SORRY, MR PRIME MINISTER, AFGHANISTAN IS NOT OUR WAR

[CHUCKMAN]

March 25, 2006

SORRY, MR PRIME MINISTER, AFGHANISTAN IS NOT OUR WAR

John Chuckman

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he has trouble understanding Canadians who feel ardently that their country's soldiers should not be involved in Afghanistan.
Toronto Globe and Mail

We are not threatened by voices in the Middle East opposing American policy, unless you believe one reference in a recording of bin Laden mentioning Canada along with other countries. That recording, along with other post-invasion recordings, was almost certainly a CIA fraud, for Osama bin Laden had to be killed in the heavy bombing of his mountain redoubt.

Even if you do not believe that bin Laden is dead, what is beyond question is that American activities in Afghanistan and Iraq are building a vast reservoir of resentments and a training school for future terrorists. Tens of thousands of disaffected young Muslim men not only now have something to deeply resent but they have the operational conditions to perfect their arts of covert war. According to countless witnesses from Afghanistan and Iraq, America's brutal, thoughtless tactics have only inflamed tempers. Canada's good name should not be associated with this.

The previous government's making an under-the-table deal with Bush to place Canadian troops in Afghanistan surely does not make it our war. Your continuing, rather shrill, insistence still does not make it so. The deal was, of course, an effort to placate Bush for our not supporting his illegal invasion of Iraq. America is Canada's neighbor, but it is a fatuous and immoral argument that you help your neighbor in criminal activities just because he is your neighbor.

You and other voices from Western Canada have made much of reforming Canada's democratic institutions, and I agree that a number of them do need reforming. Yet no greater vice to democracy can exist than a government's committing the lives of young people and the whole nation's reputation to war without any consultation or debate. If you believe in democratic values, as you claim, you cannot support such behavior.

The argument is all the more powerful when war is the behavior of a minority government. Your government represents the will of less than forty percent of Canadians. How can you believe then that your views on the war should be the views of most Canadians? Through polls and every other indication of public opinion, the majority of the Canadian people have made it clear they do not support America's wars in the Middle East.

The Canadian general in charge of operations in Afghanistan has made public statements that are shameful to Canada's reputation in the world. Stuff about going over to do some killing. He sounds like an American wannabe raised on Rambo movies.

Canada did have a terrorist incident every bit as dreadful as 9/11. I refer to the bombing of the Air India flight years ago. Taking account of Canada's size, this event killed proportionately more Canadians than 9/11's American victims. While the outcome of that investigation has been disappointing, Canada never contemplated bombing Sikh communities because of it. America's logic in the war on terror is simply that ridiculous.

 

[cortez]

March 25, 2006

SORRY, MR PRIME MINISTER, AFGHANISTAN IS NOT OUR WAR

John Chuckman
Canada did have a terrorist incident every bit as dreadful as 9/11. I refer to the bombing of the Air India flight years ago. Taking account of Canada's size, this event killed proportionately more Canadians than 9/11's American victims. While the outcome of that investigation has been disappointing, Canada never contemplated bombing Sikh communities because of it. America's logic in the war on terror is simply that ridiculous.

ridiculous indeed

spot on chuckman
welcome to canadian content
in your brousing you may have found some really weird right wing militarist dribble
the lefties on the forum have been politely trying to educate these trigger happy jingoists but so far --- not much progress

 

[Sassylassie]

Cortez would you please stop insulting members of the Military. I respect your right to say what you have to say but insulting an entire institution based on your beliefs is bigoted and small minded. My husband lost 50% use of one of his legs searving his Country. What have you done for Canada?

Please enlighten forum members why you hold the Canadian Armed Forces in such distain. If you are going to pontificate against them please explain why.

 

[FiveParadox]

cortez, disagreeing with an operation or mission is one thing, but disrespecting the members of the Canadian Forces themselves is quite another, and is highly inappropriate. Let us keep in mind, please, that these people are those responsible for protecting the sovereignty of Canada, and defending the people therein.

Let's not turn this into another raging insult-fest.

 

[cortez]

Sassy

I am not against the MILITARY
I am against MILITARISM and this is not the same thing
I do support the MILITARY in armed combat in situations where Canada has come under attack. I support this if Canada responds by fighting the attacking country.
If my opinions as to whether Canadian Forces are in actual fact appropriately and ethically fighting in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq differ to yours, then that does NOT make me anti MILITARY
I am against the MILITARISTIC attitude that some individuals in the MILITARY have, as I am against civilians who are MILITARISTIC. If a member of the MILITARY chooses to argue with me on my beliefs, I will respond to them as I would a civilian. I do NOT believe that only soldiers can understand the politics of war, and that only soldiers can understand the devastation of war. Just because I acknowledge the reasons for war as inevitably involving unethical motives such as greed, does not make me against the troops. It makes me against WAR. I support keeping our troops safe. I support respecting their safety by only sending them into combat as a truly necessary last option. Can you explain to me how that attitude is insulting to the MILITARY. Can you tell me how that is a bigoted and small minded ideology? I do not hold the Canadian Armed Forces in disdain.... I hold the reasons for WAR in disdain.

Members of the Armed Forces, in their posts, have held ME in disdain, and insulted ME for my beliefs with the attitude that I am worthless because I am a civilian- is that not a bigoted attitude?

I am very sorry for your husbands suffering. I too have had immense family sufferings from past wars, and also family involvement with the Military. As have most of us. Some of us are thus led into realizing the futility and desecration of war.

Let us recognize that war involves an entire country. MILITARY and CIVILIANS. Let us also recognize that in war, ALL the people in a country are contributing and sufferering, whether by financing the war, whether by going without things in the war, whether by losing loved ones in the war, whether by having their planned lives totally disrupted by war, or whether by being a soldier fighting in the war. Therefore, we ALL have the right to discuss the pros and cons of war.

If the people in the Military dont like my beliefs, they are entitled to try to defend their own ideology, as I do mine.

 

[Sassylassie]

Thank you Cortez for explaining your position to me. I read what you post and for the most part understand it, but there are days that you just make me laugh.

P.S. You are not as scary as you think you are.

 

[Blackleaf]

British soldiers are in Afghanistan and are doing a GOOD JOB.

Why? Because Afghanistan is the world's biggest heroin producer. Heroin is made from poppies, and Britain has sent some troops out there to destroy its fields of poppies, mainly in the Helmand region, and to destroy its heroin-producing industry.

90% of all the heroin that is on Britain's streets comes from Afghanistan. Getting rid of its heroin industry will cut down the amount of heroin on Britain's streets.

But not just Britain's streets - those of other countries, such as Canada.

So when the amount of illegal heroin entering Canada has been reduced, you can thank the British soldiers for that. It's a pity the Canadians don't want to help us.

 

[Johnny Utah]

March 25, 2006

SORRY, MR PRIME MINISTER, AFGHANISTAN IS NOT OUR WAR

John Chuckman

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he has trouble understanding Canadians who feel ardently that their country's soldiers should not be involved in Afghanistan.
Toronto Globe and Mail

We are not threatened by voices in the Middle East opposing American policy, unless you believe one reference in a recording of bin Laden mentioning Canada along with other countries. That recording, along with other post-invasion recordings, was almost certainly a CIA fraud, for Osama bin Laden had to be killed in the heavy bombing of his mountain redoubt.

Even if you do not believe that bin Laden is dead, what is beyond question is that American activities in Afghanistan and Iraq are building a vast reservoir of resentments and a training school for future terrorists. Tens of thousands of disaffected young Muslim men not only now have something to deeply resent but they have the operational conditions to perfect their arts of covert war. According to countless witnesses from Afghanistan and Iraq, America's brutal, thoughtless tactics have only inflamed tempers. Canada's good name should not be associated with this.

The previous government's making an under-the-table deal with Bush to place Canadian troops in Afghanistan surely does not make it our war. Your continuing, rather shrill, insistence still does not make it so. The deal was, of course, an effort to placate Bush for our not supporting his illegal invasion of Iraq. America is Canada's neighbor, but it is a fatuous and immoral argument that you help your neighbor in criminal activities just because he is your neighbor.

You and other voices from Western Canada have made much of reforming Canada's democratic institutions, and I agree that a number of them do need reforming. Yet no greater vice to democracy can exist than a government's committing the lives of young people and the whole nation's reputation to war without any consultation or debate. If you believe in democratic values, as you claim, you cannot support such behavior.

The argument is all the more powerful when war is the behavior of a minority government. Your government represents the will of less than forty percent of Canadians. How can you believe then that your views on the war should be the views of most Canadians? Through polls and every other indication of public opinion, the majority of the Canadian people have made it clear they do not support America's wars in the Middle East.

The Canadian general in charge of operations in Afghanistan has made public statements that are shameful to Canada's reputation in the world. Stuff about going over to do some killing. He sounds like an American wannabe raised on Rambo movies.

Canada did have a terrorist incident every bit as dreadful as 9/11. I refer to the bombing of the Air India flight years ago. Taking account of Canada's size, this event killed proportionately more Canadians than 9/11's American victims. While the outcome of that investigation has been disappointing, Canada never contemplated bombing Sikh communities because of it. America's logic in the war on terror is simply that ridiculous.

Wrong!
Canada was also attacked on 9/11, it wasn't just an attack on the United States. On 9/11 Canadians died as victims from other Countries did as well.

To compare the numbers in the Air India to the numbers of how many died in 9/11 is wrong. Numbers of how many died in 2 different attacks does not matter, they were killed in acts of Terrorism.

Canada is in Afghanistan to combat Terrorism and help the Afghanis rebuild after 30 years of War. To say the Canadian General is acting like Rambo, oh please! Would this reporter be more happy if the Canadian General held the hands of the Taliban and Al Qaeda bringing them flowers? Would this reporter have the Taliban in Afghanistan executing women in Soccer Stadiums again?

This reporter needs to get a clue, his piece is blame the USA for Canada being in Afghanistan. Instead he should blame Bin Laden, Al Qaeda for killing Canadians on 9/11 which is the reason why Canada is there.

Afghanistan is not Canada's War it's a Nato Operation and Canada is there as a member of Nato.

 

[mabudon]

RE: SORRY, MR PRIME MINIS

We ain't in there cos we were "attacked" I don't think... and if we WERE indeed attacked, we should have some sort of actual thorough investigation of the events of 9-11, since I wanna know who was responsible (and not who we're supposed to think was responsible sonce the official version is about as much BS as some of the wilder theories)


And is it REALLY true that the poppy harvest has been eradicated?? (not trying to pick a fight here BTW) cos I'd heard that it was kinda burgeoning from a lot of reputable sources, I thought there was no choice to allow it and that one of the ironies of the current situation (and also possibly the only thing the taliban were any good at all for) is that under their oppresive rule, the poppy industry was damn near wiped out but that it is fluorishing under the current lawless conditions in much of the country???

 

[Amik]

Re: RE: SORRY, MR PRIME MINISTER, AFGHANISTAN IS NOT OUR WAR

Sassy

I am not against the MILITARY
I am against MILITARISM and this is not the same thing
I do support the MILITARY in armed combat in situations where Canada has come under attack. I support this if Canada responds by fighting the attacking country.
If my opinions as to whether Canadian Forces are in actual fact appropriately and ethically fighting in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq differ to yours, then that does NOT make me anti MILITARY
I am against the MILITARISTIC attitude that some individuals in the MILITARY have, as I am against civilians who are MILITARISTIC. If a member of the MILITARY chooses to argue with me on my beliefs, I will respond to them as I would a civilian. I do NOT believe that only soldiers can understand the politics of war, and that only soldiers can understand the devastation of war. Just because I acknowledge the reasons for war as inevitably involving unethical motives such as greed, does not make me against the troops. It makes me against WAR. I support keeping our troops safe. I support respecting their safety by only sending them into combat as a truly necessary last option. Can you explain to me how that attitude is insulting to the MILITARY. Can you tell me how that is a bigoted and small minded ideology? I do not hold the Canadian Armed Forces in disdain.... I hold the reasons for WAR in disdain.

Members of the Armed Forces, in their posts, have held ME in disdain, and insulted ME for my beliefs with the attitude that I am worthless because I am a civilian- is that not a bigoted attitude?

I am very sorry for your husbands suffering. I too have had immense family sufferings from past wars, and also family involvement with the Military. As have most of us. Some of us are thus led into realizing the futility and desecration of war.

Let us recognize that war involves an entire country. MILITARY and CIVILIANS. Let us also recognize that in war, ALL the people in a country are contributing and sufferering, whether by financing the war, whether by going without things in the war, whether by losing loved ones in the war, whether by having their planned lives totally disrupted by war, or whether by being a soldier fighting in the war. Therefore, we ALL have the right to discuss the pros and cons of war.

If the people in the Military dont like my beliefs, they are entitled to try to defend their own ideology, as I do mine.

Well said, Cortez.

 

[Lotuslander]

Chuckman wrote:

The deal was, of course, an effort to placate Bush for our not supporting his illegal invasion of Iraq. America is Canada's neighbor, but it is a fatuous and immoral argument that you help your neighbor in criminal activities just because he is your neighbor.

The war in Iraq may have been illegal under international law and jurisprudence however, under the UN Charter the war in Afghanistan is not. The invasion was endorsed by the UN Security Council. More importantly under the UN Charter there is a mutual defence clause basically stating that if one country is attacked everyone is attacked. These two articles of international jurisprudence make the war in Afghanistan legal.

I understand why some may not want Canada to be involved in missions which may involve combat, one life is a very high price, therefore, the benefits must be extraordinary to counterbalance. I ask however, that you look at the history of this troubled and impoverished country which has been at constant war mainly with itself, Pakistani intelligence and the Soviets since the overthrow of the Monarchy in 1973. Today one only has to look at the destitution of its people, the lack of infrastructure, educational and medical facilities to see why we are there. Canada, The United Kingdom, the US and other allies are in Afghanistan not solely for the purpose of capturing al-Qaida (the majority of high ranking members who are surely in Pakistan in any case) but, in order to help provide logistical and security assistance to Afghans to rebuild their country. The Afghan mission is just as much a humanitarian exercise as it is a military operation. We have played similar roles throughout our long peacekeeping experience most notably in Bosnia and Cyprus.

For all those who want the Internation troops to leave Afghanistan I ask you what you see for the future of this country if they do? I am sure other powers will jump to fill the vaccum created by the withdrawl. Saudi Intelligence which was heavily allied with certain elements of the mujahadeen since at least 1979 will re-emrge as a major benefactor and power broker in the country as will the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI along with whabbi clerics and charities which have also been prominent in the country since 1979. These groups will all further radicalise the country and provide for a quasi-religious state as we see in Saudi Arabia itself. As I do not believe Saudi Arabia ia a beckon of human rights I think the West should ask as a counter-balance. I personally believe that withdrawl will only lead to more internal conflict and civil war and though we may have less Canadian casualties, casualties in general will rise.

Afghanistan is a turbulent mix of many ethnic groups Pashtuns, Turkmen, Tajiks along with the numerous tibes thereof. It is also complicated by the various political factions which have dominated the country for the bettter part of a quarter century; royalists from the South, Islamists who were formerly (and perhaps still are) backed by the ISI, former backers of Massoud and former followers of Hekmaytear and the Communist government to name just a few. It is not a homogeneous country. It is partly due to these divisions that difficulties have always persisted in providing a stable government for the Afghan people. It has often been said that the only tangible thing holding Afghanistan together is the staunch belief of Islam. Now we also have the benefit of a population which is tired of war and wanting international assistance in order for them to rebuild. The Western world may have no better opportunity than now to instill the ideals of the Universal declaration of Human Rights (written by a Canadian it must be noted) into the hearts of all of the Afghan people. Afghanistan may never become a western style democracy but, at least with our help we can put her on the path of modernity instead of the renaissance of the middle ages which She has endured for the past 3 decades.

Finally, I must take note with your belief that Canadians should have a say on troop deployment.

Chuckman wrote:

The argument is all the more powerful when war is the behavior of a minority government. Your government represents the will of less than forty percent of Canadians. How can you believe then that your views on the war should be the views of most Canadians? Through polls and every other indication of public opinion, the majority of the Canadian people have made it clear they do not support America's wars in the Middle East.

Firstly, when the Grits were in power I never heard of the need for a parliamentary debate involving Canadian troops in Afghanistan. To paint the troop deployment now as a Harper initiative is disingenuous, he is merely following a long standing Liberal government policy (we have been over there for 3 years!).
Secondly, your novel idea that somehow public opinion polling should determine government policy is ridiculous. We do not hold elections so that politicians can determine policy by following the ever changing poll numbers! We elect politican so that through their governmental and political expertise they can make the best decisions for all Canadians, it's called representative government; to quote Churchill: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Reviewing poll results to determine government policy is not democracy it is an aborration of it!

In any cas the last poll I saw had support for troops in Afghanistan at 52%. :idea: 8) 8)

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: SORRY, MR PRIME MINIS

LotusEater said
""The Western world may have no better opportunity than now to instill the ideals of the Universal declaration of Human Rights (written by a Canadian it must be noted) into the hearts of all of the Afghan people. Afghanistan may never become a western style democracy but, at least with our help we can put her on the path of modernity instead of the renaissance of the middle ages which She has endured for the past 3 decades.

Finally, I must take note with your belief that Canadians should have a say on troop deployment. "

Why don't we just leave several million translated copies of the declaration. This idea of the military instillation of
the Ideals is the problem with the whole exercise, thats not something an occupying invasion force can do. You cannot bomb the snot out of a country with weapons in contrevention of universal human rights, and then when the dust settles occupy the country in contrevention of universal human rights and conduct search and destroy, sniper assassinations, illeagle detention and torture, all in contrevention of universal human rights, do you expect that they will pay much attention to you. I think not.

So you take note with Canadians having a say in the deployment of Canadian troops, but none with the American say in the deployment of Canadian troops, thats peculiar.

 

[Lotuslander]

Dark Beaver said:

Why don't we just leave several million translated copies of the declaration.

Human rights is not learned by merely being able to read the words on a piece of paper. Rather it is taught through the respectful interaction between people, civilised debate and compassion for all the people of the World.

the Ideals is the problem with the whole exercise, thats not something an occupying invasion force can do. You cannot bomb the snot out of a country with weapons in contrevention of universal human rights, and then when the dust settles occupy the country in contrevention of universal human rights and conduct search and destroy, sniper assassinations, illeagle detention and torture, all in contrevention of universal human rights, do you expect that they will pay much attention to you. I think not.

I think if you asked most Afghanis they would be supportive of the international military presence as most are happy for the stability and relative security that the outsiders bring. This is surely better than the constant warring and autocratic rule they experienced during the past 30 years. Secondly, the US did not "bomb the snot out of the country" when it invaded. Yes, there were some bombing campaigns but, these it must be said were limited mainly to rural areas of Southern Afghanistan. Major cities were remarkably left alone for the most part.

Occupation of a country is not against human rights. East Timor being the most recent example. It was "occupied" by Austrlia and the UN.

As for detention, torture et. al. I agree they are not very nice. Military action is taken against those who would usurp the Afghan Government by international forces, however, this government has been elected. Torture and unlawful detention are never acceptable and I agree Canadian troops should not partake in this forum of "information gathering". As I asked in my previous post what is the alternative to international troops? Torture, rape , detention, assasination etc.. A.K.A. the last 30 years of Afghan history.

Will they pay much attention? I think in time they will adopt some form of representative democracy and become musch more Westernised than they are now. 30 years ago Afghanistan was an outpost of Western civilisation in the far East with women attending university and wearing min-skirts. It may take years but, I don't think it is out of the question. One need only look at India to see that often the colonised imitate their former masters remarkably well. Beofre the British came India was a disparate conglomerate of warring states with archaic laws and no democracy. Now they have the rule of law and are the largest democracy on the planet. Will this be the same for afghanistan who knows? What I do know is that if we are not there other more sinister factions will be, such as the Whabbis form Saudi, or others who ewant a theocracy in place and who have no respect for women's rights nor human rights.

The problem with your ideas Dark Beaver, is that you provide no solutions to the status quo. It is obvious to everyone that withdrawl will lead to the collapse of the government in Afghanistan. Given that poor country's history do you think this is something the people of that country really want? How do you instill respect for human rights? I don't know but, it seems to me much more logical that this could be done through nation building than it can from war.

 

[cortez]

Re: RE: SORRY, MR PRIME MINISTER, AFGHANISTAN IS NOT OUR WAR

British soldiers are in Afghanistan and are doing a GOOD JOB.

Why? Because Afghanistan is the world's biggest heroin producer. Heroin is made from poppies, and Britain has sent some troops out there to destroy its fields of poppies, mainly in the Helmand region, and to destroy its heroin-producing industry.

90% of all the heroin that is on Britain's streets comes from Afghanistan. Getting rid of its heroin industry will cut down the amount of heroin on Britain's streets.

But not just Britain's streets - those of other countries, such as Canada.

So when the amount of illegal heroin entering Canada has been reduced, you can thank the British soldiers for that. It's a pity the Canadians don't want to help us.

Oh, Blackleaf, when your troops are done in Afghanistan, could they please pop over to Myanmar and Columbia to finish off the poppy fields in those countries? Otherwise i fear that the burning of a few poppy fields in Afghanistan will just lead to production being upped somewhere to supply those needy British subjects.
I hope you are not suggesting that this action of the superb British troops is a justificatioon for invading Afghanistan-- that would of course be utter poppycock.......

Sounds a bit funny coming from the country responsible for the Opium Wars....

 

[elevennevele]

Firstly, when the Grits were in power I never heard of the need for a parliamentary debate involving Canadian troops in Afghanistan. To paint the troop deployment now as a Harper initiative is disingenuous, he is merely following a long standing Liberal government policy (we have been over there for 3 years!).
Secondly, your novel idea that somehow public opinion polling should determine government policy is ridiculous. We do not hold elections so that politicians can determine policy by following the ever changing poll numbers! We elect politican so that through their governmental and political expertise they can make the best decisions for all Canadians, it's called representative government; to quote Churchill: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Reviewing poll results to determine government policy is not democracy it is an aborration of it!

Correct me if I'm wrong but Canada has only recently taken command of the mission. Until now we were there supporting rather than leading. Now we are leading the operation we now bear the responsibility of it’s success and failure. Also the violence against our troops seem to be making the news as well as the recent accidental shooting of the cabbie.

With the Iraq war falling apart and it’s breeding American resentment throughout the world, it starts to put things with Afghanistan into a different perspective.

I don’t think it matters who is in government now. Canadians seem to be more apprehensive with the mission and it’s “guilty by association” United States imprint.

If the Liberals were in power, I think Canadians in general would still have the same feelings and still want the mission debated.

 

[Lotuslander]

elevennevele wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but Canada has only recently taken command of the mission. Until now we were there supporting rather than leading. Now we are leading the operation we now bear the responsibility of it’s success and failure. Also the violence against our troops seem to be making the news as well as the recent accidental shooting of the cabbie.

With the Iraq war falling apart and it’s breeding American resentment throughout the world, it starts to put things with Afghanistan into a different perspective.

I don’t think it matters who is in government now. Canadians seem to be more apprehensive with the mission and it’s “guilty by association” United States imprint.

If the Liberals were in power, I think Canadians in general would still have the same feelings and still want the mission debated.

Well we are actually onlty in charge of Khandahar province from what I understand not the whole mission. We had a similar position last year when we were incharge of another geographic region (I can't remember whihc one) out of camp Julien. As was evidienced last time Canada had a leadership role and the Grits were in charge no great kerfuffle broke out amongst Canadians as to the legitimacy and necessity of our troops overseas. Whether the populace is getting cold feet now because of the deteriorating situation in Iraq is anyone's guess but, I don't think it should distract us from what is essentially a humanitiarian mission. Indeed I don't think the Iraq situation puts things into a different perspective rather I thinkit highlights why we need to make sure we succeed in Afghanistan. As evidenced everyday on the news a civil war is not a pretty sight, so lets make sure the Afghans don't fall into their 3 or fourth one in the last 30 years.

 

[elevennevele]

RE: SORRY, MR PRIME MINIS

Teaching Human Rights doesn't work when you do it at the end of a gun barrel. The values you hope to create won’t be recognized for what they are suppose to be. People will only see the force used to administer the values and they will always resist the occupation of a foreign entity on their soil. That’s just human nature and one's national pride.

 

[Lotuslander]

elevennevele wrote:

Teaching Human Rights doesn't work when you do it at the end of a gun barrel. The values you hope to create won’t be recognized for what they are suppose to be. People will only see the force used to administer the values and they will always resist the occupation of a foreign entity on their soil. That’s just human nature and one's national pride.

No one is teaching Human Rights from the barrel of a gun. The international force in Afghanistan is about the only thing containing the violence in that part of he world. Is force being used? Yes but only against those elements whihc would destablise the country and overthrow the democratically elected Government.

I do agree however think that those captured should be subject to due process.

 

[Lineman]

Re: RE: SORRY, MR PRIME MINIS

We ain't in there cos we were "attacked" I don't think... and if we WERE indeed attacked, we should have some sort of actual thorough investigation of the events of 9-11, since I wanna know who was responsible (and not who we're supposed to think was responsible sonce the official version is about as much BS as some of the wilder theories)


I guess you're calling Osama Bin Laden a liar since he claimed responsibility via a taped interview on Al Jazeera.

The tin foil hat musta sprung a leak...

 

[FiveParadox]

Let us not turn this into a thread of insults, please.

If this is going to degenerate into another conversation discussing whether or not someone does, or does not, wear a rather stylish tinfoil hat, then it would be prudent to move such a discussion to Wreck Beach. It would be more appropriate to stick to the topic at hand in this thread.