoundly, the use of power in international affairs -- all of which are associated negatively with the United States.

Instinctively siding with underdogs, New Democrats dislike top dogs such as the United States, and its friends such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the subject of almost universal loathing within the NDP. This dislike now infects the NDP's attitudes toward Israel, a country for which the early generations of Canadian socialists showed sympathy and solidarity, in contrast to today's party preferences for Palestinians whose struggle ignites the NDP's moral fire.

Of course, many New Democrats will take umbrage at this description, insisting some of their best friends are Americans. But even the most casual perusal of NDP speeches or review of party positions, let alone a glance at the many resolutions presented at this weekend's convention, demonstrates the fatuousness of this denial.
...................
The explicit aspiration of the New Democratic Party for this weekend's convention was to make the party appear “ready to govern” or at least to become the “real opposition.”

The convention looks set to fail on both counts, not because the convention lacked effective organization, but because the NDP is intellectually stuck.

The NDP has its world — 15 to 18 per cent of the Canadian electorate — but, apparently, it cannot look beyond that world to a bigger, broader coalition.
...................
The NDP remains wedded to modest redistribution of wealth and an expansion of the public sector, without apparently any interest in, or aptitude for, actually creating new wealth. Which is where the party has been for decades, intellectually, and which is among the reasons why the NDP remains politically stuck. It simply has nothing to say to millions of voters who are not already part of the little NDP world.
...................
To take foreign policy, for example, it's hard to imagine the NDP reaching beyond its little world with resolutions praising Fidel Castro's Cuba and Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, heaping abuse on Israel, opposing NAFTA, berating not just U.S. President George Bush but everything about U.S. society and policies, while of course insisting that Canada spend heaps more on foreign aid.
...................
In Jack Layton's book, published not long before his first election campaign and written entirely by himself, not a single positive reference appeared regarding private enterprise or the free market — which is where the majority of Canadians earn their living. Nothing has apparently evolved since.

A party that cannot speak to people about improving the lot of their companies and industries, except by protection and subsidies, is a party that will remain stuck, intellectually and politically.
...................


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> In Jack Layton's book, published not long before his first election campaign and written entirely by himself, not a single positive reference appeared regarding private enterprise or the free market — which is where the majority of Canadians earn their living. Nothing has apparently evolved since.
> 
> A party that cannot speak to people about improving the lot of their companies and industries, except by protection and subsidies, is a party that will remain stuck, intellectually and politically.
> ...................


:clap:

I watched Layton on the noon news today where he told the crowd he was going to ask the people of Canada to hire him as their Prime Minister. The man and the NDP are dreamers. They have no chance of being elected as the party in power in this century or perhaps longer until they rid themselves of the anti-business propaganda they continue to spew. It doesn't wash with about 85% of the electorate.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Even Hargrave has bailed on Jack and Co.
That said the NDP and it's predecessors represent a fairly significant stream in the Canadian pysche.

His fortunes will be more dictated by the choice of Liberal leader. Kennedy or Rae spells much trouble for the NDP.

In one respect Jack is right - he's picking at the most vulnerable political issue for Harper. If the US drops into recession and it impacts Canada a combo of Afghanistan issues and economic ones might favour NDP fortunes.

He missed his ( small ) chance to actually form a coalition with the Libs - something I would favour. The conditions my not arise again for a long time.

Times are good the left gets ignored.....that may not last. Harper spent his own long time in the wilderness when the right was split. Rae might bind the left into a into a strong alternative with the Bloc playing both sides for what they want.
Harper is vulnerable over Afghanistan in Quebec.

I think Jack is canny enough to realize he must hold the hardcore left with strong statements to prevent a leakage to Rae or Kennedy who have difficult waters to navigate trying to appeal to both Blue and Red libs at the same time.

Martin was an anomaly - as Hebert stated Martin would most often be a PC PM by past standards.
I think the rejigging of Canada's political landscape is still a work in progress and will depend much on both the economy and the choice of Lib leader.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Layton made an huge mistake that I am very surprised the NDP faithful have not made him responsible for, yet.

They had the balance of power under the Martin minority gov't and now have more seats, but far less power.

Although his wife is now an MP so they can car pool to work on the taxpayer's dime.
Jack is a very poor politician and his support of an election call (thereby letting the cons off the hook for it) was a very stupid move.

Perhaps one day the NDP faithful will realize that Jack is just a whore like the rest of them.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Ah yes, the completely even-handed and unbiased Jeffrey Simpson.

So what does his criticism of the NDP's supposed anti-Americanism (tired and knee-jerky Jeff), or his estimation of their economic ideas have to do with the topic of Afghanistan? On this issue I think the NDP might be representing a fair bit more than 15% of the Canadian public.

Just Beej baiting his hook I suspect. beejacon


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Layton made an huge mistake that I am very surprised the NDP faithful have not made him responsible for, yet.
> 
> They had the balance of power under the Martin minority gov't and now have more seats, but far less power.


You didn't say that after the last election. You said they were the big winners by gaining more seats.

Nice to see that you have come around to my original analysis after calling it Neocon spin.

It seems to me you have little to complain about since you probably would have done the same thing had you been in Layton's shoes.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> You didn't say that after the last election. You said they were the big winners by gaining more seats.
> 
> Nice to see that you have come around to my original analysis after calling it Neocon spin.
> 
> It seems to me you have little to complain about since you probably would have done the same thing had you been in Layton's shoes.


i don't recall saying that, but perhaps your files are better kept than mine


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi Macdoc,


> Canada will be included in targeting only if they engage - which we have. It's not a role or a stance I would choose for Canada.


The evidence suggests otherwise... Bali has been hit twice, Tunisia, Kenya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc. True... many of those attacks were at western interests and tourists as opposed to the country in question, but that distinction may be lost on me if they try to blow up my local McDonalds.

During the last election Layton (my MP by the way) wouldn't even ask to be Prime Minister when given a chance. If the NDP do hate Tony Blair so much it's because he remoulded the Labour party into an electable force that has won three straight elections. The NDP have no appetite for government... it's much easier to snipe from the sidelines than to make the tough choices.

On a final note I can't see myself joining the Liberals but would I ever love to be at their leadership convention... it's going to be very interesting I think.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i don't recall saying that, but perhaps your files are better kept than mine


http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=36502&highlight=election


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

C'mon FN - the Saudi attacks are attempts to punish the ruling families for offenses such as "inviting the infidels" etc.
Bali was aimed at Australia a major coalition partner and the remainder aimed at the US directly such as the Embassy in Kenya.

Tangling the Taliban and Al Quaeda is also a dangerous presumption.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=36502&highlight=election


good try, my history re-writing opponent
i can see you have been at Bill O'Reilly's "how to mis-interpret reality" camp for journalists
where did I say the NDP were winners?

let's go back and make sure we have it all;
quoteth by Vandave;


> You didn't say that after the last election. You said they [NDP] were the big winners by gaining more seats.
> Nice to see that you have come around to my original analysis after calling it Neocon spin.


not only am i calling it neo-con spin, i'm calling BULLSH*T on this one


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> C'mon FN - the Saudi attacks are attempts to punish the ruling families for offenses such as "inviting the infidels" etc.
> Bali was aimed at Australia a major coalition partner and the remainder aimed at the US directly such as the Embassy in Kenya.


You're missing my point... from the World Trade centre to Bali to Madrid and London, Al Quaeda have consistently show no regard for "collateral casualties", if you'll excuse the term. If they decide, for example, that American or British owned businesses in Canada are a soft target they're not going to hesitate because lots of Canadians will be killed... whatever political positions we've taken.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> not only am i calling it neo-con spin, i'm calling BULLSH*T on this one


Oh, ffs, you both agree on something, so now you need to fight about who thought it first? If this is the best we can do at dialogue, there ain't much hope for this thing we call civilization.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Fink-Nottle said:


> You're missing my point... from the World Trade centre to Bali to Madrid and London, Al Quaeda have consistently show no regard for "collateral casualties", if you'll excuse the term. If they decide, for example, that American or British owned businesses in Canada are a soft target they're not going to hesitate because lots of Canadians will be killed... whatever political positions we've taken.


Canada's now aggressive role in Afghanistan, unquestioning support of Israel and our even closer ties to the U.S. makes us much more of a target than we used to be last year


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Revised, then:

*"Keep your enemies close, and the enemies of the friends of your friends closer"* ?



MACSPECTRUM said:


> Canada's now aggressive role in Afghanistan, staunch support of Israel and our even closer ties to the U.S. makes us much more of a target


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Revised, then:
> 
> *"Keep your enemies close, and the enemies of the friends of your friends closer"* ?


"the enemy of my enemy is my ally"

how's that working out? [re: Usama bin Laden]


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Canada's now aggressive role in Afghanistan, unquestioning support of Israel and our even closer ties to the U.S. makes us much more of a target than we used to be last year


Is that our end goal, to not be a target?

Or should our goal be to do what is right and meet our obligations?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Is that our end goal, to not be a target?
> 
> Or should our goal be to do what is right and meet our obligations?


An excellent question, thank you for asking it. And for once I think we agree . None the less, we should strive to do what is right in the most effective way possible, and it seems more and more clear that we have not chosen an effective strategy, nor one that even has a hope of succeeding. We need to seriously consider whether our attempts to reach a good end (do what is right) have been so poorly executed as to actually produce more harm than good.


----------



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

"Is that our end goal, to not be a target?" This seems to be the goal of all NATO troops other than those from the US, Canada, England and Holland. For example, the Spanish troops are not allowed to venture forth from behind fortified areas, at least according to a CBC-TV report on Friday.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

The German troops are similarly forbidden to enter the South or East of Afghanistan.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Do you agree with NDP leader Jack Layton's charge that Stephen Harper puts U.S. interests ahead of Canada's?
> 
> No
> (31%) 12167 votes
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...ays=no&hub=Front&subhub=VoteResult&vote=54575

Maybe Layton not so far off on his pitch - those are GLOBE readers. I'm surprised at that result. 
NOT your normal far left crowd at all.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I don't think there is a single person here who would disagree with Harper putting _our_ interests ahead of the US's interests.

It's a wee bit generic and kind of easy to interpret that poll in a variety of ways.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What!!!!!! that question is absolutely clear. There is NO misinterpretation unless you are realllly language challenged.

69% of respondents think that "*Stephen Harper puts U.S. interests ahead of Canada's*

Just how more straight forward could it be.

They agree with Layton on that point about Harper....Globe readers.....26,000 plus of them.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> "Is that our end goal, to not be a target?" This seems to be the goal of all NATO troops other than those from the US, Canada, England and Holland. For example, the Spanish troops are not allowed to venture forth from behind fortified areas, at least according to a CBC-TV report on Friday.


I assumed that Spec was talking about civilians in Canada, rather than our troops in Afghanistan. I assumed he thinks our efforts in Afghanistan increase our chances of being attacked by terrorists. In the short-term that may very well be the case. But, sometimes you have to do what is right ahead of your own short-term self interests.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacDoc said:


> What!!!!!! that question is absolutely clear. There is NO misinterpretation unless you are realllly language challenged.
> 
> 69% of respondents think that "*Stephen Harper puts U.S. interests ahead of Canada's*
> 
> ...


You're a real cock at times, you know? :lmao:

I won't bother calling up the little diatribe you posted with respects to a poll that was posted here on ehMac and how vague it was; the irony would be simply overwhelming.

Simply put--if you even care on looking past your own nose... is that a simple yes or no question doesn't accurately show, for example, who supports the mission to Afghanistan and who doesn't. I agree that we should put our interests above the US's, but I also support our troops in Afghanistan. Layton does not.

Compute? beejacon


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Simply put--if you even care on looking past your own nose... is that a simple yes or no question doesn't accurately show who supports the mission to Afghanistan and who doesn't. I agree that we should put our interests above the US's, but I also support our troops in Afghanistan. Layton does not.


Layton is playing irresponsible politics with our foreign policy. He needs a wedge issue to get more voters and so he has grabbed onto this. 

He originally took on the Darfur issue and pushed for our participation there, but soon dropped it when the Israeli / Hezbollah situation blew up. There are lots of things happening with the Darfur situation, yet the NDP is silent.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I assumed he thinks our efforts in Afghanistan increase our chances of being attacked by terrorists. In the short-term that may very well be the case. But, sometimes you have to do what is right ahead of your own short-term self interests.


How very altruistic of you. This would certainly be the first time that a government has done this....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Layton is playing irresponsible politics with our foreign policy. He needs a wedge issue to get more voters and so he has grabbed onto this.
> 
> He originally took on the Darfur issue and pushed for our participation there, but soon dropped it when the Israeli / Hezbollah situation blew up. There are lots of things happening with the Darfur situation, yet the NDP is silent.


Funny how many have accused Harper of doing the same. 
The Cons are the best at wedge issues - so it's about time other parties started doing the same.... (or is it only a wedge issues when you don't agree).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Funny how many have accused Harper of doing the same.
> The Cons are the best at wedge issues - so it's about time other parties started doing the same.... (or is it only a wedge issues when you don't agree).


Nothing wrong with wedge issues as long as they are consistent with your moral beliefs and not just taken up purely for political gains. 

The Conservatives have taken up a couple wedge issues that don't sit well politically for them. For example, it's obvious Afghanistan isn't going to be a great issue for them, especially in Quebec. Bad news will always confront them on it (e.g. when allies accidently kill our troops). Another example is the same sex marriage debate. Yet Harper pushes ahead, regardless of political loss or gain. I respect that.

Layton however, strikes me as a political whore. He'll say anything for political gain.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Nothing wrong with wedge issues as long as they are consistent with your moral beliefs and not just taken up purely for political gains.


I was actually surprised that the NDP has not denounced the war more forcefully before this time.
So it's a good "wedge issue" is the Cons do it - gotcha, I'll remember that...

To was amusing:


> Less than three weeks after denying it was sending Leopard tanks to Afghanistan, the Canadian military is set to ship as many as 20 of the heavy tracked armoured vehicles to Kandahar.


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=23e65690-7e71-49b2-8db6-33f71acb6aef
For a war that's supposed to be going go, sure does not feel that way....

Potato Pete seems to be on little tough talking rampage these days


> "Clearly there are other countries, not Canada, but other countries, who can do more," Foreign Affairs Minister Peter Mackay said yesterday in an interview on the CTV television program Question Period.
> 
> "I think the expectation is other countries would have to step up, as Canada has."


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060911.wxtankssb11/BNStory/National/home

I still predict that we will get a home attack, should be good for the fear factor and the justification of this folly....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Manny - The poll has NOTHING to do with the Afghanistan issue at all- it's a straight forward question about how readers view Harper. You are extrapolating wildly to try and read anything about the Afghan question into that poll question or it's results.

Chalk and cheese you are comparing with last nonsense in which the poll question was ludicrously inept......and Manyy - I respond in kind if you recall - I didn't start the problem.....I merely responded.

••

Of course foreign policy that gets Canadian soldiers killed needs to be questioned - far more than the lip service to debate that has occurred so far. A great number of Canadians are concerned and uncertain and airing debate is what democracy is about - something Harper continually overlooks in his attempts to muzzle debate and dissent. Classic neo Con.......keep the populace ignorant and ill-informed and muzzle dissidents.

Party conventions firm up the dedicated and will most often be a tad hyperbolic compared to the platform actually put forth for the larger voting public.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacDoc said:


> Manny - The poll has NOTHING to do with the Afghanistan issue at all- it's a straight forward question about how readers view Harper. You are extrapolating wildly to try and read anything about the Afghan question into that poll question or it's results.


Then why would you post that poll in THIS thread if it has nothing to do with Afghanistan? Simply using the word "interests" IS vague--Afghanistan _is_ a US interest... as is Iraq and the timing couldn't be any more *obvious*.



MacDoc said:


> Chalk and cheese you are comparing with *last nonsense in which the poll question was ludicrously inept*......and Manyy *[it's MANNY]*- I respond in kind if you recall - I didn't start the problem.....I merely responded.


Wrong--*you* (typically) start with the usual personal jab... why must you continually make personal attacks on (any)one's intelligence?. The very second somebody questions anything you post you go on the offensive:

_"There is NO misinterpretation unless you are realllly language challenged."_​
Irony aside... there have been times I've bit my tongue when you take that sort of tone with me before and I've _never_ made an issue about--even when it got _really_ personal, so pardon the [email protected] out of me for taking you to task for your attitude problem.


----------

