Defence minister tells troops Afghan mission will continue until progress secure

[#juan]

Colpy wrote:

Speaking of crap, see immediately above.........

Perhaps you could enlighten me on exactly what "tactical use of genocide" you are refering to. You are perhaps confusing the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and the current mission, supported by the United Nations?
Is murdering over a million Iraqis by bombing, bullets, and sanctions genocide? I think it is.

What I hear is a whack of disjointed claptrap and lefty buzz-words hobbled together in a futile attempt to make the author appear as some sort of intellectual.

As for geo-politics, I've spent the last 35 years interested in politics and history, the development of civilization and the expression of power. In doing so, I have learned enough sense to move away from empty-headed leftist rhetoric, and to deal with reality.

The reality is this: the main aim of the mission in Afghanistan is to prevent the Taliban from returning to power. They attacked us, and they would, if in control, re-constitute the training bases and support for our most lethal enemies.
The reality is that after 9/11, a coalition of nations went into Afghanistan in support of The War on Terror. The war on terror was hijacked to the cause of keeping the Taliban from blowing up the oil pipeline.

 

[MikeyDB]

Gonzo

The reality is that the governments of the west have enjoyed a proxy petroleum monopoly for generations and no amount of bloodshed is too much to prevent the SUV's and their fans like Toro et al. from living the "good-life"...

Our governments manipulated by the dollar have screwed up big time... nothing new there really...

Chances are good you'll find very little sympathy for any perspective that lays responsibility at the feet of a society that lives and breathes for the mythic euphoria of "freedom behind the wheel"...

A social engineering job converting the masses to regard conspicuous consumption as their right and their entitlement regardless of the costs in blood or any other metric....

If people have to acknowledge one mistake...that potential to open the floodgates to acknowledging the reality of racism, exclusivity, greed, corruption and hypocrisy is just too scary....

 

[darkbeaver]

Speaking of crap, see immediately above.........

Perhaps you could enlighten me on exactly what "tactical use of genocide" you are refering to. You are perhaps confusing the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and the current mission, supported by the United Nations?

What I hear is a whack of disjointed claptrap and lefty buzz-words hobbled together in a futile attempt to make the author appear as some sort of intellectual.

As for geo-politics, I've spent the last 35 years interested in politics and history, the development of civilization and the expression of power. In doing so, I have learned enough sense to move away from empty-headed leftist rhetoric, and to deal with reality.

The reality is this: the main aim of the mission in Afghanistan is to prevent the Taliban from returning to power. They attacked us, and they would, if in control, re-constitute the training bases and support for our most lethal enemies.

It would be extremely good if we could stabilize Afghanistan, help the Afghan people get on their feet, not only for their own good, but so we could eventually withdraw.

That is reality.

Master of reality are ya? I don't think I could enlighten you,parrot, you seem to have peaked about thirty-five years ago.:love9:

 

[Fingertrouble]

for the last two decades the right have been in power in the UK Canada and perpetually in the US.

If you are going to preach, then please get your facts straight. Tony Blair (who has been in power for 3 terms) is not only the Prime Minister of the UK, he is also the leader of the "Labour Party" which happens to be the left wing party in the country....that is unless you count the communist party (but it has no seats in Parliment and I think in this day and age it's membership is lacking somewhat!)

 

[Fingertrouble]

Thankyou Polly, I asked for detail not parroted feel good rubbish.:wave:

You just don't like to hear one persons view of the facts......

If you don't like what Colpy has posted and you have a different opinion then do us all a favour and share it with us all, some of us may agree with some of what you say. But please, lets keep your childish, innane drivel like what you posted to a minimum, as we all have different opinions but most of us will try to debate them maturely.

 

[BitWhys]

The reality is this: the main aim of the mission in Afghanistan is to prevent the Taliban from returning to power. They attacked us,...

hmmm

I suggest that if you want to justify war you should start by being a little less loose with the truth.

 

[darkbeaver]

If you are going to preach, then please get your facts straight. Tony Blair (who has been in power for 3 terms) is not only the Prime Minister of the UK, he is also the leader of the "Labour Party" which happens to be the left wing party in the country....that is unless you count the communist party (but it has no seats in Parliment and I think in this day and age it's membership is lacking somewhat!)

At one time the labour party was from the left, but that was a long time ago, things are what they do not what they say. You probly think Harper is a good ole Conservative.If you don't like my sermons you know where the door is.:wave:

 

[darkbeaver]

hmmm

I suggest that if you want to justify war you should start by being a little less loose with the truth.

He,s been on about this attack for at least a year, it wasn't in the papers was it?:wave:

 

[BitWhys]

He,s been on about this attack for at least a year, it wasn't in the papers was it?:wave:

I usually don't frequent those types of sites. they give me the willies.

 

[darkbeaver]

You just don't like to hear one persons view of the facts......

If you don't like what Colpy has posted and you have a different opinion then do us all a favour and share it with us all, some of us may agree with some of what you say. But please, lets keep your childish, innane drivel like what you posted to a minimum, as we all have different opinions but most of us will try to debate them maturely.

Why drag Colpy into it Finger? You want to do me yourself don't you? Your attempted dis is pathetic.I had a prostrate examination last week the DR used a finger. :wave:

 

[Fingertrouble]

Why drag Colpy into it Finger? You want to do me yourself don't you? Your attempted dis is pathetic.I had a prostrate examination last week the DR used a finger. :wave:

I didn't drag Colpy into anything......You did with the derogatory comments. I would suggest that if you don't appreciate other peoples opinions and if you can't communicate or debate without listening (you don't have to agree) and without resorting to slurs or childish drivel, then I would suggest it is you that are probably not in the right place.

Oh and by the way out of the 3 main political parties in the UK the Labour Party is still left wing. It is true that they have moved more to the centre, but that can be said of almost any First World political party, when they realise the that the job of governments is to govern their whole country and therefore all citizens, not just for those who are party members.

 

[darkbeaver]

I didn't drag Colpy into anything......You did with the derogatory comments. I would suggest that if you don't appreciate other peoples opinions and if you can't communicate or debate without listening (you don't have to agree) and without resorting to slurs or childish drivel, then I would suggest it is you that are probably not in the right place.

Oh and by the way out of the 3 main political parties in the UK the Labour Party is still left wing. It is true that they have moved more to the centre, but that can be said of almost any First World political party, when they realise the that the job of governments is to govern their whole country and therefore all citizens, not just for those who are party members.

What? Listen Finger what makes you think that Hard Core Colpy needs a champion, he gives as good as he gets,and he loves it, and I don't think he's been crushed by anything I've said, I,ve tried before, besides his thick head he has a hide like a rhino.
I can see I better straighten out my act now that your here, and we haven't even been introduced.:wave:

 

[Cannuck]

Agreed, but. In the present apex of capitalism (USA) the leader has god-like powers that are enforced by the military and the Corporate Security Complex.

Capitalism is dead. We no longer live in a capitalist society and haven't for years, if not decades....but that's really another discussion.

Notwithstanding the Canadian casualties on 9/11, our NATO agreements state that an attack on one member is an attack on every member. Are you claiming the US was not "attack" on 9/11 or are you claiming the attack was not an act of war?

 

[BitWhys]

gee

and all this time I thought it was an act of terrorism.

NATO has been pimped out to the market builders and I for one don't think for a second that's not going to turn into a diaperload of trouble later on.

 

[RomSpaceKnight]

We were attacked from Afghanistan.

We were not attacked. Our friends and allies the USA was attacked. We went in to Afghanistan due to our treaty obligations as members of NATO to support the US who had been attacked. Yes we lost people on 9/11 but the sovereign country of Canada was not targeted by Al-Qeada.

 

[Cannuck]

gee

and all this time I thought it was an act of terrorism.

But if it's state sponsored terrorism, is it an act of war? Would the Chinese, for example, consider it an act of war if the US was training and supporting Taiwanese fighters to blow up buildings in mainland China? Or would they simply treat the Taiwanese perpetrators as criminals and wag their finger at the US?

 

[Cannuck]

Yes we lost people on 9/11 but the sovereign country of Canada was not targeted by Al-Qeada.

Our NATO agreement says we were. An attack on one member is an attack on all members. Do you think we should honor our agreements?

 

[RomSpaceKnight]

What part of my post said I was not in agreement to our going in to Afghanistan. For the record I support our involvment in Afghanistan as much as I support our NOT being in Iraq.

 

[Cannuck]

What part of my post said I was not in agreement to our going in to Afghanistan.

You said Canada was not attacked. By our NATO agreement it was. Whether or not you agree with going to Afghanistan is not the point.

 

[Colpy]

We were not attacked. Our friends and allies the USA was attacked. We went in to Afghanistan due to our treaty obligations as members of NATO to support the US who had been attacked. Yes we lost people on 9/11 but the sovereign country of Canada was not targeted by Al-Qeada.

You are, of course, absolutely correct.

I meant "we" as in our allies and ourselves, as an attack on one is considered an attack on all.