No party affiliation
Posts: 1,525 
Location: Oshawa
Location: Oshawa
February 10th, 2008, 10:16 AM
By ERIC MARGOLIS, TORONTO SUN
At this week's NATO conference in Vilnius, Lithuania, an angry U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates accused some Europeans of not being prepared to "fight and die" in Afghanistan in the battle against the Taliban.
The undiplomatic Gates is quite right. Most Europeans regard the Afghan conflict as a. wrong and immoral; b. America's war; c. all about oil; or d. probably lost.
To many Europeans, the NATO alliance was created to deter the real threat of Soviet aggression, not to supply foot soldiers for George Bush's wars in the Muslim world.
While Gates and the Harper government were pleading for more troops, the commander of the 40,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, U.S. Gen. Dan McNeill, landed a bombshell. If proper U.S. military counter-insurgency doctrine were followed, McNeill admitted, the U.S. and NATO would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance in Afghanistan.
When the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, they deployed 160,000 troops and about 200,000 Afghan Communist troops -- yet failed to crush the mostly Pashtun resistance. Now, the U.S. and NATO are trying the same mission with only 66,000 troops, backed by local mercenaries grandly styled the Afghan National Army.
Canada's calls for 1,000 more NATO troops, and the U.S. decision to send 3,200 marines, will not alter the course of this war, which is turning increasingly against the western occupiers. In fact, the war is spreading into neighbouring Pakistan, a nation of 165 million, stretching U.S. and NATO forces ever thinner.
A primary reason for Gates' recent call for U.S. troops to begin attacking pro-Taliban Pashtun tribesmen inside Pakistan is due to their growing attacks on allied supply lines to Afghanistan.
As this column has reported, over 70% of U.S./NATO supplies come in by truck through Pakistan's tribal belt known as FATA, including all of their oil and gas. Attacks by pro-Taliban tribesmen against these vulnerable supply lines are jeopardizing western military operations inside Afghanistan.
HUNTERS NOW HUNTED
The hunters are becoming the hunted. Cutting off invaders' supply lines is a time-honoured Pashtun military tactic. They used it against Alexander the Great, the British, and Soviets, and are at it again.
What angry Sec. Gates fails to see is that by pushing NATO into a distant Asian war without political purpose or seeming end, he is endangering the very alliance that is the bedrock of U.S. power in Europe.
Europeans increasingly ask why they need the U.S.-dominated military alliance, a Cold War relic, in which they continue to play foot soldiers to America's atomic knights, to paraphrase the late German statesman, Franz Josef Strauss.
Why does the rich, powerful European Union even need NATO any more? The Soviet threat is gone -- at least for now. Nuclear-armed France and Britain are quite capable of defending Europe against outside threats. Why can't the new European Defence Force take over NATO's role of defending Europe and protecting EU interests?
In short, most Europeans see no benefit in playing junior members in an alliance whose historic time has passed and that serves primarily as an instrument of U.S. power. Washington's sharpest geopolitical thinker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, calls NATO a "stepping stone" the U.S. uses to project power into Europe.
By pushing NATO towards a bridge too far, the Bush administration may end up fatally undermining the alliance and encouraging anti-American forces in Europe.
In fact, it's becoming evident that the cash-strapped U.S. needs the EU more than the EU needs the U.S.
CONSCRIPTION
Final point. If impassioned claims by U.S. and Canadian politicians that the little Afghanistan war must by won at all costs, then why don't they stop orating, impose conscription, and send 400,000 soldiers, including their own sons, to fight in Afghanistan?
Of course they won't. They prefer to waste their own soldiers, and grind up Afghanistan, rather than admit this war against 40 million Pashtun tribesmen was a terrible mistake that will only get worse.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Colum...838323-sun.php
By ERIC MARGOLIS, TORONTO SUN
At this week's NATO conference in Vilnius, Lithuania, an angry U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates accused some Europeans of not being prepared to "fight and die" in Afghanistan in the battle against the Taliban.
The undiplomatic Gates is quite right. Most Europeans regard the Afghan conflict as a. wrong and immoral; b. America's war; c. all about oil; or d. probably lost.
To many Europeans, the NATO alliance was created to deter the real threat of Soviet aggression, not to supply foot soldiers for George Bush's wars in the Muslim world.
While Gates and the Harper government were pleading for more troops, the commander of the 40,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, U.S. Gen. Dan McNeill, landed a bombshell. If proper U.S. military counter-insurgency doctrine were followed, McNeill admitted, the U.S. and NATO would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance in Afghanistan.
When the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, they deployed 160,000 troops and about 200,000 Afghan Communist troops -- yet failed to crush the mostly Pashtun resistance. Now, the U.S. and NATO are trying the same mission with only 66,000 troops, backed by local mercenaries grandly styled the Afghan National Army.
Canada's calls for 1,000 more NATO troops, and the U.S. decision to send 3,200 marines, will not alter the course of this war, which is turning increasingly against the western occupiers. In fact, the war is spreading into neighbouring Pakistan, a nation of 165 million, stretching U.S. and NATO forces ever thinner.
A primary reason for Gates' recent call for U.S. troops to begin attacking pro-Taliban Pashtun tribesmen inside Pakistan is due to their growing attacks on allied supply lines to Afghanistan.
As this column has reported, over 70% of U.S./NATO supplies come in by truck through Pakistan's tribal belt known as FATA, including all of their oil and gas. Attacks by pro-Taliban tribesmen against these vulnerable supply lines are jeopardizing western military operations inside Afghanistan.
HUNTERS NOW HUNTED
The hunters are becoming the hunted. Cutting off invaders' supply lines is a time-honoured Pashtun military tactic. They used it against Alexander the Great, the British, and Soviets, and are at it again.
What angry Sec. Gates fails to see is that by pushing NATO into a distant Asian war without political purpose or seeming end, he is endangering the very alliance that is the bedrock of U.S. power in Europe.
Europeans increasingly ask why they need the U.S.-dominated military alliance, a Cold War relic, in which they continue to play foot soldiers to America's atomic knights, to paraphrase the late German statesman, Franz Josef Strauss.
Why does the rich, powerful European Union even need NATO any more? The Soviet threat is gone -- at least for now. Nuclear-armed France and Britain are quite capable of defending Europe against outside threats. Why can't the new European Defence Force take over NATO's role of defending Europe and protecting EU interests?
In short, most Europeans see no benefit in playing junior members in an alliance whose historic time has passed and that serves primarily as an instrument of U.S. power. Washington's sharpest geopolitical thinker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, calls NATO a "stepping stone" the U.S. uses to project power into Europe.
By pushing NATO towards a bridge too far, the Bush administration may end up fatally undermining the alliance and encouraging anti-American forces in Europe.
In fact, it's becoming evident that the cash-strapped U.S. needs the EU more than the EU needs the U.S.
CONSCRIPTION
Final point. If impassioned claims by U.S. and Canadian politicians that the little Afghanistan war must by won at all costs, then why don't they stop orating, impose conscription, and send 400,000 soldiers, including their own sons, to fight in Afghanistan?
Of course they won't. They prefer to waste their own soldiers, and grind up Afghanistan, rather than admit this war against 40 million Pashtun tribesmen was a terrible mistake that will only get worse.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Colum...838323-sun.php
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 5,369 
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
February 10th, 2008, 11:17 AM
United States sees United States objectives. Europeans see European objectives. Moslem nations see Moslem objectives. The whole world is guilty of that. Who is wrong? A long time ago it was said that the United Stated learned absolutely nothing in Vietnam - and it's proving it.
Woof!
United States sees United States objectives. Europeans see European objectives. Moslem nations see Moslem objectives. The whole world is guilty of that. Who is wrong? A long time ago it was said that the United Stated learned absolutely nothing in Vietnam - and it's proving it.
Woof!
Newbie
Posts: 5
February 12th, 2008, 02:19 PM
Since when is this a US war?
The European nation's also declared war, with the support of the majority of their populations.
If they didn't want to go to war, they should have said so BEFORE their allies began relying on them, and expecting them to keep their word.
Many other countries also did not agree with the war, they simply didn't declare war in the first place, nor misleed others as to their involvement.
If Europe is going to lie, hell, start declaring debt you owe to them to be invalid month to month as their part of their obligations.
Since when is this a US war?
The European nation's also declared war, with the support of the majority of their populations.
If they didn't want to go to war, they should have said so BEFORE their allies began relying on them, and expecting them to keep their word.
Many other countries also did not agree with the war, they simply didn't declare war in the first place, nor misleed others as to their involvement.
If Europe is going to lie, hell, start declaring debt you owe to them to be invalid month to month as their part of their obligations.
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 5,369
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
February 12th, 2008, 03:17 PM
Woof!
Quoting DontQuoteMe
Do you know something we don't? Terrorism isn't a soverign state so there can be no war declared other than the dramatic statement. European nations were hauled into the conflict only due to a committment to NATO. Any war in which the US is involved becomes a US war because Uncle Sam does not know how not to be in charge.
Since when is this a US war?
The European nation's also declared war, with the support of the majority of their populations.
If they didn't want to go to war, they should have said so BEFORE their allies began relying on them, and expecting them to keep their word.
Many other countries also did not agree with the war, they simply didn't declare war in the first place, nor misleed others as to their involvement.
If Europe is going to lie, hell, start declaring debt you owe to them to be invalid month to month as their part of their obligations.
The European nation's also declared war, with the support of the majority of their populations.
If they didn't want to go to war, they should have said so BEFORE their allies began relying on them, and expecting them to keep their word.
Many other countries also did not agree with the war, they simply didn't declare war in the first place, nor misleed others as to their involvement.
If Europe is going to lie, hell, start declaring debt you owe to them to be invalid month to month as their part of their obligations.
Woof!
Member
Posts: 159
Location: U.S.
Location: U.S.
February 12th, 2008, 07:37 PM
First whenever a country feels like they can take charge then they need to show it. Any nation thats under nato didnt have to declare war or go to war. They just followed the u.s. to justify relations. After years of war...countries start to get bored when they have noone left to fight or just basically dont know who their fighting. Countries have pulled out, Like spain, france, etc. Do oyu think countries like that has made any difference??
Quoting lone wolf
Do you know something we don't? Terrorism isn't a soverign state so there can be no war declared other than the dramatic statement. European nations were hauled into the conflict only due to a committment to NATO. Any war in which the US is involved becomes a US war because Uncle Sam does not know how not to be in charge.
Woof!
Woof!
First whenever a country feels like they can take charge then they need to show it. Any nation thats under nato didnt have to declare war or go to war. They just followed the u.s. to justify relations. After years of war...countries start to get bored when they have noone left to fight or just basically dont know who their fighting. Countries have pulled out, Like spain, france, etc. Do oyu think countries like that has made any difference??
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 5,369
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
February 12th, 2008, 09:01 PM
Woof!
Quoting mbryant26
And attempting to take charge in anything the US has decided it knows best would accomplish what? It doesn't matter what I think about Spain, France etc. In Vietnam, it was discovered that a magic ratio of ten men on the ground against one guerilla wasn't enough. How many Al Quaida/Taliban are there? I don't think US troops or anyone else is going to make any sort of difference if they can't figure out the local rules of engagement and fight the war by those rules.
First whenever a country feels like they can take charge then they need to show it. Any nation thats under nato didnt have to declare war or go to war. They just followed the u.s. to justify relations. After years of war...countries start to get bored when they have noone left to fight or just basically dont know who their fighting. Countries have pulled out, Like spain, france, etc. Do oyu think countries like that has made any difference??
Woof!
House Member
Posts: 3,508
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
February 12th, 2008, 09:37 PM
On the other hand, given the proven global reach of terrorism, and the known objectives of outfits like the Taliban and al-Qaeda, it seems pretty much inevitable that we're going to be fighting those people somewhere. Where would you prefer it to be, their turf or ours? At least part of the strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq is to focus their attention there rather than here. I'm no military strategist so I may be way out to lunch here, but if that's obvious enough to have occurred to me a long time ago, surely it's occurred to the people who *are* military strategists.
On the other hand, given the proven global reach of terrorism, and the known objectives of outfits like the Taliban and al-Qaeda, it seems pretty much inevitable that we're going to be fighting those people somewhere. Where would you prefer it to be, their turf or ours? At least part of the strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq is to focus their attention there rather than here. I'm no military strategist so I may be way out to lunch here, but if that's obvious enough to have occurred to me a long time ago, surely it's occurred to the people who *are* military strategists.
Member
Posts: 159
Location: U.S.
Location: U.S.
February 12th, 2008, 09:39 PM
And what rules are you talking about? When Al quada and taliban use kids as explosives, i think the rules are out the window. Vietnam was a political war, this war is way different in so many ways. We are actually fighting for a reason. Vietnam, know one knows what that was about, here we are getting them before they get us., if we leave they will plan and attack us again, secondly, do you think that the Iraq and Afghanistan governments can handle their country on their own? The answer is no, Iran would walk them around like a leash on a dog. Everything that we have fought for would go down the drain.
Quoting lone wolf
And attempting to take charge in anything the US has decided it knows best would accomplish what? It doesn't matter what I think about Spain, France etc. In Vietnam, it was discovered that a magic ratio of ten men on the ground against one guerilla wasn't enough. How many Al Quaida/Taliban are there? I don't think US troops or anyone else is going to make any sort of difference if they can't figure out the local rules of engagement and fight the war by those rules.
Woof!
Woof!
And what rules are you talking about? When Al quada and taliban use kids as explosives, i think the rules are out the window. Vietnam was a political war, this war is way different in so many ways. We are actually fighting for a reason. Vietnam, know one knows what that was about, here we are getting them before they get us., if we leave they will plan and attack us again, secondly, do you think that the Iraq and Afghanistan governments can handle their country on their own? The answer is no, Iran would walk them around like a leash on a dog. Everything that we have fought for would go down the drain.
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 5,369
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
February 12th, 2008, 09:42 PM
Woof!
Quoting Dexter Sinister
Strategy is the job of military intelligence. What's that tell ya?
On the other hand, given the proven global reach of terrorism, and the known objectives of outfits like the Taliban and al-Qaeda, it seems pretty much inevitable that we're going to be fighting those people somewhere. Where would you prefer it to be, their turf or ours? At least part of the strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq is to focus their attention there rather than here. I'm no military strategist so I may be way out to lunch here, but if that's obvious enough to have occurred to me a long time ago, surely it's occurred to the people who *are* military strategists.
Woof!
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 5,369
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
February 12th, 2008, 09:54 PM
Woof!
Quoting mbryant26
What rules can there be when your enemy of choice are a people who have never known peace? What have you to offer them? Iraq and Afghanistan are every bit as political as Vietnam. All of them have been forced to go underground to evict many foreign powers over many centuries. War is the only way of life they know. Peace is change ... and a threat to their very existence. They cannot be defeated for they will only re-emerge somewhere in your rear. You can only win by winning their respect.
And what rules are you talking about? When Al quada and taliban use kids as explosives, i think the rules are out the window. Vietnam was a political war, this war is way different in so many ways. We are actually fighting for a reason. Vietnam, know one knows what that was about, here we are getting them before they get us., if we leave they will plan and attack us again, secondly, do you think that the Iraq and Afghanistan governments can handle their country on their own? The answer is no, Iran would walk them around like a leash on a dog. Everything that we have fought for would go down the drain.
Woof!
Member
Posts: 159
Location: U.S.
Location: U.S.
February 13th, 2008, 08:27 AM
The war in Iraq MIGHT be political, but the one in Afghanistan isnt. Terrorism can be defeated and how can you show respect to the people that has took so many innocent lifes? There is no respect from me to them. When i was in afghanistan we handed out tons of food, water, medicine, rebuilding their towns , etc. We show the citizens in those two countries the up most respect, but they have to start taking charge theirselfs and the U.S. is trying to get that going.
Most troops left afghanistan awhile back because we thought that they could handle themselfs fine. We were back in a month. They couldnt live on their own, they needed our help,..the government went back to the taliban for help and thats exactly why were there in Iraq for the very same reason, so the government cannot be overthrown and have another saddam or U.S. hater in office. The U.S. has went broke trying to help these poor countries out and the citizens and other countries always have something to say about the U.S.. I say to them that other countries need to step up and help out.
Quoting lone wolf
What rules can there be when your enemy of choice are a people who have never known peace? What have you to offer them? Iraq and Afghanistan are every bit as political as Vietnam. All of them have been forced to go underground to evict many foreign powers over many centuries. War is the only way of life they know. Peace is change ... and a threat to their very existence. They cannot be defeated for they will only re-emerge somewhere in your rear. You can only win by winning their respect.
Woof!
Woof!
The war in Iraq MIGHT be political, but the one in Afghanistan isnt. Terrorism can be defeated and how can you show respect to the people that has took so many innocent lifes? There is no respect from me to them. When i was in afghanistan we handed out tons of food, water, medicine, rebuilding their towns , etc. We show the citizens in those two countries the up most respect, but they have to start taking charge theirselfs and the U.S. is trying to get that going.
Most troops left afghanistan awhile back because we thought that they could handle themselfs fine. We were back in a month. They couldnt live on their own, they needed our help,..the government went back to the taliban for help and thats exactly why were there in Iraq for the very same reason, so the government cannot be overthrown and have another saddam or U.S. hater in office. The U.S. has went broke trying to help these poor countries out and the citizens and other countries always have something to say about the U.S.. I say to them that other countries need to step up and help out.
The Angry Beaver
Posts: 3,543
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
February 13th, 2008, 08:53 AM
As I see it, NATO is in there because the UN sanctioned them to be there after the US invasion. Canada agreed to be a member of NATO, the UN told NATO to goto Afghanistan, therefore we and every other country which is a member of NATO goes and does their equal share, plain and simple.
If nations do not like what NATO is doing and it goes against their country's principles, then leave the organization and disolve it. Until then, suck it up and do what is required in the organization.
Beak up and end NATO, or STFU and Contribute.... pretty simple if you ask me. Either way, do something and stop sitting on the fence and claiming you are doing something, when you're not.
They stay in, suck it up and contribute the requested requirements to win, and we might win. If they don't and pull out of NATO, then NATO is pretty well over and done with, therefore there would be no logical method for NATO or us to win in Afghanistan, therefore our troops go home in failure.... but not at our choice, so therefore it's still an end.
Then the talk of "Them coming here to attack us" mentality will arise.... time will only tell and I guess we'll just have to fight it country by country then.
Meh
As I see it, NATO is in there because the UN sanctioned them to be there after the US invasion. Canada agreed to be a member of NATO, the UN told NATO to goto Afghanistan, therefore we and every other country which is a member of NATO goes and does their equal share, plain and simple.
If nations do not like what NATO is doing and it goes against their country's principles, then leave the organization and disolve it. Until then, suck it up and do what is required in the organization.
Beak up and end NATO, or STFU and Contribute.... pretty simple if you ask me. Either way, do something and stop sitting on the fence and claiming you are doing something, when you're not.
They stay in, suck it up and contribute the requested requirements to win, and we might win. If they don't and pull out of NATO, then NATO is pretty well over and done with, therefore there would be no logical method for NATO or us to win in Afghanistan, therefore our troops go home in failure.... but not at our choice, so therefore it's still an end.
Then the talk of "Them coming here to attack us" mentality will arise.... time will only tell and I guess we'll just have to fight it country by country then.
Meh
House Member
Posts: 2,761
Location: California
Location: California
February 13th, 2008, 09:48 AM
To many Europeans, the NATO alliance was created to deter the real threat of Soviet aggression, not to supply foot soldiers for George Bush's wars in the Muslim world.
I think this is the key sentence of that piece. It could just as easily read "No, we only want to be a part of NATO when it means you send troops overseas to protect us. We don't think we should ever have to help you out with any of our soldiers."
To many Europeans, the NATO alliance was created to deter the real threat of Soviet aggression, not to supply foot soldiers for George Bush's wars in the Muslim world.
I think this is the key sentence of that piece. It could just as easily read "No, we only want to be a part of NATO when it means you send troops overseas to protect us. We don't think we should ever have to help you out with any of our soldiers."
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
February 13th, 2008, 09:53 AM
Hi Dex how’s it goin eh?
NATO and because we (Canada) is a member nation of NATO , Canada is involved in a senseless useless action in Afghanistan. Would you acknowledge that the poppy fields in Afghanistan are a significant source of money in the supply chain being used by the Taliban? Would you further agree that Pakistan represents another significant source of men and materiel in the supply chain that the Taliban are using?
Given that opium and a failed state are two of the key elements involved in perpetuating this atrocity, doesn’t it make sense that action be taken to ameliorate the effects of these issues?
It is senseless and useless to regard the Taliban as the single contributory factor in this mess. And do we see a preparedness on the part of NATO to interdict the poppy trade? Do we see the United States bringing sanctions against their “ally” Pakistan, forcefully encouraging them to get their house in order?
Once again the world (NATO) is being manipulated just like the U.N. was castrated before the war mongering of the United States regarding the falacious necessity of an Iraqi invaision. No one it seems has the chutzpah to call a spade a spade anymore!
Perhaps Europeans see this manipulation for what it is. The idiot child (America) being led around by their masters in Israel to pour money and blood into a situation that serves the interests of no one but them. If you’re suggesting that Canada and the United States are incapable of effectively screening entry to our nations, that’s one thing, but how might the Taliban or Al Queada raise an invasion force against Canada or the U.S. for that matter without plenty of advance warning?
Canada should’nt be allowing itself to be led around like America in the name of appeasing the neighbourhood bully. While I harbor no great love for Jean Chretién , at least Canadian participation in the criminal invasion of Iraq was denied by his government. Stephen Harper is too busy greasing the palms of the Yanks and holding their hands in hopes of re-directing wealth to his business buddies to take a moral stand on something as simple as drugs and failed international liaisons that are seminal in perpetuating this outrage. Hell Harper thinks it’s “good business” to develop business relationships in Columbia where Cocaine is the currency of government leverage…the mans an idiot.
I’ve already suggested that further participation in Afghanistan be conditional and unless those conditions are met, we have an obligation and a responsibility to the people of Canada to bring our people home.
Hi Dex how’s it goin eh?
NATO and because we (Canada) is a member nation of NATO , Canada is involved in a senseless useless action in Afghanistan. Would you acknowledge that the poppy fields in Afghanistan are a significant source of money in the supply chain being used by the Taliban? Would you further agree that Pakistan represents another significant source of men and materiel in the supply chain that the Taliban are using?
Given that opium and a failed state are two of the key elements involved in perpetuating this atrocity, doesn’t it make sense that action be taken to ameliorate the effects of these issues?
It is senseless and useless to regard the Taliban as the single contributory factor in this mess. And do we see a preparedness on the part of NATO to interdict the poppy trade? Do we see the United States bringing sanctions against their “ally” Pakistan, forcefully encouraging them to get their house in order?
Once again the world (NATO) is being manipulated just like the U.N. was castrated before the war mongering of the United States regarding the falacious necessity of an Iraqi invaision. No one it seems has the chutzpah to call a spade a spade anymore!
Perhaps Europeans see this manipulation for what it is. The idiot child (America) being led around by their masters in Israel to pour money and blood into a situation that serves the interests of no one but them. If you’re suggesting that Canada and the United States are incapable of effectively screening entry to our nations, that’s one thing, but how might the Taliban or Al Queada raise an invasion force against Canada or the U.S. for that matter without plenty of advance warning?
Canada should’nt be allowing itself to be led around like America in the name of appeasing the neighbourhood bully. While I harbor no great love for Jean Chretién , at least Canadian participation in the criminal invasion of Iraq was denied by his government. Stephen Harper is too busy greasing the palms of the Yanks and holding their hands in hopes of re-directing wealth to his business buddies to take a moral stand on something as simple as drugs and failed international liaisons that are seminal in perpetuating this outrage. Hell Harper thinks it’s “good business” to develop business relationships in Columbia where Cocaine is the currency of government leverage…the mans an idiot.
I’ve already suggested that further participation in Afghanistan be conditional and unless those conditions are met, we have an obligation and a responsibility to the people of Canada to bring our people home.
The Angry Beaver
Posts: 3,543
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
February 13th, 2008, 10:09 AM
I'm on both sides and perhaps even more then two sides to this topic, based on where information, situations and involvements go and change. I currently see about 4-5 possible outcomes from this war in Afghanistan.
Quoting MikeyDB
Which is where I stand as well... do what is required/requested or don't do anything at all. Overall our troops personally and overall have a want/desire to be there and make a difference, but if NATO goes tits up and farts out, then that's pretty much the end of that chapter.
......I’ve already suggested that further participation in Afghanistan be conditional and unless those conditions are met, we have an obligation and a responsibility to the people of Canada to bring our people home.
I'm on both sides and perhaps even more then two sides to this topic, based on where information, situations and involvements go and change. I currently see about 4-5 possible outcomes from this war in Afghanistan.
Council Member
Posts: 2,185
Location: in town
Location: in town
February 13th, 2008, 10:25 AM
Round and round we go... achieving nothing!! I suggest we band together, start compiling a list of signatures from people across the nation who want this insanity to stop and insist on purely peacekeeping duties for our troops or come home and clean up all the military garbage scattered in our North!!
Round and round we go... achieving nothing!! I suggest we band together, start compiling a list of signatures from people across the nation who want this insanity to stop and insist on purely peacekeeping duties for our troops or come home and clean up all the military garbage scattered in our North!!
The Angry Beaver
Posts: 3,543
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
February 13th, 2008, 10:53 AM
Quoting dancing-loon
You mean like a petition? We all know those things don't really work, lol.
Round and round we go... achieving nothing!! I suggest we band together, start compiling a list of signatures from people across the nation who want this insanity to stop and insist on purely peacekeeping duties for our troops or come home and clean up all the military garbage scattered in our North!!
