Commitment in Afghanistan

[scroll99]

Protecting Canada's image

Many Canadians have long prided themselves on being recognized internationally as a tolerant and peaceful voice in domestic and international affairs.

Our mosaic population has allowed us to be exposed to various cultures and their histories. This has enhanced our understanding of the global community and, historically, enabled us to play a positive role in the world.

On trips through Europe, the Middle East and Africa, my being Canadian has always been met with a genuine admiration for our country's unique ability to foster a multicultural environment and to use our insights in the domestic and international arenas.

However, in light of recent negative, stereotyped discourses by military leaders (Gen. Rick Hillier: "Our enemies are "scumbags" who "detest our freedoms ... our societies") and jingoistic rhetoric by our new government — all echoed and perpetuated by journalists — I wonder whether we are losing this image.

It seems that our focus has abruptly shifted away from compassion and understanding to one of arrogance and fear. Our trend toward isolationism sadly mirrors the ideology already entrenched within the philosophy of the American administration.

This transition has been almost seamless, and I am amazed at how it has eased into our collective consciousness.

To make our participation in the war in Afghanistan palatable, our leaders and news agencies have held us mesmerized with malicious generalizations as to how the people "over there" seem to be obsessed with war and hate.

Our gaze is continuously diverted from the vast majority of the people who are peaceful, from their true desires for normalcy and from their history.

Conspicuously absent from the discussion are the stories, and our sorrow, concerning the thousands of innocent Afghan civilians, much like those in Iraq, who have died as a consequence of misguided international policy.

Missing are the cries of protest and calls for action to rebuild the more than 200 schools that have been demolished since coalition forces have been in Afghanistan, not to mention the needs of the majority of Afghan women, who continue to have absolutely no access to health care and schools.

Also missing is the balance that would provide some understanding regarding the real issues — the economic self-interest of the U.S. and other NATO nations. By allowing ourselves to be so distracted, our diplomatic voice and development initiatives continue to decline.

Sadly, such swaying of public opinion is not reserved for that region alone.

Our government and newspapers are mute regarding the ravaging devastation caused by drought and AIDS in the African continent and the plight of millions of poor women, children and men worldwide.

Read more...

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...181&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

 

[LancsLad]

Hey Troll

Blah, blah. Blah

Get off with the Canada equals peacenik notion. That is some recent quirk that pearson and that bastard trewdough forced on us. The real Canada is in the hearts of those who remember and respect her tradition of service when needed to kick butt.

You must live in Ottawa or something similar since our versions of Canada are polar opposites.

 

[onthebottom]

Why should Canada send its soldiers to Afghanistan to be shot at and killed? If the afghanis want to kill each other, I doubt we can prevent it anyway.

The perfect argument for keeping the US out of Europe for the last two WW, luckily for Churchill the Japs bombed Pearl.

OTB

 

[scroll99]

We are wrong in Afghanistan
David Orchard

Canadians are fighting and dying in an undeclared war in Afghanistan. Prime Minister Harper has stated that Canada will not „cut and run‰ in the face of increasing casualties. Foreign Affairs Minister MacKay says Canada will „finish the job.‰ Chief of Defence Staff, Rick Hillier, is quoted as saying „Canada needs to be in Afghanistan for the long haul∑ at least a decade – and probably a lot longer.

Canada is now in Afghanistan as part of a foreign occupation and a very real, hot war that took, by conservative estimates, 20,000 Afghan lives within the first six months alone.

With its 1991 war on Iraq the U.S., for the first time in history, began using depleted uranium munitions. It has since used large amounts of DU weaponry in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan. The contamination from depleted uranium remains deadly for hundreds of thousands of years. Dr. Rosalie Bertell states in her Update on Depleted Uranium and Gulf War Syndrome, the use of DU in war is a „a clear violation of the Geneva Protocol on the Use of Gas in War.‰ She writes: „DU generates a poison gas, known commonly as a metal fume, which is highly toxic when inhaled. It can also be classed as a radiological weapon of indiscriminate destruction which does not respect national boundaries, and which persists long after a conflict is over.‰ The effect of DU on both Afghan citizens and returning Canadian and American soldiers has been almost completely ignored.

Perhaps it‚s worth looking beyond the official reasons given for this war. Prominent American writer Gore Vidal in his book Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace writes: „We need Afghanistan because it is the gateway to Central Asia, which is full of oil and natural gas∑ That‚s what it‚s all about. We are establishing our control over Central Asia.‰

It‚s time for some serious questions about Canada‚s deepening Afghan involvement. If Canada wished to undertake a role in Afghanistan as a peace keeper, the U.S. would first have to pull out. Then Canada could, if asked by the U.N., perhaps consider a role in stabilizing the country. Being part of a U.S. military operation to subdue the country is by definition the opposite of peacekeeping.

The ongoing threats by the U.S. to attack Iran speak clearly of an escalating scenario ahead — one in which Canada may well be drawn further into a vortex of events which cannot be justified legally, morally or practically

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2006/05/18/484/

 

[scroll99]

Canada at War


Extending the Afghanistan mission for two more years may have had more to do with keeping the U.S. happy than fighting terror



http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...le&cid=1148077814543&call_pageid=968332188774

 

[galt]

How soon we forget

It's been a long time since I posted anything on TERB but I just couldn't resist on this thread. I find it shocking how soon people forget some of the reasons that we ARE there. This is especially true of smiling Jack Layton and his merry band of left wing opportunistic dolts.

Yes the NDP, Canada's self appointed human rights watch dog who fight so diligently for women's rights and the rights of freedom of individuals who are so quick to diminish the accomplishments of our troops who are fighting and dying to allow other people the rights that the NDP pretend to champion.

There has been much talk by a few in this thread about arm chair soldiers or so called "chicken hawks" playing fast and easy with the lives of our soldiers and yet they forget that our soldiers signed up for reasons that few of the opportunists that so blindly follow smilin' Jack and his sycophantic entorage can possibly understand. Many signed up because they believe that they can make a difference and many in Afghanistan today, believe they are making that difference.

If Jack and those SO opposed to our presence in Afghanistan REALLY cared about human rights they would stop their partisan crap designed just to try to make Harper look like a war monger and harken back to October 2001, back before the invasion and the fall of the Taliban.

For those of you too blinded by your rhetoric and anti conservative dogma to remember, that was back when Afghanistan's premier soccer stadium was not used for soccer. It was used for a place of public executions. Where women clad in buqas were uncerimoniously executed in front of large crowds for, what we would consider, minor infractions.

This soccer stadium became the focal point of more bloodletting than we in our relatively safe Canadian world could imagine. Men were hanged from the goal posts for simply voicing dissatisfaction with the government. Women beaten and shot for adultry or prostitution. This was a society where women were not allowed an education and were relegated to less than human. Simple chattle to be disposed of and starve.

Is this what you want for any other human being? This is what Jack and the NDP voted for last week. They need to understand that they did not vote for the removal of troops from Afghanistan, they voted for the restoration of the Taliban Regime. They voted for the suppression of human rights and the subjugation of women under the regime. They voted for the "it's not my problem, why should I worry about it?" approach that they so pretend to decry within our own borders.

Edmund Burke once wrote: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." THAT my friends is what this raving hypocrit Layton voted for last week. He voted for us to dump the problem on someone else. He voted for our good men and women who have already sacraficed so much, to do nothing. He voted for the death of hundreds if not thousands of people who would most assuradly die under the rise of a more brutal and more isolationist Taliban regime. He voted for evil.

So, I'd suggest that no matter what political stripe you wear, you get yourself a downloaded copy of "Under the Veil" and then decide what side of this fence you sit on, because if your position is to influence the government to pull our troops out, you need to decide if you can live with what you are sentencing the innocent inside Afghanistan to because for every letter you write for every time you speak out, no matter how small your influence it's still heard somewhere. For every vote you cast for any party and for every press poll you take part in, you move our government every so slightly.

If you choose to influence our government to pull the troops out and they do, remember that you will have pushed for the troops that have died to this point to have died for nothing.

If the Taliban rises again after the troops leave, the blood of the innocents may well end up on your hands. Careful what you ask for, you just may get it.

Now, I know that many of the people who cannot put their partisanship aside will start their arguements with how the Taliban is the fault of the US and that four of our 16 soldiers were, in fact, killed by a US bomb in a friendly fire incident. To you I say "hogwash". If this is the only arguments that you can come up with than you're blinded by the same short sighted myopia that tends to blind most partisans. At the end of the day, we can't change the past. Things are what they are and a course of action must be chosen for moving forward. So stand up and make a decision. Are you for individual human rights? Are you for the equal status of women? Are you for freedom of expression? Are you for freedom of religion? Are you for a justice system that is fair and equitable? Are you against murder of innocents? If you're not for these things, by all means push for the removal of our troops but don't come to me complaining about social welfare, the homeless in the streets of Toronto, Bush tapping phones or any of the other things you so regularly bitch about because if you push for the removal of our troops you support a regime that is infinately worse than the ones you complain of in the western world.

 

[scroll99]

Retain Canada's Afghan options
May 17, 2006. 01:00 AM

Canadian troops are performing a vital service in Afghanistan, supporting democracy and development and countering attempts by the Taliban and their terrorist allies to regroup. It is in Canada's security interest to help the United States and 30 other nations stabilize the volatile country.

But it is hard to see why Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants to lock Canada into a nearly three-year diplomatic and military commitment when conditions there remain hard to predict.

As Members of Parliament debate and vote today on this proposal, on very short notice, they have a duty to consider the wisdom of keeping open all of Canada's political, development and military options.

It is easy to see why the Conservatives are pushing for a major extension now. Public support for the Afghan deployment has slipped in recent months, as casualties have mounted. The Tories hope to lock in a commitment before the political price becomes too high. They also want to score points with U.S. President George Bush's administration, which needs help in Afghanistan because it is mired in Iraq. And of course the Liberals, who first sent troops to Afghanistan soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, are poorly placed to object to an extension.

But if Harper wants to extend the Canadian mission of 2,300 troops a full eight months before it is due to expire, and long before Canadians can accurately assess its success or failure, he must put forward more persuasive arguments than he has so far.

While Canada is in the forefront of the current North Atlantic Treaty Organization takeover from the Americans as part of the counter-insurgency effort in Afghanistan, a one-year extension — not two years — should more than suffice. Anything more may be imprudent.

Clearly, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his government deserve our support. But they must also have an incentive to resolve their fractious political differences and to build up the Afghan national army and police to assume effective control of the country. By keeping Canada's options flexible, Ottawa would send Kabul a crucial message about the need for Afghan political cohesion and a speedy buildup of Afghan forces. An early commitment to a long deployment could have the opposite effect.

As well, Ottawa should weigh the merits of keeping troops in reserve for other United Nations missions, like those in Darfur, the Mideast, Haiti.

During today's debate, and before a vote, the government should provide Canadians with answers to several pertinent questions:

#
Will the Tories commit to regular debates and votes on this mission?

#

Is there any compelling rationale for a two-year extension?

#

How many troops does Harper envisage fielding in 2007 and 2008?

#

What is the military mission costing us?

#

And what exactly does Ottawa expect of the Karzai government by way of demonstrating political cohesiveness, building up its forces and disarming warlords in exchange for continued Canadian support? Without such benchmarks, it will be impossible to judge the success of our efforts.


Last week in Afghanistan, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay was not especially helpful when he noted our mission "is not defined in terms of years — it's defined in terms of success." What is "success," exactly?

And as our MPs weigh all this, it is important to avoid mudslinging. Politicians who ask practical questions about the Afghan mission are not showing lack of support for our troops, 15 of whom have died there. Nor do they favour "cutting and running," as Harper puts it.

Just the opposite. Parliament has a duty to take care of our forces to the best of its ability. It begins by not placing them in harm's way on open-ended missions with ill-defined objectives.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...825&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

 

[galt]

During today's debate, and before a vote, the government should provide Canadians with answers to several pertinent questions:

#
Will the Tories commit to regular debates and votes on this mission?

#

Is there any compelling rationale for a two-year extension?

#

How many troops does Harper envisage fielding in 2007 and 2008?

#

What is the military mission costing us?

#

And what exactly does Ottawa expect of the Karzai government by way of demonstrating political cohesiveness, building up its forces and disarming warlords in exchange for continued Canadian support? Without such benchmarks, it will be impossible to judge the success of our efforts.


Last week in Afghanistan, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay was not especially helpful when he noted our mission "is not defined in terms of years — it's defined in terms of success." What is "success," exactly?

And as our MPs weigh all this, it is important to avoid mudslinging. Politicians who ask practical questions about the Afghan mission are not showing lack of support for our troops, 15 of whom have died there. Nor do they favour "cutting and running," as Harper puts it.

Just the opposite. Parliament has a duty to take care of our forces to the best of its ability. It begins by not placing them in harm's way on open-ended missions with ill-defined objectives.

Hmmm, okay...so much for putting aside partisanship and thinking for ourselves. I'm not really sure that you even have a point. From what i can tell all you really do is cut and paste articles that fit your obviously clouded opinion that is defined by your hate of Harper and or Bush and not in the least crafted by logic or independent thought. In this case you've chosen to cut and paste from the single most partisan excuse for a newspaper that Canada has. But let's address your points to the best of our ability shall we?

1. Will the Conservatives commit to regular debates...Hell if I know, why should they? The Liberals didn't when they unilaterally decided to have our troops go there in the first place (a move I agreed with I might add). The government is in no way required to hold such debates. I would however, ask you if you were screaming from the high heavens then? (Probably not because the Star didn't write any OpEd pieces on it because they had no complaints then so you wouldn't have had anything to cut and paste)

2. Is there any compelling rationale for the two year extension. I'd suggest you read my earlier post and/or get a copy of "Under the Veil" you'll see more compelling reasons on that video than I can provide you but to name a few...Women/Human rights, stopping murder in the name of misguided religious principals, allowing for freedom of speech and freedom of expression without fear of murderous reprisal. You know, all those good Canadian values that are so important to all of us and that our leftwing friends so rightly defend at all costs inside our borders

3. How many troops....Hopefully as many as we can spare

4. What is the mission costing us...Well I don't want to really put a price on human rights but as long as you're going to bitch about the costs of this valuable mission are you also going to bitch about the cost of a failed gun registry, the sponsorship scandal, the $220 Million/ year that Toronto gives to the homeless and all the wasteful programs at all levels of government first or is your penny counting only reserved for programs under the Harper government?

5. Re the Karzai Govermnent..The Karzai Government is just now beginning to establish itself. It still needs to form and ratify a decent set of operating principals. To abandon it now is certainly abandoning for a blood filled coup. Canada has a long history of helping countries rebuild from war torn status and although I don't personally have access to a plan I have to be confident that, when the time is right, we will see it brought forth

6. What is success....Success is when the Karzai Government has a level of stability that they can stand on their own and the Taliban are relegated to the status of the Kumer Rouge in Cambodia (a fringe group with little or no hope of recovery and yet still hold enough power of fear that future governments never allow them to rise to any form of power)

7. Yes practical questions need to be asked but the Liberals and NDP and Block opposed this for purely partisan reasons. It's the Jack Laytons and Bill Grahams of the world how are constantly hurling the mud. It's, frankly, all Smilin' Jack has ever been good for.

As far as sending our troops into harms way.....If your statement (or should I say the Star's Statement (because you seem incapable of forming a thought on your own)) were not so tragic it would be laughable. The Liberals under Trudeau and then under Chretian then Martin so devistated the military in this country that our troops have been constantly placed in harms way every time they get into a piece of their own equipment. I find these feigned crocodile tears for putting our troops in harms way offensive when it was the Liberals and the rest of the left who stood by and did nothing while Sea King Helicopters were falling out of the sky. More of our troops have been killed by their own equipment malfunctions in recent years than have been killed by OPFOR and Paul Martin and Smilin' Jack stood by and did nothing. How many rides in Sea King Helicopters have they taken? How many times have they visited our troops in the deserts and donned forest green flack jackets that stand out like a sore thumb? How many rides have they taken in faulty submarines that the British deemed unfit for their navy so they dumped them on us? (Oh yeah...back to your arguement (oops, the Star's arguement) about costs, how much is that wasted submarine venture going to cost us)

As far as I'm concerned, the blood of every soldier killed by outdated and unsafe equipment that was made unsafe by government cutbacks is directly on Chretien's, Martin's and every politician's hands that have every provided or retained substandard equipment to our soldiers before putting them in harm's way.

Now, before you cut and paste another meaningless article, try using some form of independent thought.

 

[scroll99]

Harper's government will be relieved that they dont have to be accountable to the Parliment and the Canadian people till there are people defending them in relieveing from all the accountibilities of their actions

No tinkering can fix this situation
May 20, 2006. 01:00 AM

New Afghan mission called `political ploy'

May 17.

It seems that a majority of Canadians oppose sending their sons and daughters to die in Afghanistan. So what do our newly elected federal representatives do at the urging of a minority Conservative government? Extend the unpopular mission two years beyond its current mandate which had been slated to end in February 2007. Talk about your democratic deficit! No amount of tinkering with rules and regulations in Ottawa is going to fix this one.

Those Canadians who do not turn away from politics in disgust after this decision might ponder how casting either a Conservative or a Liberal vote in the last federal election has benefited U.S. interests in the Middle East. And they should also remember that, this week, a young Canadian woman's blood was spilled in Kandahar province while the known drug lords in Hamid Karzai's government played politics in Kabul


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...geid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1148032509564

 

[LancsLad]

Galt, don't even try to reason with troll, he and twits like peckerwood will always bash the right no matter what. They live to cut and paste , it reminds then of their kindergarten days. troll won't do anything until he checks to see if it is something the Star promotes.

 

[Anbarandy]

Great posts galt. Hope you stick around. Don't, and probably won't see, anyone successfully challenge your very well-reasoned posts.

 

[assoholic]

..bottom line, the reasons for the mission in Afghanistan are muddy at best.
Who here would send their son off to die for Democracy in Afghanistan.
To compare this to WW2 is ridiculous. All those Canadians who die there, die for something that in 5 years most Canadinas will just as soon forget about.
It has no chance of sucess.

 

[cyrus]

Can you believe this; they call air strike on a village in an attempt to kill some Taliban fighters, killing not only them but also a lot of civilians including infants!
Coalition warplanes killed 50 Afghans

Kandahar, May 22 - American-led forces bombed a village in the southern areas of the occupied Afghanistan overnight, killing around 50 civilian people, witnesses said Monday.

The US-led coalition repreated claims that the victims were affiliates of the suspicious 'Taliban' group.

One witness said 24 of his relatives were killed and scores of people were wounded during the attack on the Kandahar province.

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - An attempt by coalition soldiers to move against a meeting of Taliban leaders in a village outside Kandahar erupted early Monday into a firefight that left at least 50 insurgents dead while killing at least 17 civilians and wounding 15 others, including several children and infants.
Mirwais hospital in Kandahar, about 50 kilometres away, was an emotional and confused scene Monday afternoon, with families looking for their loved ones and wounded villagers trying to figure out what had happened.
…………
Fida Mohammed said from his hospital bed that he was at home when he heard shooting and bombing. When he went outside to investigate, he was hurt.

"When I came out from my home there was an exchange of fire, but at once I was shot," said Mohammad, weeping.

"My whole family came out weeping and crying. When I came into my senses I was told they were wounded, too.

"My sons, my daughters, I don't know if they're alive."

"I don't remember anything very well. It was just like a dream."

"What did we do? We are innocent people."

There were conflicting death tolls from the recent attack. The coalition said in a statement released late Monday that it had confirmed 20 Taliban killed, while there were "an unconfirmed 60 additional casualties."

A doctor at the hospital, Mohammed Khan, said one of the wounded had died.

 

[scroll99]

Canada's Afghanistan Mission Produces Corporate Profits

Rash Afghanistan Mission Produces Corporate Profits


It is not unusual for invader-occupiers to describe their efforts as humanitarian initiatives. Britain, which waged three bloody wars to colonize Afghanistan, insisted throughout that it was supporting the country’s legitimate leaders against foreign interference.


Sixty years after the British left, the Soviets tried their hand at subduing Afghanistan. Years later, Nelofer Pazira, an Afghan author now living in Canada, travelled to Russia to interview Soviet officers who had fought in her country. These officers denied they had been part of an occupation. They firmly believed that their's had been an effort to provide the country aid and stability.

In yet another intervention designed purely to help the people of Afghanistan, the Canadian military mission there is being expanded. Ottawa has spent more than $2 billion on the mission to date. More than 7,000 Canadian military personnel have served there during the past four years. In that time, Afghanistan has become a major focus of Canadian military and foreign policy.

Despite the Harper government’s sales job, Canadians appear skeptical about the merits of expanding the military venture. In February, a Globe and Mail/CTV poll found that 62 percent of Canadians opposed sending more troops to Afghanistan. A different poll, published in March by the Winnipeg Free Press, found that 83 percent of Canadians opposed expanding our military deployment there.


It’s essential to keep in mind that Canada’s effort in Afghanistan was initiated in the political environment that prevailed after 9/11. Like their American counterparts, important segments of this country’s corporate sector have jumped on the security bandwagon, promoting a sharp increase in the military’s influence over our politics and a beefed-up role for the arms industry in our economy.

For example, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (formerly the Business Council on National Issues), whose membership includes almost 150 of the most powerful capitalists in Canada, is circulating a document entitled “North American Security and Prosperity” and argues for the creation of a “North American Defence Alliance”.

According to the council, the United States is carrying a disproportionate part of the responsibility for protecting our continent. For the CEOs who make up the membership of the council, the fact that doing more to live up to Canada’s military “responsibilities” will provide their companies with lucrative investment and sales opportunities is strictly serendipitous.

The jostling for contracts for military transport aircraft for use in expanding missions such as in Afghanistan offers a case study of Canada’s very own military-industrial complex. The Lockheed Martin and Boeing companies are competing for Ottawa’s favour on these contracts.


Patrick O’Donnell is a principal at CFN Consultants, the lobbyists for Lockheed Martin. Formerly a general in the Canadian military, O’Donnell was the superior officer of Canada’s new Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier. Gordon O’Connor, Canada’s new defence minister, is also a former general. After retiring from the military, O’Connor worked for Hill & Knowlton, lobbyists for the Airbus Military company, which is also seeking to sell military transport aircraft to Canada.

Some people buy the government’s argument that Canada’s efforts are helping to bring democracy to Afghanistan. But is there reason to believe that the people who engineered the David Emerson affair are any more interested in bringing democracy to Afghanistan than they are in practising it here in Canada?

Furthermore, in our excitement about the advent of formal democracy there, we should not forget that a substantial number of the members of the country’s parliament who were elected in the widely praised 2005 Afghan election are warlords.

Foreign governments are actively collaborating with these warlords. The latter control not only private armies but the production of opium in Afghanistan, which is the source of 87 percent of the world’s opium.


Despite repeated promises from democracy promoters George W. Bush and Tony Blair that there would be substantial increases in foreign aid to deal with the plight of the war-ravaged country, such undertakings have been ignored in practice.


As a result, a significant portion of the Afghan population has become dependent on opium production for their very survival. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, drugs generated 52 percent of Afghanistan’s gross domestic product in 2005.

As for the insufficient amount of aid that is being sent, it is being handled disastrously. Doctors Without Borders has withdrawn from Afghanistan, declaring that by dressing as civilians U.S. military personnel were undermining aid efforts. The soldiers’ behaviour—giving aid one day and attacking and killing the next—has served to discredit real aid workers in the eyes of Afghans, placing aid workers’ lives in danger.

Bear in mind that the Canadian government, which claims to be in Afghanistan to protect human rights, is handing over captured prisoners to the Afghan military without even minimal guarantees of their safekeeping. This despite the fact that prisoners in Afghan custody are often tortured and abused.

According to (New Democratic Party) defence critic Dawn Black, “[Canada’s prisoner-exchange agreement with the government of Afghanistan] shows a total lack of real commitment to human rights.”

International law obliges Canada to ensure that detainees are protected against torture, not only when they are transferred to Afghan custody but when they are sent onward to a third nation, such as the United States.

Two reports released at a joint news conference held by Amnesty International and the Ottawa-based Polaris Institute this week, written by legal experts, explains that Canadian soldiers abiding by the terms of the Canada-Afghanistan prisoner-exchange agreement could be charged with war crimes in the International Criminal Court. Furthermore, if soldiers who transfer prisoners to another party even suspect that their captives could be abused or tortured, the troops and their commanders could face war-crimes charges.

Chief of Defence Staff Hillier recently announced that Canada’s mission in Afghanistan will require a commitment of at least 10 years. So we have at least a decade of more killing to look forward to, a decade during which the lives of Afghans will descend further into hell, a decade during which more young Canadians will be killed, a decade during which the lies about this war will become as obvious as the lies used to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq.


The sooner Canadians force our political leaders to rethink this misguided mission, the better.


http://mostlywater.org/node/5215?PHPSESSID=8e6a1c95acb9f97857d0bfc181b832e0

 

[Anbarandy]

I agree that Layton is a fool. Leaving Afghanistan for Darfur is idiotic. However, I am still against the Afghan Mission. I am not a member of any political party and consider myself an independant. I do vote in elections.

However, if you are trying to get me all worked up about how the Taliban administer justice I just don't care. Personally I don't want Sharia law in Canada because I'm not like them. I don't hold their values or believe in their religion. But, I don't feel that gives me the right to ram my religious values and culture down their throats.

I thought the reason we went into Afghanistan was to get Bin Laden and his Al Queda scum, and that the Taliban were protecting them. Turns out that we obviously don't give a hoot about Bin Laden or by now we would have caught or killed that evil SOB.

It seems to me that there are other agendas at work here and that nobody in power seems to want to capture or kill that vile individual. The entire war on terror has been forgotten. The objective has been lost.

EU

Good post enduser1. The main and overriding for the Missions in Afghanistan is this: To deny Al Qaeda and other terrorists the safe haven and sanctuary that they were granted by the Taleban with which they used to plan and carry out worldwide and regional terrorist acts.

All else is spawned by that main mission. ie - Military action, security actions, political and economic and restructuring actions all made with the intent to stabilize and eventually deny the return of a safe haven for Al Qaeda and other terrorists. So far it is a success. This is a generational mission.

Bin Laden is 'protected' by various means and methods in Pakistan. Short of a miracle 'inside spy' or a massive Pakistani-US mission in the border area, he will most likely remain there. In any event Bin Laden is basically irrelevant in any pro-active manner to plan and carry out terrorism missions.

 

[tarasbulba]

Just an opinion from the vicinity

Dont want to say much here, but I'll say this. I'm from Afghanistan, and damn glad the Americans and Canadians are over there. The Taliban killed tens of thousands of civilians at a time and openly declared open season for people of certain races and religions on national radio. They were supported entirely by 3 other countries and Afghanistan was half-heartedly supported by the US, Iran and noone else. The Taliban were created by the US (this is NOT a secret) and left with enormous funds after the Russians left. They funded the Talibs and not other Afghans for one basic reason. Same reason why they broke India into Pakistan and left Kashmir in the balance. Its the art of divide and conquer.

So picture this. Its like the US is poor and someone comes along and pays the KKK about 10 billion dollars and leaves. After that you cant blame America for not being able to unite itself. For the same reason Afghans HATED the US for the devil they created that was the Taliban going around, destroying such culture and people and bringing such maddness.

Thank God theyre gone (almost) and thank God 9/11 happened. I'm serious. I'm more concerned about the millions in Afghanistan than 3000 in Manhattan. Thank God it happened since it brought the US back to Afghanistan full circle and forced them to clean their act. Now I just hope when they leave and give one extremist all the power, its us. I hope they leave us with billions of dollars of weapons and pull away all journalists so we can do with the damn Talibs all we please. Unless that happens, I hope (for quite selfish reasons) they and Canada stay. Afghanistan is not comparable with Iraq, most Afghans WANT the coalition forces to stay believe me.

Now I'll get back to reviewing my goddesses.

 

[K Douglas]

Dont want to say much here, but I'll say this. I'm from Afghanistan, and damn glad the Americans and Canadians are over there. The Taliban killed tens of thousands of civilians at a time and openly declared open season for people of certain races and religions on national radio. They were supported entirely by 3 other countries and Afghanistan was half-heartedly supported by the US, Iran and noone else. The Taliban were created by the US (this is NOT a secret) and left with enormous funds after the Russians left. They funded the Talibs and not other Afghans for one basic reason. Same reason why they broke India into Pakistan and left Kashmir in the balance. Its the art of divide and conquer.

So picture this. Its like the US is poor and someone comes along and pays the KKK about 10 billion dollars and leaves. After that you cant blame America for not being able to unite itself. For the same reason Afghans HATED the US for the devil they created that was the Taliban going around, destroying such culture and people and bringing such maddness.

Thank God theyre gone (almost) and thank God 9/11 happened. I'm serious. I'm more concerned about the millions in Afghanistan than 3000 in Manhattan. Thank God it happened since it brought the US back to Afghanistan full circle and forced them to clean their act. Now I just hope when they leave and give one extremist all the power, its us. I hope they leave us with billions of dollars of weapons and pull away all journalists so we can do with the damn Talibs all we please. Unless that happens, I hope (for quite selfish reasons) they and Canada stay. Afghanistan is not comparable with Iraq, most Afghans WANT the coalition forces to stay believe me.

Now I'll get back to reviewing my goddesses.

To say the Taliban was created by the US is not really accurate. The war in Afganistan in the 1980's was a result of cold war politics, in fact most of the problems in the Middle East today stemmed from the cold war - Iran and Iraq being prime examples. The problems are turning full circle to this day because the cold war has never really ended. Russia and China are still undemocratic nations who hold strategic votes on the UN Security Council. They continually back resolutions against Israel yet will not vote to take any action against terrorists and states who continually violate human rights a la Iran and Sudan.

 

[smyth]

The US media never mention the state terrorism exercised by the USA on other countries. Since 1945, the United States has intervened abroad 67 times, causing twelve million deaths, about half by overt action (Pentagon) and covert action (CIA). These are practically unknown to most Americans, and rarely mentioned, with the notable exceptions of Chalmers Johnson's book "Blowback" and Bill Blum's "Rogue State: a Guide to the World's Only Superpower."

 

[onthebottom]

..bottom line, the reasons for the mission in Afghanistan are muddy at best.
Who here would send their son off to die for Democracy in Afghanistan.
To compare this to WW2 is ridiculous. All those Canadians who die there, die for something that in 5 years most Canadinas will just as soon forget about.
It has no chance of sucess.

I think with a few word replacements you could map this to the isolationist's reasons for trying to keep the US out of WWI and WW II

OTB

 

[K Douglas]

The US media never mention the state terrorism exercised by the USA on other countries. Since 1945, the United States has intervened abroad 67 times, causing twelve million deaths, about half by overt action (Pentagon) and covert action (CIA). These are practically unknown to most Americans, and rarely mentioned, with the notable exceptions of Chalmers Johnson's book "Blowback" and Bill Blum's "Rogue State: a Guide to the World's Only Superpower."

Of those 12 million I would bet 90+ % were Vietnamese and Korean, both conflicts which the US had really no choice but to engage.