Harper says he couldn't live with himself if he reduced Canada's mission in Afghan

[Zzarchov]

more false dichotomy

Redefinition doesn't necessarily lead to the assumption of previously defined roles. Solving Afghanistan is going to require a lot more imagination than that.

Do you know what that means? Being a peace keeper is very defined set of behaviours and rules.

Its like saying being a lawyer is a false dichotomy (ie, its an absurd non-sensical statement)..its a proffession with very clear rules.

If you are going to be Peace Keepers there are clear rules and behaviours. If you aren't going to follow them then you are just a soldier.


And you really don't need to be that creative. We like to pretend..but you want the real damn truth? You need a public that either doesn't have ADD or takes some ritalin.

How long do people actually think a war and reconstruction should take? People seem to assume it should take less time than it does to do construction on the Highway 401.

Even the vaunted successes of Japan and German reconstruction took upwards of 15 years of war and reconstrution. And we lost ALOT more soldiers than we are now.

I swear, the only way you can ever have any rational idea of what the world is like these days is to avoid corporate media..Zazz and panic sells too well.

 

[BitWhys]

oie vay

where did I say they had to become peace keepers?

 

[ottawabill]

you actually don't say much at all..very hard to follow..and I don't think I'm alone

 

[Zzarchov]

ok

I'll spell it out one more time...

Harper is basing his policy on the false dichotomy that a change in the mission means a reduction of the current military role instead of, for example, a redefinition of said role. Doing so proves he's not up to the task of dealing with the problem properly. Enough said.

The change in mission is a change to peace keeping.

If you didn't mean to refer to the article we are discussing and the change he is discussing as policy, then you really did not have "Enough Said."

 

[BitWhys]

The change in mission is a change to peace keeping...

You're just one assumption after the other, aren't you? Harper doesn't say that anywhere in the article. All he says about peace-keeping is that it isn't what our troops are doing right now.

 

[Northboy]

We are mostly fighting a culture to the south. The Pashtuns who don’t really respect any border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and who tend to fight anyone they feel are an unwelcome invader of their lands. They have typically leaned to the Taliban as a political ideology, but I think it is more or less their ethical code and sense of sovereignty that they are fighting for.

We just say we are fighting Taliban because it’s a nice label to lump an enemy under. A label which somehow makes it seem to us, 'the masses', that we aren’t fighting the locals. As for the Pashtuns, these are the same people that have fought off the Russians, the British, Alexander the Great, etc. etc. and won.

Can we not reach an agreement with the Pashtuns? What do they want, their own territory respected??
To kill infidels, what?? A long distance war of attrition is unwinnable and genocide should be out of the question...

 

[Zzarchov]

You're just one assumption after the other, aren't you? Harper doesn't say that anywhere in the article. All he says about peace-keeping is that it isn't what our troops are doing right now.

Well then perhaps you should READ the article..

Now first is the comments at the top which tie into the background BEHIND the article.

*he'd rather lose an election than put our troops in further harms way by changing the rules of engagement to Peace Keeping (in a country that isn't stable)*

Then further on:

*critics have said Canada is not doing enough to assist the Afghan people through humanitarian programs and development assistance, and that instead, this country’s approach has become too warlike and is not following decades of work as international peacekeepers.*

with:

*The Liberals and the Bloc tell me: rebalance the mission.*

 

[elevennevele]

So what would you suggest then? Reconstruction in a hostile environment or pull the troops out completely?

The first thing is not to reward the moron who placed an ill conceived extension on the Afghan mission which over extended our military as well changed their original supportive role with the reconstruction. Don’t reward the guy who makes a greater mess of things, vote the person out.

I also make no apology for not believing in utilizing our Canadian Military for a war of ideology, or of occupation. I believe that you use your armed forces because the international commitment is so great and shared, and the situation is so dire and immediate, that you need to intervene. Perhaps as in the case of a genocide as it happens.

Afghanistan is a NATO commitment, not really an international mission. It is only reviewed and given sanction by the UN once a year, but that is about it. As for it being a NATO commitment, well... we can see the half heartedness with that through our allies (and to some extent, the USA too).

My other attitude to war is that you use your military to defend your country or your ally. That we have been a part of and in all honesty, the war on terror in Afghanistan ended quite some time ago. We took out those who harboured the terrorists, we took out their camps, and we were suppose to catch Bin Laden. Even the USA, who attacked Afghanistan for reasons of 911, lost interest to a point in this venture. They took much of their resources to invent a war for Iraq. Bush even made a statement that he doesn’t think much of Bin Ladin after being unable to catch him. I think if we can overlook them doing that as well as with what has been done with Iraq, they can overlook us only placing ourselves in a minor role with Afghanistan, or a different role altogether. Maybe even not so much military intervention, but instead a focus on aid work.

So for the ‘war’ part, I think we did our part.

Presently, it’s now a case that the USA decided to extend this into a different kind of military venture. One that hopes to bring a new ideology into the region. They stuck around, and we (allies) stuck around to be an ally. Honestly, terrorism in Afghanistan is as simple as a training camp and a missile shot from a plane. We can spend all our resources combing dusty streets meanwhile I’m sure those who are training to kill us are doing quite fine in their gymnasiums in Pakistan or parts of Africa, or wherever else.

 

[elevennevele]

I’m quite certain the USA is going to lose as to their venture with Iraq. What are we going to call that? Abandonment? Defeat? The terrorists won? Or coming to one’s senses because the whole undertaking was folly to begin with? It’s going to happen in the end regardless and we may share much the same predicament ourselves with Afghanistan whether we like it or not. On another note, typically after a war, a country rebuilds itself.

Our soldiers are ‘soldiers’. You want to make them into carpenters? or construction workers? Well, send them over to some asian tsunami ravaged place and have them rebuild roads there. Fix everything up. Or send them to some place in South America and have them build schools there because some of those kids have nothing either. In fact, we won’t even get shot at for doing this, nor will they blow up the road we are working on. The people will probably love us too. Throw flowers at our feet.

We will improve peoples lives, be loved for it, and it will cost much less. That is if our troops want to be construction workers or electricians, etc. more than soldiers, or that the local government likes having foreign troops all over it's country.

What I’m pointing out with this ‘in a sense’, is that this is what we are supposedly getting our heartstrings pulled each day via Harper rhetoric with the Afghan folly. To give some kid or mother a better future down the road. If that is really what it is about now, then there are a heck of a lot of ways/places to do that and get better results doing it.

Although I can bet you that the Canadian tax payer, despite the good of our heart, is going to start asking the question, why are we not fixing things back home, and why am I working so hard to pay for all this charity? And I bet those questions will likely come from the ‘let the market decide’ conservatives who ironically give people so much of a hard time for anyone arguing about the folly of trying to help the Afghans in this more militaristic ideological misadventure.

Honestly, I will though admit, it might have been possible for Afghanistan at one time. My imagination could accept such a plausible notion if the USA had been committed from start to finish and poured all those resources that they instead squandered in Iraq, into a new Afghanistan. However without the oil resources, that is a lot of money and goodwill out of America’s pocket for good intentions. Would the USA have just been fine with that? Well, I'm sorry to say that the Iraq grab makes me a non-believer.

 

[BitWhys]

Well then perhaps you should READ the article..

Now first is the comments at the top which tie into the background BEHIND the article.

*he'd rather lose an election than put our troops in further harms way by changing the rules of engagement to Peace Keeping (in a country that isn't stable)*

Then further on:

*critics have said Canada is not doing enough to assist the Afghan people through humanitarian programs and development assistance, and that instead, this country’s approach has become too warlike and is not following decades of work as international peacekeepers.*

with:

*The Liberals and the Bloc tell me: rebalance the mission.*

You might want to learn to distinguish commentary from quotation.

 

[Zzarchov]

You might want to learn to distinguish commentary from quotation.

Actually I did..notice the phrase
"Now first is the comments at the top"

You know why its CALLED a commentary right? Just drop it, you didn't read the article and left cryptic remarks to seem mysterious.

 

[BitWhys]

Actually I did..notice the phrase
"Now first is the comments at the top"

You know why its CALLED a commentary right? Just drop it, you didn't read the article and left cryptic remarks to seem mysterious.

and this is supposed to somehow establish Harper said something about peace-keepers besides what I already made note of?

it wouldn't be so mysterious if you understood what a false dichotomy is.

 

[Zzarchov]

Actually I do, I'm quite familiar with logical debates and common logical fallacies.

But you are not using the word in correct context, nor to refer to an actual false dilemma.

Peacekeeping is mentioned, both in this article and many times in much of the background reading you should know before commenting on him pursuing policy based on the fallacy of false dilemma.

 

[BitWhys]

Do you accept the premise that the only two choices available in dealing with the Afghanistan mission are to either continue what we're doing now or switch to peace-keeping?

 

[Zzarchov]

No.. because thats not whats being discussed..

The Bloc wants to topple the government if they don't switch to peace keeping, Harper is saying "No..are you nuts, that will send a stream of bodybags home".

 

[BitWhys]

No.. because thats not whats being discussed..

The Bloc wants to topple the government if they don't switch to peace keeping, Harper is saying "No..are you nuts, that will send a stream of bodybags home".

In the article in the opening post Harper says the Bloc wants the government to "rebalance the mission" and makes the point he doesn't have any idea WHAT that means. This would be a lot more productive if you didn't go making stuff up to suit your needs.

 

[L Gilbert]

You're just one assumption after the other, aren't you? Harper doesn't say that anywhere in the article. All he says about peace-keeping is that it isn't what our troops are doing right now.

And Harpy's an expert on the issue? Last I heard, he wasn't even a tactician let alone a strategist or military expert. He's an economist/politician and all he was doing was expressing his opinion, just like a lot of people here and elsewhere.
According to the gov't's website:
"Canada is making important diplomatic, defence and development contributions to the stabilization and reconstruction of Afghanistan.
Canada is in Afghanistan today to:

• defend our national interests;
• ensure Canadian leadership in world affairs; and
• help Afghanistan rebuild. " - http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/menu-en.asp

Anyway, I'd prefer that Canada not be like the States and not finish what we start doing, which in this case was helping Afghans. Origianlly, I'd have been happy if we had just sent aid to begin with but, we're in it with both feet now, might as well do the best we can.

 

[elevennevele]

Harper: “I could not live with myself making a decision on Canada’s role in the world and our strategic and defence interests if I knew I had done that for political reasons that were the wrong reasons. That I could not live with.”


For me this is an incredibly ironic statement to have to bear listening to from Harper. Harper was the one who wanted us to go into Iraq. It would have be a huge blunder for our strategic and defensive interests and at the time even I knew with the information out there that it was an unjustified decision on the part of the USA (as did many in the world that voiced opposition pre-war).

However he was perfectly comfortable continuing his pursuits in politics ultimately taking the leadership position even though he must know that he would have ruined this country (reputation and all) had he been in power earlier.

But now he tells us he couldn’t live with himself having made a wrong decision with our strategic and defence interests, and/or for the wrong reasons.

You know what I say? I say that we redefine our role in Afghanistan, then we hand Harper a water pistol. I’m sure he’s at least man enough to squirt himself in the head.

 

[Colpy]

I've been politically aware (much to the surprize of some here ) through eight PMs.

I always give them a chance. That usually lasts between 6 months and a year. Then I can't stand them.

Three wound up being just stupid. (Clark, Martin, and what's her name?, yeh, Campbell)

Three wound up being absolutely nasty, corrupt, and a detriment to democracy. (Trudeau, Mulrooney, Chretien)

One was neutral, that would be Turner.

I'm getting to LIKE Harper.

Headline on the Globe and Mail yesterday...."Harper calls Hamas Genocidal" In the article, he labeled both Hamas, and much more importantly, Hezbollah.

Ahh, at last, some truth. And some principles.

Not that I like it all, but that would only happen if I were President for Life.

 

[RedGreen]

I think you're just getting soft in your old age Colpy. You're tired of complaining about the government, you'd rather just conform and let them pay you to sit on a beach somewhere and drink Mai Tais.

You are starting to LIKE Harper? I'm sure as a guy he'd not bad. For me, its what he represents: Pro America (during a time that the USA is not generally liked in the global community), Big corporate oil (when it should be on the way out) and religion (which has absolutely no place in politics).

By the way Colpy, just joking about the old and soft stuff. :toothy8:
I guess I'm still in my young and rebellious days, I've only known 5 PMs.