SORRY, MR PRIME MINISTER, AFGHANISTAN IS NOT OUR WAR

[PoisonPete2]

Poison Pete2 wrote:

RESPONSE: When you are in a foreign country killing the people who formed a previous government there, they are not terrorists, you are.

The previous Taliban government, I use the term govermnet in the loosest sense of the word, was not legitimate. It was neither elected nor declared sovreign or recognised by traditional Afghan councils, nor endorsed by a large enough or overwhekming majority of Afghans to be justified as the proper government of that country. Indeed, the Taliban never contolled the whole of Afghanistan. It was only recogniased by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and I believe Yemen so it also did not have any international legitimacy.

RESPONSE: and you are you to declare what government is 'legitimate' or not? The 'traditional Afghan councils' were undermined when by the Americans when the Russians tried to activate them part of a withdrawl strategy. Perhaps review the writings of Rouseau of the source of legitimacy.

[
Were the taliban terrorsits? Not directly but, there can be no doubt that they provided land to Osama bin Laden for training of al-Qaida.

RESPONSE: Those training camps were there since the early days of resistance against the Communist government in Kabul. The Afghani government did not have the power to prevent the continued use of those camps. Those camps extend into Pakistan and are still there. They were supported by America, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc.

PoisonPete@ wrote:

If you would acceed to putting your fellow citizens in harms way to promote American Hegemony, then it's time to pause for a little reflection

Canada and others are in Afghanistan for two reasons One: to provide humanitarian aid and assistance in order to help Afghanis develop their own country. Two: to rout lingering factions of the Taliban and al-Qaida most of whom are on the Pakistani side of the border in any case.

RESPONSE: so why not attack Pakistan?? Oh, no they are a vicious military dictatorship supported by the Americans who of course respect the integrity of their borders. How hyocritical can one get.? Excuse me if I wade through all the other propaganda.

[
I think you are the one who needs to reflect. Anyone who is so selfish as to deny those in Afghanistan the creature comforts we take for granted everyday in Canada is a small person. How can you say that Afghans don't deserve security of the person, or freedom of speech, or of religion?

RESPONSE:
The Americans have been there perpitrating war for some thirty years. They couldn't give a shit about the Afghani people. and if you thing that bombing people back to the stoneage is the way to bring peace and good government, well I don't want to be on what your on. I think the Afghan people deserve a lot better than to be murdered by foreign troops protecting oil pipelines.

 

[I think not]

PoisonPete2

You think you can format your posts a little better? I stopped reading them because you make it difficult to read. Thanks.

 

[FiveParadox]

PoisonPete2, please remember to use the [/quote] tag, after the

tag, otherwise problems can occur.

 

[Lotuslander]

will this work?

 

[Lotuslander]

PoisonPete@ wrote:

RESPONSE: When you are in a foreign country killing the people who formed a previous government there, they are not terrorists, you are.

RESPONSE: and you are you to declare what government is 'legitimate' or not? The 'traditional Afghan councils' were undermined when by the Americans when the Russians tried to activate them part of a withdrawl strategy. Perhaps review the writings of Rouseau of the source of legitimacy.

Well, I hardly think you can blame me for bringing up the question of legitimatcy when you declared that America, Caanada et al. are going around killing people who formed the previous government. In that very statement you clearly illustrate that insofaras you are concerned the Taliban was the Legitimate government of Afghanistan. Here we must disagree. They may have been a government but, were a tyrannical and despotic regime without legitimacy in my opinion. I am well aware that various tribal and ethnic groups were bought off by various factions, Soviet, American, Saudi, Pakistani during the Civil Wars but, to assume that the loya jirga which picked Karzai had no legitimacy whatsoever is simply implausable. It was a meeting of all the leading Afghan military commanders as well as the exiled King, who still has a wide following in the Pashtun community along with representatives from every major ethnic group in Afghanistan. The traditional councils may have been undermined by 30 years of civil war but, in a country with absolutely no functioning government they were the only source available to provide some sort of peaceful, diplomatic, negotiated resolution as to whom should forma government once the Taliban was defeated. More importantly it was the only instrument capable of providing at least a semblence of legitimacy to whoever took power for two reasons. One; a loya jirga represented the tradional way in which Afghans governed themselves. Two; the loya jirga had representatives from a broad segment of he population which represented, albeit imperfectly, the Afghan people.

I don't know what Rousseau has to do with anything, I personally don't believe he is the source for popular sovreignty but, if one wishes to examine what Rousseau had to say on this subject so be it.

"Once the populace is legitimately assembled as a sovreign body, all jurisdiction of the government ceases, the executive power is suspended, and the person of the humblest citizen is as sacred and inviolable as that of the first magistrate, for where those who are represented are found, there is no longer any representative." -Bk. III, Chap 14, p. 197

[/b]Poison Pete II wrote:

RESPONSE: Those training camps were there since the early days of resistance against the Communist government in Kabul. The Afghani government did not have the power to prevent the continued use of those camps. Those camps extend into Pakistan and are still there. They were supported by America, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc.

I think if you do a little more research you'll find that most mujahadeen camps only began to spring up in Afghanistan in the late 1980's early 90's. Before then they were all located in Pakistan.
They were not supported by America or Saudi Arabia directly but rather American and Saudi money and arms were supplied through the Pakistani ISI. I do believe that at some point the Taliban were strong enough that they could have taken out the al-Qaida camps but, they had no reason for doing so since politically, religiously, philosophically and theologically they were of the same mind.

Poison Pete 2 wtote:

RESPONSE: so why not attack Pakistan?? Oh, no they are a vicious military dictatorship supported by the Americans who of course respect the integrity of their borders. How hyocritical can one get.? Excuse me if I wade through all the other propaganda.

Well I agree we should not be helping Pakistan. Yes indeed it is hypocritical of the international community in some ways to invade one despotic country and not the other. However, I will say that beofre the invasions humanitarian conditions, and human rights abuses had beocome so pervasive inside Afghanistan and conditions had deteriorated so badly that really we had few choices and a moral and ethical obligation I woudl argue to try and establish some sort of government which would improve the Afghanis plight.

Poison Pete II wrote:

RESPONSE:
The Americans have been there perpitrating war for some thirty years. They couldn't give a shit about the Afghani people. and if you thing that bombing people back to the stoneage is the way to bring peace and good government, well I don't want to be on what your on. I think the Afghan people deserve a lot better than to be murdered by foreign troops protecting oil pipelines.

Yes it is true the Yanks have been fuelling war in Afghanistan since 1978 whether or not they care about the Afghans I don't know. I do however, think that Canadians do have some compassion for the Afghan people and are trying to allieviate their suffering while helping them combat problems of the future. Since the Invasion of
2001 there has been realatively little death in Afghanistan I would argue far more casualties would have been produced had the yanks stayed home and the civil war continued. We are not bring peace and good government by bombing people, which in any case has been very minimal and not directed agianst any large inhabitations, but through the efforts of the provincial reconstruction teams which are re-building destroyed infastructure as well as teaching local Afghans various trades, construction, medical and engineering skills. I don;t think Afghans are being murdered by foriegn troops there has been no indication that this has been the case. I ma sure there have been innocent casualties but considering the situation before I think these are probably few and far between. The proble with all your arguments is that you have no solutions for the problems. Would you have left the Taliban in power? well that woudl have sucked for the poor Afghanis? Would you leave now and have the taliban and other elemetns regain power? Well I certainly don't think that would improve Afghanistan's standard of living. And what of the Afghan people? Has it ever occured to you that they may be supportive of foriegn intervention?

Military intervention is never a decision taken lightly and in my opinion should only be used as a last resort or in desperate times. I think that the time had come in Afghanistan, a country which was getting poorer by the year, a country where human rights were not repective, where punnishments were overly severe, a country where women were not allowed to be educated, where music and personal expression were banned! A nation where the rule of law did not reign and where laws themselves were dictated by fiat. Would diplomacy have worked better? Perhaps, hindsight is twenty-twenty they say, however, that does not mean that Canada woudl not have played an important role in helping to allieviate suffering in that poor country. Afghanistan is a far more peaceful country now after nesrly 3 decades of fighting. Is it perfect of course not. I think however, if one reviews the evidnece you will conclude that viloence is minimal and much less than would have been the case than if no action was taken.

 

[Lotuslander]

sorry about that I didn't meant o post the same thing twice.

 

[FiveParadox]

Lotuslander, if you could please click Edit on one of your posts and delete the contents, that would be great. It would make Page 3 of the discussion a bit easier to navigate.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

What can I say Chuckman. Your naivete speaks for itself.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: SORRY, MR PRIME MINIS

Reply with quote
What can I say Chuckman. Your naivete speaks for itself.


_________________
Remembering is a small price to pay for a lifetime of freedom.....
--CVA

Could you translate your signature for me RCS I can't understand what it means.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Canada has only recently taken command of the mission. Until now we were there supporting rather than leading. Now we are leading the operation we now bear the responsibility of it’s success and failure. Also the violence against our troops seem to be making the news as well as the recent accidental shooting of the cabbie

I'm going to correct you. You're wrong. We are leading the mission there, but back in the early days of Afghanistan our troops were scouring caves and patrolling in a combat roll.

We were there under the Nato Flag with the blessing of the UN, but not under the UN's control. That is was old Teflon Jean and Paul the child king wanted you to believe. Humanitarian only

Now that we've increased our role and the Government is being honest people are surprised.

The trouble with the Canadian public is it knows so little, or cares little about its troops. I hope it's the former rather than the latter.

M

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: SORRY, MR PRIME MINIS

Do we remember the veterans of the Boer war RCS and what about the veterans of all the wars before that, quess what RCS all dead soldiers are eventually forgotten that's why we continue to have wars,we don't want to remember it might prevent us from doing our duty and having wars.

 

[elevennevele]

Now that we've increased our role and the Government is being honest people are surprised.

The trouble with the Canadian public is it knows so little, or cares little about its troops. I hope it's the former rather than the latter.

M

You say the Canadian Public knows so little about the operation.

Are you then saying that it is in the best interest for the Canadian Public to be well informed about the mission?

Secondly, if the Canadian Public were to get all the facts/info surrounding the mission (understanding our purpose and the realistic good/bad we should expect), and after weighing such facts/info decided as a majority they wished Canada not to be involved in Afghanistan, would you support the government honouring the will of most Canadians?

They are just questions.

 

[Lotuslander]

elevennevele wrote:

Secondly, if the Canadian Public were to get all the facts/info surrounding the mission (understanding our purpose and the realistic good/bad we should expect), and after weighing such facts/info decided as a majority they wished Canada not to be involved in Afghanistan, would you support the government honouring the will of most Canadians?

Personally, I think that if all Canadian were well informed (whatever that means) about the mission and had all the facts, timetables, expectations, as well as knowledge of the human, economic, security and social conditions in Afghanistan, that a majority would be supportive of our role just like they were in Cyprus.

I think it is foolish for anyone to expect a government to be "governed by public opinion polls" which is essentially what the last half of your post is asking. Governments which are "governed" by polls are weak and have no clear intentions, they lack leadership. We vote in order to put in place people who will gain or already possess the expertise to make sound decisions for Canada. There is no way that the average Canadian can be as well informed on most public policy issues as the bureaucrats and politicians who deal with these questions on a daily basis; that is why we have representative governments so that our society can gain and possess this expertise. I believe Adam Smith called it division of Labour.

 

[cortez]

Re: RE: SORRY, MR PRIME MINIS

Do we remember the veterans of the Boer war RCS and what about the veterans of all the wars before that, quess what RCS all dead soldiers are eventually forgotten that's why we continue to have wars,we don't want to remember it might prevent us from doing our duty and having wars.

this strangely enough has occurred to me as well
although every november we told--- lest we forget---
REALLY its lest we remember

forgive the cliche but REMEMBERING is working for peace

 

[Lineman]

"Well informed" may be a answer that may only darken the waters even more. We have all been fed reports by a controlled media for years and by both the Conservatives and Liberals. The emphasis on peacekeeping in the news has given us an image of men and women in uniform, puirfying water, building schools and all the other "nice" things. If this mission were to be explained then past missions and all the "unknown" baggage associated with them should also have to be explained. Are we ready to know the complete truth about Rwanda? Do we really want to know how politicians and bereaucrats decided for me and you that Canada would stand at ease and literally abandon their small force in country all the while being warned the genocide was coming? Will the fact that our soldiers shot and killed combatants on both Serb and Croat sides while defending themselves and civilians make this mission easier to swallow? Will our sometimes "holier than thou we're peacekeepers not killers attitude" stand up to this self audit? Politcians of all stripes and the media long ago decided that Canadians only wanted to hear about the nice things. Hell that's why we elect someone isn't it, to do the dirty work of government for us? That's why we have a military isn't it, to defend us and anyone else our government sees fit to defend? Most Canadians don't want to know about the nastier side of keeping or making peace we're too busy organizing our wallets and investing in RRSPs to bother.
Mr. Martin's and now Mr. Harper's government have begun to change how and what information we're fed. Before we decide as Canadians what it is our government and military should be doing in regards to missions such as Afghanistan our eyes have to adjust to the stark reality of what the world really is. Compared to home it's not a "nice" place. In the mean time we elect people to do that for us. If we don't like it than we elect someone else the next time. A choice the people of Afghanistan will also learn to use.

 

[Mogz]

RE: SORRY, MR PRIME MINIS

Do we remember the veterans of the Boer war RCS and what about the veterans of all the wars before that

This Canadian does. As do the thousands upon thousands who attend Remembrance Day ceremonies every year.

 

[Sassylassie]

Dido, I'm there every remembrance day.