I can go for that idea. But, I still prefer finishing what I start and I think Canada should, too: unless the motives are bad to begin with, of course.
Canada debates pullout from Afgnaistan
- Thread starter Karlin
- Start date
Being in Afghanistan isn't Bush's War on Terror, it is the united nations coalition, as a result of the
911 attack, after the Taliban "refused" to hand over Osama Bin Laden. 911 was an international
tragedy, as many people died from other countries, and Canada as well.
There is much rebuilding and developing being done now for the Afghan people, it is improving and
positive for the people of that country, and they 'deserve" it, especially the women.
Lets stay there and give a "helping hand", it is part of NATO, so why should we drop out, that would
look so "lame". It's not the same as other countries who went in there in the past, we aren't trying
to conquer them and take their country, we are "helping" them.
I'm proud of our Canadian troops for their efforts, keep up the good work.
911 attack, after the Taliban "refused" to hand over Osama Bin Laden. 911 was an international
tragedy, as many people died from other countries, and Canada as well.
There is much rebuilding and developing being done now for the Afghan people, it is improving and
positive for the people of that country, and they 'deserve" it, especially the women.
Lets stay there and give a "helping hand", it is part of NATO, so why should we drop out, that would
look so "lame". It's not the same as other countries who went in there in the past, we aren't trying
to conquer them and take their country, we are "helping" them.
I'm proud of our Canadian troops for their efforts, keep up the good work.
The U.N. is in the north of Afghanstan, but it's mainly the U.S., Canada and the Brits fighting in the south where most of the "Taliban" activity is.
I'm proud of the bravery and skill being shown by the Canadian forces but I think it's being misused. They're fighting against a local insurgency and history shows the harder you come down on the locals they harder they resist(Vietnam is a prime example). The Karzi government is unpopular in the south and the Taliban will be able to exploit that feeling the same way they did to take control in the late 1990s. The Karzi government is corrupt and members of it are getting rich exporting heroin that hurts us here in the west, I don't think Canadian troops should be supporting the drug trade, even indirectly.
Because of the political situation in Pakistan, it's going to be impossible to defeat the Taliban. Any fighters NATO forces destroy in Afghanstan will be quickly replaced by recruits from western Pakistan and Pushtun tribes in southern Afghanstan. Musharif has to protect his butt from extremists in his own government so we can't rely on the Pakistanis to do more than token support against the Taliban.
I'm not necessarily for an immediate withdrawl but we need a real debate in Parliment to decide how to proceed. Afghanstan has a long history of consuming foreign armies (the largest land army of the 20th century was defeated there) and I don't think many Canadians will support the rising causualties that are inevitable. The summer campaign season is approaching in a few months and the reality of war in Afghanstan is going to become all to clear.
these a/c are being deployed in a Non-combat mission...they will be performing observation duties.....some NATO ally they are......Dont give out the guns unless you are going to put ammunition in them.....
Oh yeah..
And there doesn't seem to be any bases training folks for terror attacks into North America.............which is about 80% of the point.
Totally torn on this.
Hate to see our boys and girls in harms way.
Need to uphold our treaty obligations.
Hate to see mostly innocent Afghan civilians die.
Have no luv for Islamofacist regimes any more than I do for tinpot warlords growing opium.
Lot of good folk going to continue to die if we pull out.
Hate to admit it but like seeing our forces kick some Taliban butt.
We could put the money to way better uses at home.
Don't like being put on same shelf as GWB by anyone, good guy or bad guy.
Hate to see our boys and girls in harms way.
Need to uphold our treaty obligations.
Hate to see mostly innocent Afghan civilians die.
Have no luv for Islamofacist regimes any more than I do for tinpot warlords growing opium.
Lot of good folk going to continue to die if we pull out.
Hate to admit it but like seeing our forces kick some Taliban butt.
We could put the money to way better uses at home.
Don't like being put on same shelf as GWB by anyone, good guy or bad guy.
How can you suggest this? Can't people have more than one issue at a time to be concerned about?
I think it's probably because they have to move around carefully. People even now are a little uncomfortable with the idea of a vibrant, active German army
@talloola
The Karzi governement and the Northern Alliance has always been corrupt, that's one of the reasons it got thrown out of power by the Taliban in the first place. It was also guilty of warcrimes in the 1990s. All the western money flooding into Afghanstan has made that corruption worse not better.
If the U.S. had been serious about changing things in Afghanastan there may have been hope, but instead Bush decided to invade Iraq and both countries are now mess.
There's little hope in depending on the Afghan army to be effective, most of it's power base is in the north and only Kabul can be considered to be secure and that's relative. The power in Afghanstan is with the warlords and tribal leaders. The warlords will go with whoever offers them the best chance of maintaining their power and the tribal leaders tend to hate foreign forces in the country.
The aid the west is offering isn't even necessarily welcome. These are people with a very old culture that they're proud of. They see outside influences as a threat to their culture. Sending more money and troops may be the worst thing we could do in Afghanstan.
The Karzi governement and the Northern Alliance has always been corrupt, that's one of the reasons it got thrown out of power by the Taliban in the first place. It was also guilty of warcrimes in the 1990s. All the western money flooding into Afghanstan has made that corruption worse not better.
If the U.S. had been serious about changing things in Afghanastan there may have been hope, but instead Bush decided to invade Iraq and both countries are now mess.
There's little hope in depending on the Afghan army to be effective, most of it's power base is in the north and only Kabul can be considered to be secure and that's relative. The power in Afghanstan is with the warlords and tribal leaders. The warlords will go with whoever offers them the best chance of maintaining their power and the tribal leaders tend to hate foreign forces in the country.
The aid the west is offering isn't even necessarily welcome. These are people with a very old culture that they're proud of. They see outside influences as a threat to their culture. Sending more money and troops may be the worst thing we could do in Afghanstan.
The choice Canada makes on Afghanistan will depend on the choice we make in the next federal election. If it's Harper and his gang of louts we will be in Afghanistan indefinitely. If it's not then there is at least a chance of getting out in the next couple of years. Staying in Afghanistan and supporting U.S. aggression does not bode well for the future of Canada in world politics as Harper takes us closer to the U.S. and it's policies.
The question is, is Harper doing what he is doing because of U.S. economic and political blackmail of the softwood lumber dispute sort, or is he truly convinced that the war in Afghanistan has some useful purpose of some kind?
And aside from that folks, most people who have taken the time to study and understand what is going on in Afghanistan will know that we are supporting worse evils than the Taliban. Being there to help the people is nothing but a smokescreen which allows more U.S. aggression in the M.E. for their own political and economic purposes.
The question is, is Harper doing what he is doing because of U.S. economic and political blackmail of the softwood lumber dispute sort, or is he truly convinced that the war in Afghanistan has some useful purpose of some kind?
And aside from that folks, most people who have taken the time to study and understand what is going on in Afghanistan will know that we are supporting worse evils than the Taliban. Being there to help the people is nothing but a smokescreen which allows more U.S. aggression in the M.E. for their own political and economic purposes.
Funny, I thought this was a joint venture between several countries.
Perhaps neither. Perhaps he wants to continue because he wants to show the world that we don't start something then cut and run like the Americans do. Email they guy and ask him? Or email the MoD and ask.
The UN and NATO are both tools of US agression, the blue helmits have rarely got in the way of Uncle Shams plans.They are regularly used to further US forigne policy, witness the crap in Hati, one of the most discracefull examples of western intervention on the planet.:wave:
lie expressor said
thus fully earning his non de plume.
Don't be ridiculous.
Or study a bit about the Taliban in Afghanistan.
thus fully earning his non de plume.
Don't be ridiculous.
Or study a bit about the Taliban in Afghanistan.
I;'ll lower myself into the fog you inhabit one more time, though I know there is no bottom to it. What delusional pictures in your mind (and I use the word mind with hesitation) would lead you to believe the Muslim hordes are bent on terror attacks or invasion of North America? There exists not one shread of evidence that Islamist terrorists are responsible for 9/11 so don't use it.
The only purpose for invasion and occupation of the region is OIL no other reason exists. You and many others are victims of psycological conditioning. When you cavalierly cast the OIL motivation aside your common sence goes with it. What in hell makes you believe all the money and death expended in the middle east has anything to do with terrorists, there's no money to be made snuffing ragtag rebels unless they're sitting on assets.
I can safely discount every word you utter, of that I'm sure.:wave:
Colpy- Let's get something straight here. I'm not one of the teenagers here who can be rebutted with insults and oneliners. If you have something to say about my opinions please offer some substance or just don't bother to waste my time reading your screaming is not, is not.
Regardless of what the Taliban did or did not do, it was no worse than what the U.S. condones in chop, chop square by their ally Saudi Arabia. And what Karzai and his followers are doing in Afghanistan is easily as bad as any. Perhaps it is you who needs to rethink his political indoctrination by U.S. lies and objuscations which have long ago been proven to rule the day in the M.E.
But tell me colpy, is the issue for you really a concern for the Afghanistan people or is it avoiding political and economic blackmail by the U.S. if we don't pitch in? The former will illustrate to me that at least you are misinformed while the latter just puts a bad taste in our mouths and a stench in the air around you.
Regardless of what the Taliban did or did not do, it was no worse than what the U.S. condones in chop, chop square by their ally Saudi Arabia. And what Karzai and his followers are doing in Afghanistan is easily as bad as any. Perhaps it is you who needs to rethink his political indoctrination by U.S. lies and objuscations which have long ago been proven to rule the day in the M.E.
But tell me colpy, is the issue for you really a concern for the Afghanistan people or is it avoiding political and economic blackmail by the U.S. if we don't pitch in? The former will illustrate to me that at least you are misinformed while the latter just puts a bad taste in our mouths and a stench in the air around you.
I think the whole scene, as you say, is to ensure western domination of the oil resources which is absolutely vital for western Capitalist continuation.
Who made the documentrys, and what were they about?
Relative freedom is a subjective conclusion you've made not the Afghans.
You have seen some tiny little feel good news reel crap, it's not indicative of the whole country nor even a very large part of it.:wave:
If we are going to have a debate then here's something for Colpy to cut his teeth on:
-- Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, a former commander of mujahedeen fighters combatting the Soviet occupation in the 1980s, who now heads a pro-Karzai faction in parliament. In 1993, a former Sayyaf lieutenant told one of the report's authors that before a massacre of Shiite civilians in west Kabul, Sayyaf ordered his officers: "Don't leave anyone alive -- kill all of them."
-- Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum, who ran unsuccessfully for president in 1993, is currently Karzai's military chief of staff. His forces captured hundreds of Taliban fighters after they fled U.S. aerial bombing in 2001. At least 200 subsequently died inside overcrowded containers and were buried in mass graves. A full investigation into the incident has never taken place, the U.N. report says.
-- Syed Muhammad Gulabzoi, a member of parliament from the southern Khost province, had been the interior minister under a puppet regime during Soviet occupation. According to the report, he oversaw an Afghan intelligence service notorious for torturing and killing civilians.
-- Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, a former commander of mujahedeen fighters combatting the Soviet occupation in the 1980s, who now heads a pro-Karzai faction in parliament. In 1993, a former Sayyaf lieutenant told one of the report's authors that before a massacre of Shiite civilians in west Kabul, Sayyaf ordered his officers: "Don't leave anyone alive -- kill all of them."
-- Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum, who ran unsuccessfully for president in 1993, is currently Karzai's military chief of staff. His forces captured hundreds of Taliban fighters after they fled U.S. aerial bombing in 2001. At least 200 subsequently died inside overcrowded containers and were buried in mass graves. A full investigation into the incident has never taken place, the U.N. report says.
-- Syed Muhammad Gulabzoi, a member of parliament from the southern Khost province, had been the interior minister under a puppet regime during Soviet occupation. According to the report, he oversaw an Afghan intelligence service notorious for torturing and killing civilians.
There's oil in Afghanistan?
Two docs were National Geographic. I cannot remember the others.
So it's a tiny part of what's going on in Afghanistan. It is still a start, isn't it? You are trying to tell me it absolutely will not get any better? How could you know this?
Perhaps we should just not even give a c4rap about anything or anyone but ourselves as you seem to suggest. Having been a firefighter, I guess I wasted a lot of my life and effort when I could have been pursuing my personal pleasures. Canada could have been doing the same for all of these years, too. What a revelation.
Um, I didn't make the conclusion about Afghan's relative freedom, it is blatant for one thing, and some of the Afghan women were saying that they enjoyed freedom. Quit assuming things about me and quit telling me what I think and say.
Last edited:
Yeah, things in Afghanistan were tough for citizens before and they're tough now.