Canada should stay in Afghanistan past 2009, NATO chief says
- Thread starter CBC News
- Start date
So, 10% of casualties in a warzone in 5 years are traffic accidents.
Now, less than 10% of our armed forces are in afghanistan, Therefore: More people still die in the armed forces in traffic accidents, than die from enemy fire.
Now this is still 54 people dead that would otherwise be alive. But it is not a huge spike to have a military of 80,000 lose 54 extra people (aka, less than 11 people a year) to enemy fire while in a warzone.
That is a tremendous victory right there. Now saying "we shouldn't be in a war in the first place" is a fine and defendable position. Those 54 people im sure don't appreciate being dead.
But to say "war is fine" but "we are doing horrible in this war and there is no end in sight" implies you are fine with killing others, but are not even the slightest bit in tune with the fact that wars mean your own people die too, usually in vastly greater numbers than this.
IF you think war is a solution to an enemy faction in disputed country (keep in mind, the Taliban were not afghanistan, they controlled part of it, the other governing body asked us in) then you have to accept death, and this is far below what should be expected (this is why war is avoided).
Realistically, we should (given our size as a nation) have a draft going and be prepared to lose hundreds of people a year, potentially thousands. If we wanted to win.
But right now we are at war, without expecting the country at home to make any sacrifices, and are barely losing anyone in the biggest hellhole on the planet reknowned for swallowing who armies.
TomG
"If we all read the stuff below, then our comments might be raised a notch or two above the level of barroom blab."
I understand your motivation for offering the comment above however; I and many other folk (for years now) have examined the documentation and assessed the legal (or illegal as the case may be) rationale for Canadian Forces involvement in the Afghani action.
There aren't very many Canadians that still cling to much faith in either the government of Canada or the government of the United States. We have decades of evidence that establish beyond a doubt that these two governments are at a minimum, inept and suffused with corruption, and more likely, representative of a social organizing construct..."democracy" that has lost its way. It means nothing to he electoral process of or in either nation that the numbers of voices raised against the war in Iraq and the number of voices with legitimate concerns regarding Canadian participation in the Afghanistan action far outnumbered those content to see another spasm of world-wide militarism and destruction. Governments can't do the job of governing if their authority is suspect. That authority brought into suspicion through the purposeful frustration of the process of laws and systems of democracy that at any other time would stand as the principled action undergirding foundation upon which democracy rests.
But the "principles" of accountability, integrity in government, transparency in the process of government and availability to critical scrutiny of the process and its effecters has become merely a memory within both the United States and Canada.
This has been a source of my very often ascerbic criticism for the apathy and complacency of the Canadian people. I don't understand how anyone could reasonably expect that a government demonstrating the on-going multi-billion dollar corruption witnessed over the past fifteen years could be expected to implement enlightened and difficult national policy and principled participation in the world community. If the structure of government is seen as unable and ineffective in curtailing abuse corruption and ineptitude in its domestic policies and discharge of its responsibilities to the people, does it make any sense to expect reasoned insight and vision in its foreign policy?
Does it make any sense that we've handed over the reigns of power to middle-managers blinded to any other "cause" or sensibility than entrenching the dichotomies that exist in Canadian and American society? Who believes at this point in time that an MP or a Senator or a Congressman have any other motivation for their participation in "government" than furthering of their own interests and the interests of powerful friends and lobbyists promising to ensure that these marionettes will retain their grip on their individual power and golden parachutes?
It's simple and easy to point a finger at the aboriginal people for behaving poorly in turning to civil disobedience out of their frustration with the machinations of our government that has done everything in its power to avoid coming to terms with these issues for over twenty years.
It's simple and easy to wave a niney-nine cent flag as demonstration of support for a government and a policy that have a gun at your back. Canadians know this and certainly Americans know this to be the case. Governments eschewing international law, participating in kidnap torture and unsubstantiated "necessity" for armed conflict over vast areas of the world. Citizens kidnapped and incarcerated under not the rule of law...habeas corpus is dead when military tribunals, security certificates and only thinly veiled threats against anyone's voice raised in opposition become the rule of the day.
Make no mistake, when the fortunes of multi-millionaire industrialists is placed in jeopardy, governments are compelled to act to preserve and protect the wealthy elite. While petroleum companies use every underhanded manoeuver and exaggeration and lies to legitimize stealing from us all at the gas pumps, issues of gas pipelines mineral rights and petroleum resources are the engine behind cruise missiles bombs and fire-fights in Iraq and Afghansitan.
Don't be suprised that governments no longer answer to the people of these nations, but rather answer to multi-national corporations. Don't be suprised when Canadians sitting on American defense industry cabals like the Carlyle Group forego principle and duty to keep their industrial constitutents fat and happy. Don't be suprised when if not the major architect behind Gulf War I and the rush to invade Iraq under the rubric of "urgent necessity" is exposed as a liar and willing and prepared to steal from eveyone for his "friends"...Paul Wolfowitz
Why would anyone be suprised that the "liberal" press in Canada and the United States has recieved everything except arrest orders as inducement to report favorable developments and put a shiny luster on the various wars and actions taking place around the world at the behest of the powerful wealthy while the mind-numbing inconsequential is ladled out steaming and hot from the paparazzo hounding after mindless children of the super wealthy paint drug abuse and criminality as entertainment....
The record of western democracies in North America when it comes to addressing global warming, pollution and degradation of our forestry and marine environments and the very streets that Canadians and Americans walk on...crumble under our feet... are testament not to an enlighted vision of the future and implementing difficult even painful measures to avert the looming destruction that our children will inherit as the earth that was stripped and defoliated and poisoned in the name of greed....become grist in the ginmills and barrooms around these nations while young men and women pay the price for our appetites with their blood.
It's far easier to frame the notion "you're either with us or with the terrorists" to establish an adversarial coliseum in the public domain than it is to convince people that your legislation and the actions that follow your legislation are product of insight and analysis with a focus on attempting to establish institutions and structures of law and organization working toward the benefit of all mankind when you've demonstrated that laws are to be broken and agreements unable to satisfy your greed and intentions can be abandoned.
You may not like the tone of the dialogue TomG but it's long over due and in all reality may have come far too late to make any difference of any kind.
"If we all read the stuff below, then our comments might be raised a notch or two above the level of barroom blab."
I understand your motivation for offering the comment above however; I and many other folk (for years now) have examined the documentation and assessed the legal (or illegal as the case may be) rationale for Canadian Forces involvement in the Afghani action.
There aren't very many Canadians that still cling to much faith in either the government of Canada or the government of the United States. We have decades of evidence that establish beyond a doubt that these two governments are at a minimum, inept and suffused with corruption, and more likely, representative of a social organizing construct..."democracy" that has lost its way. It means nothing to he electoral process of or in either nation that the numbers of voices raised against the war in Iraq and the number of voices with legitimate concerns regarding Canadian participation in the Afghanistan action far outnumbered those content to see another spasm of world-wide militarism and destruction. Governments can't do the job of governing if their authority is suspect. That authority brought into suspicion through the purposeful frustration of the process of laws and systems of democracy that at any other time would stand as the principled action undergirding foundation upon which democracy rests.
But the "principles" of accountability, integrity in government, transparency in the process of government and availability to critical scrutiny of the process and its effecters has become merely a memory within both the United States and Canada.
This has been a source of my very often ascerbic criticism for the apathy and complacency of the Canadian people. I don't understand how anyone could reasonably expect that a government demonstrating the on-going multi-billion dollar corruption witnessed over the past fifteen years could be expected to implement enlightened and difficult national policy and principled participation in the world community. If the structure of government is seen as unable and ineffective in curtailing abuse corruption and ineptitude in its domestic policies and discharge of its responsibilities to the people, does it make any sense to expect reasoned insight and vision in its foreign policy?
Does it make any sense that we've handed over the reigns of power to middle-managers blinded to any other "cause" or sensibility than entrenching the dichotomies that exist in Canadian and American society? Who believes at this point in time that an MP or a Senator or a Congressman have any other motivation for their participation in "government" than furthering of their own interests and the interests of powerful friends and lobbyists promising to ensure that these marionettes will retain their grip on their individual power and golden parachutes?
It's simple and easy to point a finger at the aboriginal people for behaving poorly in turning to civil disobedience out of their frustration with the machinations of our government that has done everything in its power to avoid coming to terms with these issues for over twenty years.
It's simple and easy to wave a niney-nine cent flag as demonstration of support for a government and a policy that have a gun at your back. Canadians know this and certainly Americans know this to be the case. Governments eschewing international law, participating in kidnap torture and unsubstantiated "necessity" for armed conflict over vast areas of the world. Citizens kidnapped and incarcerated under not the rule of law...habeas corpus is dead when military tribunals, security certificates and only thinly veiled threats against anyone's voice raised in opposition become the rule of the day.
Make no mistake, when the fortunes of multi-millionaire industrialists is placed in jeopardy, governments are compelled to act to preserve and protect the wealthy elite. While petroleum companies use every underhanded manoeuver and exaggeration and lies to legitimize stealing from us all at the gas pumps, issues of gas pipelines mineral rights and petroleum resources are the engine behind cruise missiles bombs and fire-fights in Iraq and Afghansitan.
Don't be suprised that governments no longer answer to the people of these nations, but rather answer to multi-national corporations. Don't be suprised when Canadians sitting on American defense industry cabals like the Carlyle Group forego principle and duty to keep their industrial constitutents fat and happy. Don't be suprised when if not the major architect behind Gulf War I and the rush to invade Iraq under the rubric of "urgent necessity" is exposed as a liar and willing and prepared to steal from eveyone for his "friends"...Paul Wolfowitz
Why would anyone be suprised that the "liberal" press in Canada and the United States has recieved everything except arrest orders as inducement to report favorable developments and put a shiny luster on the various wars and actions taking place around the world at the behest of the powerful wealthy while the mind-numbing inconsequential is ladled out steaming and hot from the paparazzo hounding after mindless children of the super wealthy paint drug abuse and criminality as entertainment....
The record of western democracies in North America when it comes to addressing global warming, pollution and degradation of our forestry and marine environments and the very streets that Canadians and Americans walk on...crumble under our feet... are testament not to an enlighted vision of the future and implementing difficult even painful measures to avert the looming destruction that our children will inherit as the earth that was stripped and defoliated and poisoned in the name of greed....become grist in the ginmills and barrooms around these nations while young men and women pay the price for our appetites with their blood.
It's far easier to frame the notion "you're either with us or with the terrorists" to establish an adversarial coliseum in the public domain than it is to convince people that your legislation and the actions that follow your legislation are product of insight and analysis with a focus on attempting to establish institutions and structures of law and organization working toward the benefit of all mankind when you've demonstrated that laws are to be broken and agreements unable to satisfy your greed and intentions can be abandoned.
You may not like the tone of the dialogue TomG but it's long over due and in all reality may have come far too late to make any difference of any kind.
No national military as openly supported by any government.......but certainly when a nation such as Afghanistan under the Taliban, provides training areas, supplies, protection, and physical and moral support to terrorist groups, then they are responsible for the actions of those groups. They become their military by proxy...........
The USA was attacked by groups openly operating in Afghanistan under the protection of the Afghan gov't of the day, who subsequently refused to allow them to be brought to justice......thus NATO invoked Article 5........which is why we are in the country.
Who cares what the UN thinks?
Well, I wonder how many women the Taliban executed a day for such crimes as showing their ankles?
Although I would agree, civilian casualties sure aren't helping the case........the problem is partly, IMHO, the lack of troops in the area. If you are going to beat guerillas, you got to be on the spot, on the ground.............not bombing from 35,000 feet.
That requires massive numbers of soldiers........and the USA is too tied up elsewhere to supply them......perhaps the biggest tragedy of the Iraq War is how much it has diverted attention from Afghanistan........
You're starting to offend me Colpy....
You're suggesting that governments are the instruments of the citizens? That Canadians voted to keep the issue of land claim settlements under the carpet...that Canadians wanted the Air India fiasco hushed up and we all applauded when Maher Arar was kidnapped and sent off to Syria?
It's perfectly OK with you that Stephen Harper hands over a billion dollars to the American forest industry....after stealing billions at the border and shredding the infamous NAFTA accord...you voted for these things....
You're old enough to remember the Bomac missile issue years ago...we voluntarily embraced the missile defence plans of the United States and allowed what the United States had nearly gone to war over in the Cuban missile crisis.... we allowed the United States to extend its sphere of military influence right up to the border of Russia across the top of the world...and yet we hear an awful lot of people bemoaning the "Cold War"......and this was undoubtedly something you felt worthy of your support...you chose to establish a marketing model in Canada that sees Canadians paying ludicrous prices at the gas pumps while Canadian subsidiaries of American petroleum companies make whilwind profits...that's your idea....
It was you who voted to make sure that Canadian forces wouldn't respond to the genocide and destruction in Rwanda but the rattling of sabers in Afghanistan equates to satisfaction with body-bags being unloaded from Canadian cargo planes....
You believe that the goatherd in Afghanistan...where we all know there's excellent television and telephone services...knew and supported the move by the Taliban to allow terrorist training camps in his/her nation?
You believe that the infamous stockpile of weapons of mass destruction was and is and will ever be the legal and moral justification for the killing of thousands upon thousands of people....that was your idea?
You feel that the American proclivity to supply arms to different factions all over the world in the name of protecting "American Interests" was or is an issue that ever came before the people of the United States to vote on...that the people of the United States knew that Ron Reagan and Ollie North were breaking the law and practicing trade with one of America's sworn enemies...was there a poll or a referendum I missed.....
You're a good hearted soul Colpy but you've been duped....
You're suggesting that governments are the instruments of the citizens? That Canadians voted to keep the issue of land claim settlements under the carpet...that Canadians wanted the Air India fiasco hushed up and we all applauded when Maher Arar was kidnapped and sent off to Syria?
It's perfectly OK with you that Stephen Harper hands over a billion dollars to the American forest industry....after stealing billions at the border and shredding the infamous NAFTA accord...you voted for these things....
You're old enough to remember the Bomac missile issue years ago...we voluntarily embraced the missile defence plans of the United States and allowed what the United States had nearly gone to war over in the Cuban missile crisis.... we allowed the United States to extend its sphere of military influence right up to the border of Russia across the top of the world...and yet we hear an awful lot of people bemoaning the "Cold War"......and this was undoubtedly something you felt worthy of your support...you chose to establish a marketing model in Canada that sees Canadians paying ludicrous prices at the gas pumps while Canadian subsidiaries of American petroleum companies make whilwind profits...that's your idea....
It was you who voted to make sure that Canadian forces wouldn't respond to the genocide and destruction in Rwanda but the rattling of sabers in Afghanistan equates to satisfaction with body-bags being unloaded from Canadian cargo planes....
You believe that the goatherd in Afghanistan...where we all know there's excellent television and telephone services...knew and supported the move by the Taliban to allow terrorist training camps in his/her nation?
You believe that the infamous stockpile of weapons of mass destruction was and is and will ever be the legal and moral justification for the killing of thousands upon thousands of people....that was your idea?
You feel that the American proclivity to supply arms to different factions all over the world in the name of protecting "American Interests" was or is an issue that ever came before the people of the United States to vote on...that the people of the United States knew that Ron Reagan and Ollie North were breaking the law and practicing trade with one of America's sworn enemies...was there a poll or a referendum I missed.....
You're a good hearted soul Colpy but you've been duped....
this again? that's not even close to half the story. the taliban wanted sufficient proof to merit extradition as is both their perogative and responsibility under international protocol.
My turn to say amen Mickey.
And to those above who persist in characterizing the mission as a war or believe that the UN is irrelevant, just read the documents for God’s sake.
It is perhaps something more horrible than war, but war it is not, utterly, absolutely and totally. It is not winnable because there is nothing to win-- except for defense contractor tenders of course. NATO certainly has the force to go it alone, but NATO has not. NATO operates under a UN mandate, not that a UN mandate changes the moral quality of operations. The original ISAF mandate under the Bonn agreement was for 6 months and intended solely to stabilize the region. Here we are years later still blasting away as the Mission drifts according to what self-interested agenda the US chooses to follow. It is truely a pig in a poke policy (something bought hastily that turns out to be inferior, undesirable.
And to those above who persist in characterizing the mission as a war or believe that the UN is irrelevant, just read the documents for God’s sake.
It is perhaps something more horrible than war, but war it is not, utterly, absolutely and totally. It is not winnable because there is nothing to win-- except for defense contractor tenders of course. NATO certainly has the force to go it alone, but NATO has not. NATO operates under a UN mandate, not that a UN mandate changes the moral quality of operations. The original ISAF mandate under the Bonn agreement was for 6 months and intended solely to stabilize the region. Here we are years later still blasting away as the Mission drifts according to what self-interested agenda the US chooses to follow. It is truely a pig in a poke policy (something bought hastily that turns out to be inferior, undesirable.
The operation is not war because most nation states, as UN members, renounced war as an instrument of national policy. Self-defense, individual or collective, is not war and is something that might be successful rather than something won. NATO operates under the UN mandate because UN principles and Articles are embedded in the NATO charter and because NATO in Afghanistan commands the ISAF (a UN operation). National leaders cannot openly opt for unilateral military solutions because their countries renounced using such solutions. NATO cannot choose independent policies without violating its own Charter.
Of course, the powers that be could simply ignore the various rules and commitments made and wing it, which is mostly what had led us into this pig in a poke policy. It seems like the Bushesque policy architects saw crisis (and opportunity for profit) everywhere they looked, and they found the existing rules inconvenient. So, rather than fix the rules they simply dispensed with them. They broke the international order, and like all the King’s men couldn’t put it back together again. Perhaps they never tried.
Without rules, there are no principles, no reliable standards to judge good from bad, right from wrong, proper from improper. We can take our rules from character, self-discipline, integrity, tradition, elder guidance, law, religion etc., but we must lead our lives bounded by some structure or we lack integrity, and so too our countries. Neither we nor our countries can wing it without risking the horrors we are witnessing and ending shamed, disgraced and broken.
People or countries that do not abide by their own rules and principles often end by becoming exactly what they abhor, which seems to be what happened. And here we are looking at this horror of an operation we find our country in and wondering if we finish in 2009 or later. We should not, however, wonder how we got here. It’s all in the rules and the willingness to compromise them, and it’s in the hubris of those who pretend to national leadership and fancy that an election victory provides them victory over ordinary human limitations. And, in us who might still believe in leaders. The world and all that’s in it is a marvelous and complex place—far more complex than the intellect of any individual: Far too complex for a realistic person to have any confidence that their thoughts contain even a fraction of the essential postulates that might comprise a solution.
We’re not likely to finish except Nam-like by declaring victory and leaving. Without principles there’s no victory either.
You’re right, I really don’t get much out of the dialog around here.
Of course, the powers that be could simply ignore the various rules and commitments made and wing it, which is mostly what had led us into this pig in a poke policy. It seems like the Bushesque policy architects saw crisis (and opportunity for profit) everywhere they looked, and they found the existing rules inconvenient. So, rather than fix the rules they simply dispensed with them. They broke the international order, and like all the King’s men couldn’t put it back together again. Perhaps they never tried.
Without rules, there are no principles, no reliable standards to judge good from bad, right from wrong, proper from improper. We can take our rules from character, self-discipline, integrity, tradition, elder guidance, law, religion etc., but we must lead our lives bounded by some structure or we lack integrity, and so too our countries. Neither we nor our countries can wing it without risking the horrors we are witnessing and ending shamed, disgraced and broken.
People or countries that do not abide by their own rules and principles often end by becoming exactly what they abhor, which seems to be what happened. And here we are looking at this horror of an operation we find our country in and wondering if we finish in 2009 or later. We should not, however, wonder how we got here. It’s all in the rules and the willingness to compromise them, and it’s in the hubris of those who pretend to national leadership and fancy that an election victory provides them victory over ordinary human limitations. And, in us who might still believe in leaders. The world and all that’s in it is a marvelous and complex place—far more complex than the intellect of any individual: Far too complex for a realistic person to have any confidence that their thoughts contain even a fraction of the essential postulates that might comprise a solution.
We’re not likely to finish except Nam-like by declaring victory and leaving. Without principles there’s no victory either.
You’re right, I really don’t get much out of the dialog around here.
Sorry you're disapointed TomG
Perhaps you should wander the cyber-highway a bit and find some more comfortable venue..?
I have and what I've found is that there isn't a great deal of difference from one "forum" to the next...
I don't do this chat thing very well....
Insight is welcomed but rarely do we see anyone moving from their entrenched positions.... Seems that to admit being wrong has become a greater sin than just about anything else...
And so it goes.....
Perhaps you should wander the cyber-highway a bit and find some more comfortable venue..?
I have and what I've found is that there isn't a great deal of difference from one "forum" to the next...
I don't do this chat thing very well....
Insight is welcomed but rarely do we see anyone moving from their entrenched positions.... Seems that to admit being wrong has become a greater sin than just about anything else...
And so it goes.....
Thanks for the comment Mickey, but I’m not disappointed or am I searching for some forum where I get something out of the cyberlogue. I’m not seeking to change anybody’s opinions. This forum is as relevant to my life as any forum and much less offensive to me than many. However, many of the comments here seem to be based in ideology and contain very little actual information. What I meant is that I don’t get a lot from participating in this type of dialogue. It often seems more like participating in a ritual of dueling responsive readings.
Years ago somebody called Bush the digital president. What they meant was that Bush seems to speak in aphorisms. Most anything is instantly assessed as true or false, good or bad etc. (0 or 1). Bush seems an extreme ideologue, and in ideology digital (Binary) truth springs instantly from the ideology. Ideologies tend to simplify everything to un-doubtable truths. Conclusions can be reached instantaneously with no thought, no analysis and no intellectual work. Everything’s already done. Everything’s already labeled 0 or 1. Ideology is antithetical to analytic thought. You never get anything beyond what you start with.
Show Bush anything and he likely sees 0 or 1 before it’s laying on his desk (NB that friend or foe, good and evil and yours or mine also can reduce to binary truth. Dialogue whether it’s on this forum or elsewhere, has a tendency to treat ideas and information ideologically. What is different is treated as strange and wondrous (since it hasn’t been labeled 0 or 1). IN dialogue we tend to play Horatio but would better advised as by Hamlet to treat ideas as strangers and as such ‘…give them welcome. There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dream’t of in our philosophy.’
The world and all that’s in it is a marvelous place. Far too complex and marvelous for the affairs of mankind to become anything but disgraced and broken when a philosophy, a simplistic ideology, is mistaken for the world. I think I’d find even less in a dialogue with Bush. Ideological positions treat strangers as enemies where as I try to welcome them.
My interests in this thread at first were in factual questions about organization of the mission. I resolved factual questions to my satisfaction and posted the results. A NATO document identifies NATO as assuming command of the UN’s ISAF. A subsequent post said the US had been attacked for years by groups who use Afghanistan territory for training etc. and that is why NATO evoked Article V. Huh! Why bother with dialogue. Lewis Carroll’s Jabberwocky makes more sense.
‘…And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! [0, 1! 0, 1!] and through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.’
Well, maybe Jabberwockey does make sense, or as Alice says ‘It seems to fill my head with strange and wondrous ideas, only I don’t know exactly what they are. The price of ideology: I have truth, although I can’t say exactly what it is, but I’m sure, and anybody who says different is an enemy. God save us from leaders and their advisors.
My interest in the thread then became seeing if the horrible muddle we’re in could be explained by incompatibilities between its origins (meaning the original supporting documents) and the ideologies of policy decision makers. Perhaps there’s no need to speculate about the motives of policy decision makers. Without rejecting the possibility of bad self-interested motives or conspiracies, an explanationof incompatibilities seems possible.
I gained something from this thread, but I did the work myself. The dialogue may have been a trigger but I gained little information from most of the dialogue. When I write something of this length, I’m not intending to be conversational, nor do I expect response of any kind. I use the Forum similar to a notebook. I write for myself, although I do appreciate any kind thoughts directed my way. Thanks again, and I don’t do well at the chat stuff either.
Years ago somebody called Bush the digital president. What they meant was that Bush seems to speak in aphorisms. Most anything is instantly assessed as true or false, good or bad etc. (0 or 1). Bush seems an extreme ideologue, and in ideology digital (Binary) truth springs instantly from the ideology. Ideologies tend to simplify everything to un-doubtable truths. Conclusions can be reached instantaneously with no thought, no analysis and no intellectual work. Everything’s already done. Everything’s already labeled 0 or 1. Ideology is antithetical to analytic thought. You never get anything beyond what you start with.
Show Bush anything and he likely sees 0 or 1 before it’s laying on his desk (NB that friend or foe, good and evil and yours or mine also can reduce to binary truth. Dialogue whether it’s on this forum or elsewhere, has a tendency to treat ideas and information ideologically. What is different is treated as strange and wondrous (since it hasn’t been labeled 0 or 1). IN dialogue we tend to play Horatio but would better advised as by Hamlet to treat ideas as strangers and as such ‘…give them welcome. There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dream’t of in our philosophy.’
The world and all that’s in it is a marvelous place. Far too complex and marvelous for the affairs of mankind to become anything but disgraced and broken when a philosophy, a simplistic ideology, is mistaken for the world. I think I’d find even less in a dialogue with Bush. Ideological positions treat strangers as enemies where as I try to welcome them.
My interests in this thread at first were in factual questions about organization of the mission. I resolved factual questions to my satisfaction and posted the results. A NATO document identifies NATO as assuming command of the UN’s ISAF. A subsequent post said the US had been attacked for years by groups who use Afghanistan territory for training etc. and that is why NATO evoked Article V. Huh! Why bother with dialogue. Lewis Carroll’s Jabberwocky makes more sense.
‘…And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! [0, 1! 0, 1!] and through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.’
Well, maybe Jabberwockey does make sense, or as Alice says ‘It seems to fill my head with strange and wondrous ideas, only I don’t know exactly what they are. The price of ideology: I have truth, although I can’t say exactly what it is, but I’m sure, and anybody who says different is an enemy. God save us from leaders and their advisors.
My interest in the thread then became seeing if the horrible muddle we’re in could be explained by incompatibilities between its origins (meaning the original supporting documents) and the ideologies of policy decision makers. Perhaps there’s no need to speculate about the motives of policy decision makers. Without rejecting the possibility of bad self-interested motives or conspiracies, an explanationof incompatibilities seems possible.
I gained something from this thread, but I did the work myself. The dialogue may have been a trigger but I gained little information from most of the dialogue. When I write something of this length, I’m not intending to be conversational, nor do I expect response of any kind. I use the Forum similar to a notebook. I write for myself, although I do appreciate any kind thoughts directed my way. Thanks again, and I don’t do well at the chat stuff either.
I think we share a fundamental contempt for the "digital-think" you mentioned, and I feel that a two or three line contribution to the forums expresses a subtle affirmation of this on or off right or wrong dichotomized thinking. When I was a kid....there wasn't anything called television... for a long time only the well-off or the "well-to-begin-with" could afford the toaster-oven-disguised as modern technology that were the new TVs...
Television has engendered the thirty second attention span. Our focus has been conditioned to zero-in for the fabric softener commercial and then released to make accomodation for the message of long-lasting eternal bliss...found in a fastfood order or a candy bar....
Nothing in my experience is "plain and simple"...even what may appear as a relatively simple concept to some is laden with nuance and subtle meanings that only a rigorous analysis can reveal.
People don't think like that any more....
Television has engendered the thirty second attention span. Our focus has been conditioned to zero-in for the fabric softener commercial and then released to make accomodation for the message of long-lasting eternal bliss...found in a fastfood order or a candy bar....
Nothing in my experience is "plain and simple"...even what may appear as a relatively simple concept to some is laden with nuance and subtle meanings that only a rigorous analysis can reveal.
People don't think like that any more....
Jesus H Christ, still here.
Afghanistan = A........too long to type over and over and over.
This is one of those topics that gets me so angry I just want to smash my foot with a hammer: Walk down main street screaming F@@K OFF!!!!!!!!!!! :angryfire:
I seem to remember we sent our YOUNG CANADIAN MEN who joined up to PROTECT their country, not to GET SLAUGHTERED in some rocky, foreign, tribal SH@T HOLE, over to A to act as snipers to take the pressure of the Chimp's boys who were getting picked off by Talibaneers from up in the rocks. They did a good job. BUT, the mission was to find Osama and kill him and his henchmen. WOOPS, suddenly we're talking IRAQ. And oil, as you know, has nothing to do with it.
Now they are there because Steve seems to believe he should kiss George's ass some more. Getting our troops killed, in his mind, is fully justified, if just Chimpy will throw him/us a bone someday. Apparently, "free trade", "goodbye manufacturing jobs", softwood lumber, does not resonate in this cretin's grey matter.
IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN WTF WE ARE DOING THERE. We aren't going to WIN anything. There is NOTHING to win. Historically, the A;s have shot, skinned, beaten, thrown out, any and all AGGRESSORS. There are thousands and thousands of Taliban. They come from all Islamic countries, and they will not stop coming. They will fight anyone to a standstill, and when the AGGRESSORS have left, they will fight each other. They will reintroduce extreme Islamic law and beat their women and kids, and whatever.....................WHO GIVES A SH@T.
"God bless Canada!!!!!!!!!!:angryfire:" Phuck off Steve, you murdering prick. Our Canada was blessed long before this asshole came to "minority' power. Says something about all our politicians who let this sort of masquerade go unchecked. Gutless bastards one and all. Remember Rwanda?
Enough, my head hurts again.:angry3:
Afghanistan = A........too long to type over and over and over.
This is one of those topics that gets me so angry I just want to smash my foot with a hammer: Walk down main street screaming F@@K OFF!!!!!!!!!!! :angryfire:
I seem to remember we sent our YOUNG CANADIAN MEN who joined up to PROTECT their country, not to GET SLAUGHTERED in some rocky, foreign, tribal SH@T HOLE, over to A to act as snipers to take the pressure of the Chimp's boys who were getting picked off by Talibaneers from up in the rocks. They did a good job. BUT, the mission was to find Osama and kill him and his henchmen. WOOPS, suddenly we're talking IRAQ. And oil, as you know, has nothing to do with it.
Now they are there because Steve seems to believe he should kiss George's ass some more. Getting our troops killed, in his mind, is fully justified, if just Chimpy will throw him/us a bone someday. Apparently, "free trade", "goodbye manufacturing jobs", softwood lumber, does not resonate in this cretin's grey matter.
IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN WTF WE ARE DOING THERE. We aren't going to WIN anything. There is NOTHING to win. Historically, the A;s have shot, skinned, beaten, thrown out, any and all AGGRESSORS. There are thousands and thousands of Taliban. They come from all Islamic countries, and they will not stop coming. They will fight anyone to a standstill, and when the AGGRESSORS have left, they will fight each other. They will reintroduce extreme Islamic law and beat their women and kids, and whatever.....................WHO GIVES A SH@T.
"God bless Canada!!!!!!!!!!:angryfire:" Phuck off Steve, you murdering prick. Our Canada was blessed long before this asshole came to "minority' power. Says something about all our politicians who let this sort of masquerade go unchecked. Gutless bastards one and all. Remember Rwanda?
Enough, my head hurts again.:angry3:
Last edited:
We all should know our irrelevancies. One of mine is to the dialogue here. Everyone should come to grips with their own.
In the context of the last few posts, the comment about truth perhaps has a part 2, that will contain a description of how to ensure that the description of a subject (the Canadian Mission) contains all the necessary information needed to produce an adequate explanation. The description perhaps would be followed by a method for how succinctness can be achieved, for example, though principles of parsimony. Such descriptions would be relevant in this context--if not to the dialogue in general.
If a starting point for any subject does not contain all the essential information for an explanation, then succinctness is often like deep-fried truth that leads to MacWisdom. In absence of an accepted explanation, succinctness seems to hold value mostly in bullet-point executive memos—since executives typically have very succinct grasps of reality.
Truth is in the mind of the beholder, it is a belief that does not have independent objective existence. It is as long or short or as simple or complex as it is to an individual who holds it. Ideologies, religions, scientific empiricism and so on can be truths in the smorgus boards of our realities. We pick and choose what we want guided by our believes, and we take nourishment for our souls accordingly. It is true that if we wish others to share our truths, then we do some work—perhaps some slicing, dicing and chopping of reality by artful wielding of Occam’s Razor.
But I only entertain myself by torturing metaphor. That is what is relevant to me in this context. Rather than chat, perhaps provide a succinct explanation of the Canadian Mission that doesn’t seem like MacWisdom. Or, perhaps provide some simple emotion as above that is unencumbered by the requirement of truth. If I didn’t torture metaphor, I’d be expressing a rage similar to that expressed immediately above.
In the context of the last few posts, the comment about truth perhaps has a part 2, that will contain a description of how to ensure that the description of a subject (the Canadian Mission) contains all the necessary information needed to produce an adequate explanation. The description perhaps would be followed by a method for how succinctness can be achieved, for example, though principles of parsimony. Such descriptions would be relevant in this context--if not to the dialogue in general.
If a starting point for any subject does not contain all the essential information for an explanation, then succinctness is often like deep-fried truth that leads to MacWisdom. In absence of an accepted explanation, succinctness seems to hold value mostly in bullet-point executive memos—since executives typically have very succinct grasps of reality.
Truth is in the mind of the beholder, it is a belief that does not have independent objective existence. It is as long or short or as simple or complex as it is to an individual who holds it. Ideologies, religions, scientific empiricism and so on can be truths in the smorgus boards of our realities. We pick and choose what we want guided by our believes, and we take nourishment for our souls accordingly. It is true that if we wish others to share our truths, then we do some work—perhaps some slicing, dicing and chopping of reality by artful wielding of Occam’s Razor.
But I only entertain myself by torturing metaphor. That is what is relevant to me in this context. Rather than chat, perhaps provide a succinct explanation of the Canadian Mission that doesn’t seem like MacWisdom. Or, perhaps provide some simple emotion as above that is unencumbered by the requirement of truth. If I didn’t torture metaphor, I’d be expressing a rage similar to that expressed immediately above.
I am not trying to chat with anybody, let alone insult anybody or make assumptions about them. I mostly build rough draft ideas here for myself. If somebody connects some dots in a way that works for them fine, if not also fine. Why bother to address me at all; I’m not interested in promoting myself or achieving acceptance as a cyberpersonality.
So, I gather that there will be no substance offered beyond the dismissive but insightful:
“I'm sorry. When did the truth start coming with a four sentence minimum?”
and the devastating: “really, I mean.”
And the expansive:
“…if you want to insult everyone else's intelligence go right ahead.”
I rather think that most people don’t need to be spoken for since they can decide what is insulting on their own. Just leave it eh. It wasn’t me that started up.
“I'm sorry. When did the truth start coming with a four sentence minimum?”
and the devastating: “really, I mean.”
And the expansive:
“…if you want to insult everyone else's intelligence go right ahead.”
I rather think that most people don’t need to be spoken for since they can decide what is insulting on their own. Just leave it eh. It wasn’t me that started up.
Canada is in Afghanistan on a NATO mandate.
And I can't understand why Canadians are so obsessed about going to war only if you have permission from the UN or NATO. Don't you think it's stupid that foreigners should tell you when your country should go to war? None of this nonsense ever happened until the 1950s or thereabouts.
We should be able to go to war whenever we want, never mind what unelected foreigners in the UN say.