Layton & NDP against our Troops in Afghanistan
- Thread starter Hank C
- Start date
CTV has gotten very biased recently. Every time they mention our soldiers getting killed, ambushed, or shot at by Americans they interview someone who is pro war and constantly reassures us that our soldiers are doing a good job and are committed. After a report on the friendly fire they interviewed a Canadian who felt sympathetic to the Americans who opened fire on our soldiers!! Later he says that Canadians are committed to the mission. Oh really? Is this news or propoganda? It seems to me they are trying to influence public opinion. I thought their job was to report the news.
Re: RE: Layton & NDP against
No, it was on CPAC. To be frank, I couldn't take it, and turned him off after only a minute or two.
I have limited tolerance for fools.
BitWhys said:
No, it was on CPAC. To be frank, I couldn't take it, and turned him off after only a minute or two.
I have limited tolerance for fools.
RE: Layton & NDP against
I've heard Jack's schpiel about the parallels between the situation in Afghanistan and that of Bolivia and Columbia before it, and its a little more nuanced than you portray it.
your remark about fools can be seen to betray a closed mind.
I've heard Jack's schpiel about the parallels between the situation in Afghanistan and that of Bolivia and Columbia before it, and its a little more nuanced than you portray it.
your remark about fools can be seen to betray a closed mind.
Don't you care that the Afghans want us there? Are we so weak that we run at the first sign of trouble? Our military doesn't want to leave and the Afghans don't want us to leave. By running away all we do is show the world that we won't stand up and do what we say we will. We aren't going to be there forever. Afghanistan should be given to opportunity to establish an effective government, we can help.
RE: Layton & NDP against
Although our very own Defense Minister was quoted the other day that it is actually just MAYBE not possible to actually defeat the Taliban, and that "containment" was more likely going to be the "new mission", which RIGHT F-ING THERE SAYS THAT WE CAN'T DO WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSEDLY TRYING TO DO.....
That means, basically, "MISSION FAILED" so we might as well call it a day and let them scrap it out, they're REAL good at it
Although our very own Defense Minister was quoted the other day that it is actually just MAYBE not possible to actually defeat the Taliban, and that "containment" was more likely going to be the "new mission", which RIGHT F-ING THERE SAYS THAT WE CAN'T DO WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSEDLY TRYING TO DO.....
That means, basically, "MISSION FAILED" so we might as well call it a day and let them scrap it out, they're REAL good at it
Re: RE: Layton & NDP against
I'll have you know I have a mind like a steel trap..............politically incorrect, obsolete, and rusted shut.
BitWhys said:
I'll have you know I have a mind like a steel trap..............politically incorrect, obsolete, and rusted shut.
Re: RE: Layton & NDP against our Troops in Afghanistan
of course we should be there but for that to be effective we need to finally start applying a more balanced approach, one which ensures we "support the continuation of development assistance to Afghanistan and democratic peace building.". this has become a military mission in no small part because it is being controlled by the military, who will be damned if they ever get around to admitting after all these years and all those failed efforts that insurgencies and guerilla operations cannot be defeated militarily.
it shouldn't matter what the military want. its their job to win fights, not pick them. its not a matter of "running away". the resolution that passed doesn't say "get out and stay out", it says pull back, regroup and devise a strategy that works on the ground instead of just the press. hyperbole serves no one.
if it makes us look like cowards in the short term its a small price to pay and will be soon forgotten if the policy and approach we return with yields positive results, which is far more likely than continuing on our current track like some sort of stubborn savantes.
iARTthere4iam said:
of course we should be there but for that to be effective we need to finally start applying a more balanced approach, one which ensures we "support the continuation of development assistance to Afghanistan and democratic peace building.". this has become a military mission in no small part because it is being controlled by the military, who will be damned if they ever get around to admitting after all these years and all those failed efforts that insurgencies and guerilla operations cannot be defeated militarily.
it shouldn't matter what the military want. its their job to win fights, not pick them. its not a matter of "running away". the resolution that passed doesn't say "get out and stay out", it says pull back, regroup and devise a strategy that works on the ground instead of just the press. hyperbole serves no one.
if it makes us look like cowards in the short term its a small price to pay and will be soon forgotten if the policy and approach we return with yields positive results, which is far more likely than continuing on our current track like some sort of stubborn savantes.
What works is killing Taliban, thus preventing their regaining power in Afghanistan, and returning that area to its former glory as the training ground of terrorism.
The more Taliban they kill, the happier I am.
Read Juan's piece on the Taliban below.
The more Taliban they kill, the happier I am.
Read Juan's piece on the Taliban below.
RE: Layton & NDP against
The Taliban will not regain power by definition. Even if they manage to occupy Kabul they will never be recognized as the sovereign power. That is a matter of international will.
For every Taliban militant you knock down two will stand up to take their place.
The Taliban will not regain power by definition. Even if they manage to occupy Kabul they will never be recognized as the sovereign power. That is a matter of international will.
For every Taliban militant you knock down two will stand up to take their place.
Re: RE: Layton & NDP against
Such faith in the power of "international will". What makes you think the international community recognized the Taliban before? Let me enlighten you......on Sept 10, 2001 only three nations recognized the Taliban as sovereign in Afghanistan......Saudi Arabia, the UAR, and Pakistan. Boy, did international non-recognition ever prevent them from behaving as they pleased....NOT! If they are allowed to control territory they WILL use it to launch attacks on the west.....their ideology can allow no other course of action, therefore they must not be allowed to control territory. Period.
Then we had best send over some more soldiers......and lots of ammo.
Such faith in the power of "international will". What makes you think the international community recognized the Taliban before? Let me enlighten you......on Sept 10, 2001 only three nations recognized the Taliban as sovereign in Afghanistan......Saudi Arabia, the UAR, and Pakistan. Boy, did international non-recognition ever prevent them from behaving as they pleased....NOT! If they are allowed to control territory they WILL use it to launch attacks on the west.....their ideology can allow no other course of action, therefore they must not be allowed to control territory. Period.
Then we had best send over some more soldiers......and lots of ammo.
Re: RE: Layton & NDP against
I don't think that's what really matters though.
If I'm not mistaken, only two countries recognized the Taliban government before the invasion. Yet, that's where al-Qaeda trained, where bin Laden opeated freely, and where 9/11 was hatched.
BitWhys said:
I don't think that's what really matters though.
If I'm not mistaken, only two countries recognized the Taliban government before the invasion. Yet, that's where al-Qaeda trained, where bin Laden opeated freely, and where 9/11 was hatched.
Re: RE: Layton & NDP against
First of all, "UN Resolution" is a contradiction in terms.
Secondly, NATO is there PREVENTING their return to power with the UN's blessing (not that I give a damn)
Thirdly, explain PLEASE how the UN will prevent their return to power if military assets are removed.
"Political power comes out of the barrel of a rifle." That's reality.
Oh yeah, the NDP have approved as policy the removal of all Canadian troops from afghanistan within 6 monthWay back when, in the early 80s, the joke was that our Ministry of Defenese under the NDP would consist of tapes issued to every radio station in the country to be played repeatly if we were attacked...."We surrender, please don't hurt us"
Nothing much has changed......except the pacifist left has become even more irrelevant.
BitWhys said:
First of all, "UN Resolution" is a contradiction in terms.
Secondly, NATO is there PREVENTING their return to power with the UN's blessing (not that I give a damn)
Thirdly, explain PLEASE how the UN will prevent their return to power if military assets are removed.
"Political power comes out of the barrel of a rifle." That's reality.
Oh yeah, the NDP have approved as policy the removal of all Canadian troops from afghanistan within 6 monthWay back when, in the early 80s, the joke was that our Ministry of Defenese under the NDP would consist of tapes issued to every radio station in the country to be played repeatly if we were attacked...."We surrender, please don't hurt us"
Nothing much has changed......except the pacifist left has become even more irrelevant.
RE: Layton & NDP against
"Thirdly, explain PLEASE how the UN will prevent their return to power if military assets are removed."
I said, and you predictably avoided, "even if they manage to occupy Kabul". Considering the NDP are calling for withdrawal from SOUTHERN Afghanistan (with subsequent and proper redress in due time) its a huge stretch of circumstance that would lead to the fall of Kabul.
besides, I never said it would prevent it. I'd appreciate it (with great surprise, I will add) if you'd stop twisting my words.
"Thirdly, explain PLEASE how the UN will prevent their return to power if military assets are removed."
I said, and you predictably avoided, "even if they manage to occupy Kabul". Considering the NDP are calling for withdrawal from SOUTHERN Afghanistan (with subsequent and proper redress in due time) its a huge stretch of circumstance that would lead to the fall of Kabul.
besides, I never said it would prevent it. I'd appreciate it (with great surprise, I will add) if you'd stop twisting my words.
Re: RE: Layton & NDP against
I certainly didn't intend to twist your words.
According to the National, the NDP policy is to remove Canadian troops from AFGHANISTAN.
If you don't stop the Taliban returning to power, how do you intend to keep Afghanistan from becoming a training ground for mass murder yet again?
Quit dodging.
BitWhys said:
I certainly didn't intend to twist your words.
According to the National, the NDP policy is to remove Canadian troops from AFGHANISTAN.
If you don't stop the Taliban returning to power, how do you intend to keep Afghanistan from becoming a training ground for mass murder yet again?
Quit dodging.