Now I'm no pro-American apologist nor would I consider myself right-wing (far from it, actually). But in reading John Chuckman's article, "Sorry Mr. Prime Minister, Afghanistan is not our war" (http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/article_807.html), I had to comment on some of Mr. Chuckman's comments that seemed to me to be way off base.
It starts in his opening paragraph where he denounces supposed audio recordings by Osama bin Laden threatening Canada as "CIA frauds". Question the validity of a recording if you like but if you're going to toss off conspiracy theories, at least provide some evidence to back it up other than sheer supposition. Can I guarantee that the tape is authentic? No, I don't have those kinds of resources (nor the inclination to use them for such a purpose if I had them). But I certainly wouldn't toss off baseless accusations unless I had something to back them up for otherwise, Mr. Chuckman undermines his whole argument by sounding like a delusional paranoiac from the very beginning. It only gets worse when he asserts that bin Laden is dead for he "...had to be killed in the heavy bombing of his mountain redoubt." Bzzt. Wrong. Yes, the bombing was extensive and yes, lots of people hiding in tunnels were killed. But until such time as categorical evidence exists that a certain individual is dead, believing that this is the case simply on an assumption is foolish to say the least.
Mr. Chuckman continues to blather on senseless statements such as: "The previous government's making an under-the-table deal with Bush to place Canadian troops in Afghanistan surely does not make it our war... The deal was, of course, an effort to placate Bush for our not supporting his illegal invasion of Iraq." Bzzt! Once again, wrong. Canadian troops were on the ground in Afghanistan *LONG* before the invasion of Iraq. Making easily disproven statements like this just furthers the erosion of any validity Mr. Chuckman's arguments might have had.
Which is a shame, really, because there are some valid arguments towards having a Parliamentary debate over the Afghanistan mission. As has been recently proven by the Prime Minister's agreeing to do so even if the debate won't be binding. But the stridency with which Mr. Chuckman types out his accusations makes him look less like an intelligent critic and more like a blathering fool.
To whit: "How can you believe then that your views on the war should be the views of most Canadians?" Errr, wake up, Mr. Chuckman. While there is strong resistance amongst Canadians towards any involvement in the war in Iraq, Canadian operations in Afghanistan have (up until the number of casualties started increasing) enjoyed popular support. The Prime Minister may be the head of a minority government but on this issue, you can be assured that he has taken careful measure of how the Canadian public feels about this.
The Afghanistan mission is a complex, difficult and dangerous one to be sure. It deserves our careful consideration whether in support or opposition to it. But if you're going to post an argument one way or the other, at least try and make your position one of critical thinking as opposed to ideological grand-standing.
Afghanistan may or may not be "our war" but based on Mr. Chuckman's article, his would be the last opinion I would solicit on such a matter.
Patrick
It starts in his opening paragraph where he denounces supposed audio recordings by Osama bin Laden threatening Canada as "CIA frauds". Question the validity of a recording if you like but if you're going to toss off conspiracy theories, at least provide some evidence to back it up other than sheer supposition. Can I guarantee that the tape is authentic? No, I don't have those kinds of resources (nor the inclination to use them for such a purpose if I had them). But I certainly wouldn't toss off baseless accusations unless I had something to back them up for otherwise, Mr. Chuckman undermines his whole argument by sounding like a delusional paranoiac from the very beginning. It only gets worse when he asserts that bin Laden is dead for he "...had to be killed in the heavy bombing of his mountain redoubt." Bzzt. Wrong. Yes, the bombing was extensive and yes, lots of people hiding in tunnels were killed. But until such time as categorical evidence exists that a certain individual is dead, believing that this is the case simply on an assumption is foolish to say the least.
Mr. Chuckman continues to blather on senseless statements such as: "The previous government's making an under-the-table deal with Bush to place Canadian troops in Afghanistan surely does not make it our war... The deal was, of course, an effort to placate Bush for our not supporting his illegal invasion of Iraq." Bzzt! Once again, wrong. Canadian troops were on the ground in Afghanistan *LONG* before the invasion of Iraq. Making easily disproven statements like this just furthers the erosion of any validity Mr. Chuckman's arguments might have had.
Which is a shame, really, because there are some valid arguments towards having a Parliamentary debate over the Afghanistan mission. As has been recently proven by the Prime Minister's agreeing to do so even if the debate won't be binding. But the stridency with which Mr. Chuckman types out his accusations makes him look less like an intelligent critic and more like a blathering fool.
To whit: "How can you believe then that your views on the war should be the views of most Canadians?" Errr, wake up, Mr. Chuckman. While there is strong resistance amongst Canadians towards any involvement in the war in Iraq, Canadian operations in Afghanistan have (up until the number of casualties started increasing) enjoyed popular support. The Prime Minister may be the head of a minority government but on this issue, you can be assured that he has taken careful measure of how the Canadian public feels about this.
The Afghanistan mission is a complex, difficult and dangerous one to be sure. It deserves our careful consideration whether in support or opposition to it. But if you're going to post an argument one way or the other, at least try and make your position one of critical thinking as opposed to ideological grand-standing.
Afghanistan may or may not be "our war" but based on Mr. Chuckman's article, his would be the last opinion I would solicit on such a matter.
Patrick