The fact is that dysfunctional states are in no one’s interest. If we don’t invest in stability in countries like Afghanistan now, we will pay in the futures through more terrorist attacks, unfriendly governments, etc. Moreover, as a rich country some would argue that we have a moral obligation to assist places like Afghanistan. Also, the fact that the person who wrote the above does not even know the difference between a debt and a deficit does not give me much faith in his credibility. He should limit his opinions to areas he has more knowledge of.scroll99 said:
Commitment in Afghanistan
- Thread starter red
- Start date
Majority opposed to Afghan mission
Majority opposed to Afghan mission
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Friday, February 24, 2006
A robust majority of Canadians say they would opt against sending troops to Afghanistan and would like to see parliamentarians have the opportunity to vote on the issue.
The results are included in a Globe and Mail/CTV poll that suggests the new Conservative government may have to be careful when and if it decides to extend the 18-month commitment for the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar. That obligation is in its sixth month and ends a year from now.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...237723&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true
Majority opposed to Afghan mission
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Friday, February 24, 2006
A robust majority of Canadians say they would opt against sending troops to Afghanistan and would like to see parliamentarians have the opportunity to vote on the issue.
The results are included in a Globe and Mail/CTV poll that suggests the new Conservative government may have to be careful when and if it decides to extend the 18-month commitment for the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar. That obligation is in its sixth month and ends a year from now.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...237723&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true
Canada Violating International Law In Afghanistan, War Vet Tells Troops, PM
Feb. 28, 2006
Canada Violating International Law
In Afghanistan, War Vet Tells Troops, PM
Kamloops, B.C., Canada -- Canadian troops in Afghanistan are complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity because of their new aggressive role in support of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan and should be immediately pulled out of the war zone and returned to Canada or risk facing possible future criminal charges, according to a decorated Vietnam war veteran now turned Canadian peace activist.
This was the message sent directly to Canadian troops in Afghanistan Tuesday, Feb. 28, via a government website message board at the same time it was sent to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, all members of Parliament, and Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean, who serves as Commander-in-Chief of Canadian forces. It came from military veteran John McNamer, 58, of Kamloops, British Columbia. McNamer was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for his service with the U.S. Army’s 4th Infantry Division in Vietnam and he is the author of a newly-released research brief examining the legality of Canada’s role in Afghanistan.
Attached to a letter to Harper is the five-page brief with 46 footnoted references documenting “criminal actions” resulting from ongoing Coalition procedures and actions in Afghanistan. The documentation relies primarily on published news accounts from mainstream media reports over the past several years, as well as the 2005 “Report of the Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan” to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
McNamer said that some experts believe the legal basis for the war in Afghanistan is flawed to begin with, but that his primary concerns are based on “factual evidence” that the war is “demonstrably criminal in its execution.”
The research brief documents substantial allegations of illegal torture; illegal and abusive detainments – sometimes leading to deaths in custody; civilian deaths from bombing and other indiscriminate use of force, and collusion with illegal “renditions” of individuals to and from other countries for purposes of torture. It also charges that Canada is in violation of international law for allowing illegal CIA “torture flights” to use Canadian air space and airports, saying there is a link between the flights and Coalition activities in Afghanistan.
Canada is said to be in violation of international and Canadian law as well for its current policy of handing over detainees to American authorities, who do not treat them in accordance with the Geneva Conventions – which Canada is bound by. The brief disputes Canadian military assurances that prisoners are being handled humanely by the U.S., pointing to a recently-leaked high-level British government document which admits the British have no idea whether or not detainees they are handing over to the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq are being sent to secret CIA detention centres for torture.
The report details the worldwide system of an illegal CIA “extraordinary rendition” process of kidnapping people and transporting them to various countries for torture. It says the process includes secret illegal “dark prisons” in Afghanistan where detainees may end up, and charges that Coalition forces act in support of and collusion with these illegalities. It notes recent news articles asserting that one U.S. prison in Afghanistan is said to be “worse than Guantanamo Bay.”
McNamer said the information detailing Canada’s role in Afghanistan has been sent out to Canadian peace activists and that he expects his report will be a topic of concern when activists gather in various cities March 18 for a day of protest against the invasion of Iraq.
He said he sent a message to Canadian troops in Afghanistan offering to provide them with his complete report and the letter to Harper. The message was filed with the Department of National Defence website “Write to the Troops”, but McNamer said he is worried it may not get to the troops if officials decide to censure it by not posting it. He told the troops that his message is not hostile to Canadian Force, and that he believes “you have the right and obligation to understand that you may have personal responsibility for illegal actions you may be involved in while in Afghanistan, and the right to know what is being said about this situation in Canada.”
ATTACHED:
Letter to PM Stephen Harper, Feb. 28, 2006
Research Brief: “Legal Aspects of Canada’s Actions in Afghanistan Deeply Troubling,”
Feb. 27, 2006
Message to Canadian Troops in Afghanistan, Feb. 28, 2006
http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/378846.php
Feb. 28, 2006
Canada Violating International Law
In Afghanistan, War Vet Tells Troops, PM
Kamloops, B.C., Canada -- Canadian troops in Afghanistan are complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity because of their new aggressive role in support of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan and should be immediately pulled out of the war zone and returned to Canada or risk facing possible future criminal charges, according to a decorated Vietnam war veteran now turned Canadian peace activist.
This was the message sent directly to Canadian troops in Afghanistan Tuesday, Feb. 28, via a government website message board at the same time it was sent to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, all members of Parliament, and Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean, who serves as Commander-in-Chief of Canadian forces. It came from military veteran John McNamer, 58, of Kamloops, British Columbia. McNamer was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for his service with the U.S. Army’s 4th Infantry Division in Vietnam and he is the author of a newly-released research brief examining the legality of Canada’s role in Afghanistan.
Attached to a letter to Harper is the five-page brief with 46 footnoted references documenting “criminal actions” resulting from ongoing Coalition procedures and actions in Afghanistan. The documentation relies primarily on published news accounts from mainstream media reports over the past several years, as well as the 2005 “Report of the Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan” to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
McNamer said that some experts believe the legal basis for the war in Afghanistan is flawed to begin with, but that his primary concerns are based on “factual evidence” that the war is “demonstrably criminal in its execution.”
The research brief documents substantial allegations of illegal torture; illegal and abusive detainments – sometimes leading to deaths in custody; civilian deaths from bombing and other indiscriminate use of force, and collusion with illegal “renditions” of individuals to and from other countries for purposes of torture. It also charges that Canada is in violation of international law for allowing illegal CIA “torture flights” to use Canadian air space and airports, saying there is a link between the flights and Coalition activities in Afghanistan.
Canada is said to be in violation of international and Canadian law as well for its current policy of handing over detainees to American authorities, who do not treat them in accordance with the Geneva Conventions – which Canada is bound by. The brief disputes Canadian military assurances that prisoners are being handled humanely by the U.S., pointing to a recently-leaked high-level British government document which admits the British have no idea whether or not detainees they are handing over to the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq are being sent to secret CIA detention centres for torture.
The report details the worldwide system of an illegal CIA “extraordinary rendition” process of kidnapping people and transporting them to various countries for torture. It says the process includes secret illegal “dark prisons” in Afghanistan where detainees may end up, and charges that Coalition forces act in support of and collusion with these illegalities. It notes recent news articles asserting that one U.S. prison in Afghanistan is said to be “worse than Guantanamo Bay.”
McNamer said the information detailing Canada’s role in Afghanistan has been sent out to Canadian peace activists and that he expects his report will be a topic of concern when activists gather in various cities March 18 for a day of protest against the invasion of Iraq.
He said he sent a message to Canadian troops in Afghanistan offering to provide them with his complete report and the letter to Harper. The message was filed with the Department of National Defence website “Write to the Troops”, but McNamer said he is worried it may not get to the troops if officials decide to censure it by not posting it. He told the troops that his message is not hostile to Canadian Force, and that he believes “you have the right and obligation to understand that you may have personal responsibility for illegal actions you may be involved in while in Afghanistan, and the right to know what is being said about this situation in Canada.”
ATTACHED:
Letter to PM Stephen Harper, Feb. 28, 2006
Research Brief: “Legal Aspects of Canada’s Actions in Afghanistan Deeply Troubling,”
Feb. 27, 2006
Message to Canadian Troops in Afghanistan, Feb. 28, 2006
http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/378846.php
IMHO, it could be argued that Canada is in Afghanistan at the request of the elected Afghan government, and that we are acting as their appointed agents - a quasi extension of the Afghan government itself. We didn't invade Afghanistan nor did we just drop in without being asked. If the Afghan government asked us to leave, we would do so immediately.
When parliament opted to send our soldiers to Afghanistan, the majority were for it.Parliamentarians, the media and the public all supprted the move.
No one wants to see our soldiers coming home maimed or in body bags, unfortunately that is happening and now we have some that are with drawing their support for our troops.Elected representatives that see this as a political opportunity should be soundly rebuked by their parties.The pundits that write reports that suggest we should withdraw,while they are entitled to their own cowardly opinions need to consider the well being and the moral of the troops.
This country needs to stand together behind our troops.They are there, they are in harms way and WE put then there.This is not the time to withdraw our support.Pray for them, yes, care about them ,yes and above all give them are whole hearted support.
No one wants to see our soldiers coming home maimed or in body bags, unfortunately that is happening and now we have some that are with drawing their support for our troops.Elected representatives that see this as a political opportunity should be soundly rebuked by their parties.The pundits that write reports that suggest we should withdraw,while they are entitled to their own cowardly opinions need to consider the well being and the moral of the troops.
This country needs to stand together behind our troops.They are there, they are in harms way and WE put then there.This is not the time to withdraw our support.Pray for them, yes, care about them ,yes and above all give them are whole hearted support.
A cartoon that says it all
The print edition was more moving
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/cartoon/
The print edition was more moving
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/cartoon/
The real debate: What are "Canadian values"?
The real debate: What are "Canadian values"?
Stuart Trew
Last week (online, at least) I joined a multiplying chorus of media hacks pretending to debate Canada's "role" in Afghanistan almost five years after the Liberals decided what that role would be and locked us in until at least 2009.
Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay is lying when he says that our generals have much say in the matter. Yes, it's true that at their personal request, Canadian Starship Troopers are now snuffing terrorist bugs out of holes in the southern, most dangerous region of Planet Afghanistan.
But when the outspoken General Rick Hillier says we will have troops on the ground for at least a decade, it is not so much wishful thinking as an ugly fact of Canadian foreign policy: We are up to our eyeballs in the U.S. "war on terror," and human rights are of cursory interest.
The ugly truth is currently flirting with public acceptance, as evidenced by a poll two weeks ago suggesting two thirds of us would not have sent troops to Afghanistan because, among other reasons, we recognize it as an imperialist venture.
Despite media attempts to emphasize an alleged squeamishness towards death, which consequently strengthens the government position with regard to "sucking it up" and "staying the course," Canadian reservations about the war have more to do with us not wanting to be Americans.
If we didn't realize our troops weren't invincible after four of them were killed by a coked-up U.S. pilot, it was never going to sink in. The current discomfort is about values.
Until the notion that there should be a debate about our role in Afghanistan sprang out of an unfortunate recent axe attack on one of our soldiers, our departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs were happy with the congealing public misunderstanding that NATO was in charge and that NATO was like a mini-UN.
NATO, which was created in 1949 as a defensive coalition against possible Soviet aggression, is in charge of part of the mission to Afghanistan, the "state-building" part providing a friendly face to the U.S. "counterattack" they called Operation Enduring Freedom.
On September 12, 2001, the U.S. stretched the definition of "armed attack" in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty to include a dozen non-state actors ramming planes into buildings. This allowed the U.S. to form a coalition of NATO signatories and do whatever it felt necessary to protect the homeland until "the [UN] Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."
Luckily for them, the Security Council never really got involved, creating a kind of perpetual war against anything that might be twisted into a threat by Pentagon crazies.
Canada's crazies in the Department of Defence hopped into Enduring Freedom in 2002 under the code name Operation Apollo for one reason only: "After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in New York and Washington, Canada made a significant military commitment to the campaign against terrorism to demonstrate solidarity with our allies and our resolve to improve international security," according to our Forces' website.
In case any of us were still convinced we're there primarily for our expertise in democracy, the Defence people reminded us what the new mission (the 2006 update) is about in a February 28 press release: "As part of Task Force Afghanistan, approximately 2,300 Canadian Forces personnel are deployed in Afghanistan on the first rotation of Canada's renewed commitment to the international campaign against terrorism, Operation Archer." (Italics mine in both cases.)
These soldiers are currently handing over fighters they don't kill to the U.S. for processing at Guantanamo and other Afghan prisons that various human rights groups have declared homicidal torture chambers.
But don't take their words for it: "In December 2002 two Afghan detainees died at Bagram. Both of their deaths were ruled homicides by U.S. military doctors who performed autopsies," wrote Human Rights Watch in March 2004.
And last May the Pentagon reported that 108 people had died thus far in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you think this is somehow counter to "Canadian values" or that the people setting our foreign policy are disturbed by the trend, think again. Despite our lofty talk of human rights, Canada is one of a shrinking number of countries that have not condemned Gitmo.
Even France and England hate the place. But this weekend Canadian officials referred to the U.S. concentration camp near Cuba as a useful tool in the "war on terror."
If there is enough pressure on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to debate our role in Afghanistan in the House (and that's a big if), it will hopefully lead into a broader debate about so called Canadian values. As it stands, our foreign policy, something we are selling to ourselves and the world as inherently peaceful, is indistinguishable from that of the Americans.
It's a fact that should make much more than two-thirds of us very uncomfortable.
http://www.ottawaxpress.ca/news/news.aspx?iIDArticle=8598
The real debate: What are "Canadian values"?
Stuart Trew
Last week (online, at least) I joined a multiplying chorus of media hacks pretending to debate Canada's "role" in Afghanistan almost five years after the Liberals decided what that role would be and locked us in until at least 2009.
Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay is lying when he says that our generals have much say in the matter. Yes, it's true that at their personal request, Canadian Starship Troopers are now snuffing terrorist bugs out of holes in the southern, most dangerous region of Planet Afghanistan.
But when the outspoken General Rick Hillier says we will have troops on the ground for at least a decade, it is not so much wishful thinking as an ugly fact of Canadian foreign policy: We are up to our eyeballs in the U.S. "war on terror," and human rights are of cursory interest.
The ugly truth is currently flirting with public acceptance, as evidenced by a poll two weeks ago suggesting two thirds of us would not have sent troops to Afghanistan because, among other reasons, we recognize it as an imperialist venture.
Despite media attempts to emphasize an alleged squeamishness towards death, which consequently strengthens the government position with regard to "sucking it up" and "staying the course," Canadian reservations about the war have more to do with us not wanting to be Americans.
If we didn't realize our troops weren't invincible after four of them were killed by a coked-up U.S. pilot, it was never going to sink in. The current discomfort is about values.
Until the notion that there should be a debate about our role in Afghanistan sprang out of an unfortunate recent axe attack on one of our soldiers, our departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs were happy with the congealing public misunderstanding that NATO was in charge and that NATO was like a mini-UN.
NATO, which was created in 1949 as a defensive coalition against possible Soviet aggression, is in charge of part of the mission to Afghanistan, the "state-building" part providing a friendly face to the U.S. "counterattack" they called Operation Enduring Freedom.
On September 12, 2001, the U.S. stretched the definition of "armed attack" in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty to include a dozen non-state actors ramming planes into buildings. This allowed the U.S. to form a coalition of NATO signatories and do whatever it felt necessary to protect the homeland until "the [UN] Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."
Luckily for them, the Security Council never really got involved, creating a kind of perpetual war against anything that might be twisted into a threat by Pentagon crazies.
Canada's crazies in the Department of Defence hopped into Enduring Freedom in 2002 under the code name Operation Apollo for one reason only: "After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in New York and Washington, Canada made a significant military commitment to the campaign against terrorism to demonstrate solidarity with our allies and our resolve to improve international security," according to our Forces' website.
In case any of us were still convinced we're there primarily for our expertise in democracy, the Defence people reminded us what the new mission (the 2006 update) is about in a February 28 press release: "As part of Task Force Afghanistan, approximately 2,300 Canadian Forces personnel are deployed in Afghanistan on the first rotation of Canada's renewed commitment to the international campaign against terrorism, Operation Archer." (Italics mine in both cases.)
These soldiers are currently handing over fighters they don't kill to the U.S. for processing at Guantanamo and other Afghan prisons that various human rights groups have declared homicidal torture chambers.
But don't take their words for it: "In December 2002 two Afghan detainees died at Bagram. Both of their deaths were ruled homicides by U.S. military doctors who performed autopsies," wrote Human Rights Watch in March 2004.
And last May the Pentagon reported that 108 people had died thus far in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you think this is somehow counter to "Canadian values" or that the people setting our foreign policy are disturbed by the trend, think again. Despite our lofty talk of human rights, Canada is one of a shrinking number of countries that have not condemned Gitmo.
Even France and England hate the place. But this weekend Canadian officials referred to the U.S. concentration camp near Cuba as a useful tool in the "war on terror."
If there is enough pressure on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to debate our role in Afghanistan in the House (and that's a big if), it will hopefully lead into a broader debate about so called Canadian values. As it stands, our foreign policy, something we are selling to ourselves and the world as inherently peaceful, is indistinguishable from that of the Americans.
It's a fact that should make much more than two-thirds of us very uncomfortable.
http://www.ottawaxpress.ca/news/news.aspx?iIDArticle=8598
I think Afghanistan was/is a worth while military operation. It really was a great place for terrorists to hide. I think the war in Iraq was misguided and has drawn away valuable resources from Afghanistan. Countries can just commit to things like this and then decide "Oh, iwe lost some soliders, time to go." Rebuilding a country takes a long time, like a decade or two, you can't expect over night results.
Well, I think there are times when withdrawal is the correct solution. However, I don't believe Afghanistan meets these criteria. As far as supporting the troops, well if youy disagree with the mission then you really can't support them. That doesn't mean you wish them harm, of course not, but it's really not possible to "support the troops" yet oppose their mission.Dawgger said:When parliament opted to send our soldiers to Afghanistan, the majority were for it.Parliamentarians, the media and the public all supprted the move.
No one wants to see our soldiers coming home maimed or in body bags, unfortunately that is happening and now we have some that are with drawing their support for our troops.Elected representatives that see this as a political opportunity should be soundly rebuked by their parties.The pundits that write reports that suggest we should withdraw,while they are entitled to their own cowardly opinions need to consider the well being and the moral of the troops.
This country needs to stand together behind our troops.They are there, they are in harms way and WE put then there.This is not the time to withdraw our support.Pray for them, yes, care about them ,yes and above all give them are whole hearted support.
Public opinion shift
So far OTB’s predictions on Canadian public opinion seem to be correct. I’m still pessimistic about future support but it is my nature to be pessimistic:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060314.wxharperpoll14/BNStory/National/home
So far OTB’s predictions on Canadian public opinion seem to be correct. I’m still pessimistic about future support but it is my nature to be pessimistic:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060314.wxharperpoll14/BNStory/National/home
well when the causalities start increasing - the support will decrease!!!!someone said:So far OTB’s predictions on Canadian public opinion seem to be correct. I’m still pessimistic about future support but it is my nature to be pessimistic:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060314.wxharperpoll14/BNStory/National/home
support for the mission, but not the troops.zanner69 said:well when the causalities start increasing - the support will decrease!!!!
what is the mission again???red said:support for the mission, but not the troops.
is it peacekeeping!!!
Afghanistan. the lesser evil.
Canada, Get out of Afghanistan
by Eric Margolis
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis20.html
Canada, Get out of Afghanistan
by Eric Margolis
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis20.html
Legal Aspects of Canada’s Actions in Afghanistan Deeply Troubling
Legal Aspects of Canada’s Actions in Afghanistan Deeply Troubling
http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=825
Legal Aspects of Canada’s Actions in Afghanistan Deeply Troubling
http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=825
15,000 Soviet troops, 100,000 Afghan fighters died in their 10-year war. Canada is sending 2,200
600,000 Soviet troops were unable to win the war in Afghanistan. But Canada is sending 2,200 soldiers there in March, to take charge. Are we crazy?
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20060216205036766
600,000 Soviet troops were unable to win the war in Afghanistan. But Canada is sending 2,200 soldiers there in March, to take charge. Are we crazy?
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20060216205036766
