Harper won't rule out staying in Afghanistan past 2014 .


Sparrow
#1
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has not ruled out extending Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan beyond the 2014 withdrawal of NATO forces.
Under questioning from Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair in the House of Commons Wednesday, Harper said Ottawa will "examine all options" if asked to leave a contingent of special forces in the war-ravaged country after spring 2014.
According to a media report, the U.S. has asked Canada and Australia to keep some of their troops in Afghanistan to help American forces capture Taliban and al Qaeda insurgents and train Afghan soldiers.
But Harper said Canada has received no "specific" request from the U.S. to stay on past 2014.

Read more: Harper won't rule out staying in Afghanistan past 2014 | CTV News

If Harper wants to stay in Afghanistan let him go himself. Enough of our military have been killed, wounded and mentally affected, no more.


 
Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply.
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#2
I take it you have a problem with that. Would you prefer that the Taliban retake the country and ban girls from school? murder anyone that disagrees with them?
 
Sparrow
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

I take it you have a problem with that. Would you prefer that the Taliban retake the country and ban girls from school? murder anyone that disagrees with them?

It will happen anyway. As soon as the troops leave it will all go back to what it was Taliban control and everything that comes with them.
Did you really think we could change things permanently? How many years have the US troops been in Bosnia and they are still killing each other, nothing was changed in Iran it is as corrupt and before, and Vietman it didn't do any good.

They said the Taliban was almost destroyed well look at it now they are bombings every day and not just one a day. You cannot change a country if the people are not ready to change.
 
WLDB
No Party Affiliation
+5
#4  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

I take it you have a problem with that. Would you prefer that the Taliban retake the country and ban girls from school? murder anyone that disagrees with them?

Let them sort themselves out. Karzai and his government are barely any better than the taliban.
 
EagleSmack
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by SparrowView Post

It will happen anyway. As soon as the troops leave it will all go back to what it was Taliban control and everything that comes with them.
Did you really think we could change things permanently? How many years have the US troops been in Bosnia and they are still killing each other, nothing was changed in Iran it is as corrupt and before, and Vietman it didn't do any good.

They said the Taliban was almost destroyed well look at it now they are bombings every day and not just one a day. You cannot change a country if the people are not ready to change.

Bosnia? Iran? Are you in Exacto World?
 
Liberalman
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by SparrowView Post

It will happen anyway. As soon as the troops leave it will all go back to what it was Taliban control and everything that comes with them.
.

Everyone forgets that the Taliban was elected and when the Americans came knocking for Bin Laden and the Taliban refused to let the Americans search their country they invaded and decided to do a regime change.
 
EagleSmack
+4
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

Everyone forgets that the Taliban was elected and when the Americans came knocking for Bin Laden and the Taliban refused to let the Americans search their country they invaded and decided to do a regime change.



The Taliban was elected!!!

You dumb azz... the Taliban took over during the Afghan Civil War.

Did you and Sparrow go to the same World History class?
 
Liberalman
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

[/FONT][/COLOR]

The Taliban was elected!!!

You dumb azz... the Taliban took over during the Afghan Civil War.

Did you and Sparrow go to the same World History class?



Ok but they were stil in charge of the country just like the Americans when they won their revolution they took over the country from the British when you think about it revolution and civil war is the same.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

[/FONT][/COLOR]

The Taliban was elected!!!

You dumb azz... the Taliban took over during the Afghan Civil War.

Did you and Sparrow go to the same World History class?

When you are firmly out in left field everything the US does is bad.
 
EagleSmack
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Ok but they were stil in charge of the country just like the Americans when they won their revolution they took over the country from the British when you think about it revolution and civil war is the same.




Wow... a lefty actually admitting he was wrong! Now that is a shock and commendable.

But seriously, why did you even make up AND POST the total fabrication that the Taliban was elected? To make the dumb even more dumber?

Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

Everyone forgets that the Taliban was elected and .....



Everyone forgets... I mean seriously?

 
petros
#11
Obama Admin: 'The War on Terror is Over'

Read more: Obama Admin: 'The War on Terror is Over' - Obama Administration - Fox Nation (external - login to view)
 
mentalfloss
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Obama Admin: 'The War on Terror is Over'

Read more: Obama Admin: 'The War on Terror is Over' - Obama Administration - Fox Nation (external - login to view)


Sweet!
 
jariax
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

I take it you have a problem with that. Would you prefer that the Taliban retake the country and ban girls from school? murder anyone that disagrees with them?

It's ironic that a guy named TaxSlave wants to continue pouring billions of Canadian taxpayer money into a country that is no threat whatsoever to Canada, where the people don't even want us there.

Will you support spending even more billions traipsing across the globe to fight various injustices.

Because otherwise, I see a lot of inconsistency in your reasoning.
 
petros
#14
Oh they are a threat alright....they might end up with the trillions of minerals sitting in wait.
 
Tonington
#15
Hmm, Harper may have inadvertently gift-wrapped a talking point for the opposition:
Stephen Harper shouted down for saying NDP didn't support fight against Hitler | News | National Post
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was shouted down during a debate in question period Thursday on the Afghanistan mission for suggesting the NDP – not yet in existence – didn’t even support Canada’s military involvement in the Second World War.

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair was asking Harper if he intended to extend the Afghanistan mission past 2014 after a Postmedia News report Wednesday said U.S officials had asked Canadian special forces to stay past the withdrawal date.

The prime minister responded the NDP has a pacifistic ideology “regardless of circumstances” and his government would make the right decision for Afghanistan’s security.
Can anyone spot it?
 
DaSleeper
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Hmm, Harper may have inadvertently gift-wrapped a talking point for the opposition:
Stephen Harper shouted down for saying NDP didn't support fight against Hitler | News | National Post

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was shouted down during a debate in question period Thursday on the Afghanistan mission for suggesting the NDP – not yet in existence – didn’t even support Canada’s military involvement in the Second World War.

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair was asking Harper if he intended to extend the Afghanistan mission past 2014 after a Postmedia News report Wednesday said U.S officials had asked Canadian special forces to stay past the withdrawal date.

The prime minister responded the NDP has a pacifistic ideology “regardless of circumstances” and his government would make the right decision for Afghanistan’s security.
Can anyone spot it?

Didn't the CCF become the NDP, and at the time the leader of the CCF was against the war.....non?

List of CCF/NDP members - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

More www.socialisthistory.ca/Docs/...eft-in-WW2.htm (external - login to view)
Last edited by DaSleeper; Apr 26th, 2012 at 04:42 PM..
 
Tonington
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Didn't the CCF become the NDP, and at the time the leader of the CCF was against the war.....non?

List of CCF/NDP members - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

Yes, the CCF became part of the NDP, along with other groups. Likewise, would it have been appropriate in 2005 to say Stephen Harper is for the GST? Ascribing the same motives to the current leaders based on past party policies is pretty lame, and a logical fallacy to boot.

Anyways, that isn't the part that caught my eye. It's in my quote though, see if you can spot it.


Here's a hint:
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

The prime minister responded the NDP has a pacifistic ideology “regardless of circumstances” and his government would make the right decision for Afghanistan’s security.

 
Sparrow
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Bosnia? Iran? Are you in Exacto World?

When I say you comment I was pissed. They I read my post and OOOOPS my brain and fingers were out of sync!


Corrections: Peace keeping troops in Bosnia, US troops in Vietnam, Iraq not Iran.


My point is too many soldiers have died, been permanently wounded physically and mentally in countries where there is no significant change. Look at Bosnia, how many years have PK been there and they are still shooting. What is the point?
 
Spade
Free Thinker
+1
#19
War is seldom, if ever, waged on humanitarian grounds. Afghanistan is no exeption. Bring our forces home!

Bruce Springsteen Bring Them Home - San Francisco 2006 - YouTube

 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by jariaxView Post

It's ironic that a guy named TaxSlave wants to continue pouring billions of Canadian taxpayer money into a country that is no threat whatsoever to Canada, where the people don't even want us there.

Will you support spending even more billions traipsing across the globe to fight various injustices.

Because otherwise, I see a lot of inconsistency in your reasoning.

When you become an adult you might understand that some things you just have to do because it is right.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
+2
#21
When you become an adult you understand that some things you just have to do because you are told.
 
EagleSmack
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by SparrowView Post

When I say you comment I was pissed. They I read my post and OOOOPS my brain and fingers were out of sync!


Better run that program again.
 
MHz
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Better run that program again.

"When you become an adult you understand that some things you just have to do because you are told."

Totally right, being an adult means you get to say what is going to happen. On the National level the bills would be referendum items, on the minor things the changes could be quite quick, big changes would take awhile, almost like the biggest got put on simmer so there were few regrets and the pitfalls had lots of time for discussion.

Patriot bill = 11 years in discussion, just a suggestion from someone who still waves with all 5 fingers.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#24
Direct democracy, while quite noble in theory, isn't that practical from a functional point of view. California tested those waters and it didn't really work out that well.
 
MHz
+1
#25
Can Capitalism and Democracy even be expected to work side-by-side, if war and conflict is the main industry then you want a system that creates lots of 'opportunity' for a war to take place. If the ones in control were deliberately engineering that very thing when an alternative was much better for the majority of people in the area. I doubt any sane or even insane person is going to vote on war in their area as being the best way to improve the local economy and end up with a higher living standard for the locals.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#26
Any system that seeks to 'organize' society will have its pluses and minuses.That fact applies to all ideologies, political/governmental systems and societal arrangements. There will always be some form of inequality and from that, stress or strife is the potential.

In terms of the suggestion that a society that bases it's primary function (or one of) on engineering wars, well, my personal opinion is that this statement is not accurate. To that point, the only nation/government that I believe that would be applicable to might have been North Korea under their former leader.

With all this said, I fully agree that no sane person would seek to use militaristic ambitions to bolster an economy. However, as it stands, there are many nations that participate in this endeavor in an indirect manner as a means to prop-up industry. The manufacture of arms and equipment is a global industry, but what I have really observed is that it is the nations that do not have the manufacturing capacity are the ones that are consuming the products and waging many of the wars.
 
MHz
#27
The wars of this century and pretty much all of last century were damn close to being full manufactured. A trend that came from being heavily involved as being the owners of the industries that supply, ..... wait for it, ...... weapons that are only good for war.

That today, wind the cl;ock way, way back to when trade first came about. Some things were nice to find and other things were in the luxury class, bobbles and beads were the trade for very valuable furs just because the one selling the furs saw something that was unique and would look pretty on some costumes used in various ceremonies, basically garbage good in the nation that ended up with the furs. Should they be dealt such a deal as that 100 year war would be fully justified. Spices and such are nice to have and at a 'fair-trade' mode they benefit both buyer and seller and the one transporting the goods only gets cost plus a few % . With crooked transporters you get both buyer and seller being ripped of and the transporter is the only one getting any benefits and that is by their design alone. There is a cure but little incentive to implement the changes, lots of energy for fake changes though. Crooks are as old as time minus 1 generation.

I find it hard too get an accurate picture of the economy over the last 100 years but some changes seem to be warranted if looking at the next 100 years is possible and some things should be carried that far in outlook. Moving all agriculture out of America and moving it to Africa would give them the same raw land that was the growing belt in North America. Rather than kill off the herds box them up and ship them to the deserted farmland of America and tourism would be the industry for the next 100 years as the soil was rebuilt. That would have to be a world effort and two very big wars in one generation shows that bug public work projects are possible. It goes nowhere where a bank authorizing it which is really stupid because having money moving around is how they stay in 'need' when no money is moving they can all be fired as there is no need of them anymore
Last edited by MHz; Apr 26th, 2012 at 11:48 PM..
 

Similar Threads

27
12
Staying the course in Afghanistan
by Hank C | Mar 8th, 2006
no new posts