• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not), how to conduct the mission (or not) & when to leave

We're the insular group ???

by the sound of it... you're the one who wants to isolate yourself

Jingoism is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy". In practice, it refers to the advocation of the use of threats of or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what they perceive as their country's national interests.

Safeguarding our national interests ??? where do you get that idea ???
We are there at the behest of the Afghan government.  We have no particular national interest in Afghanistan other than being moral citzens of the world - helping a country come out of the dark ages.

Nice to know that you've learned some fancy words in school.... too bad you really don't know what they mean and whether the shoe fits before applying it.
 
The aptly named Pinko falls into the category of soon to be sadly disappointed Canadians described in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today's Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=684e68f1-01e0-4805-8b86-d4c5e961ade0
Jack Granatstein
Obama and Canadians

Liberals here cheered after the U.S. election, but anti-Americanism in Canada isn't a tap you can turn on and off

Jack Granatstein, The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Friday, November 14, 2008

Barack Obama's smashing victory in the U.S. elections has kindled hope around the world. The first black president-elect is unquestionably a charismatic figure, a refreshing change from George W. Bush, the president who will likely be remembered as the worst American leader in a hundred years.

And Mr. Obama has been greeted by Canadians as a saviour, the leader who might "go on to become one of the great presidents of the United States, perhaps even in the same category if not personally at the same level as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt." That was columnist Richard Gwyn's somewhat premature assessment that might better have been offered four years from now. More soberly, Marcus Gee in the Globe and Mail pointed to Obama's foreign policy likely following that of the Bush administration.

Mr. Gee is right. The style will change, but much will remain the same. Mr. Obama has taken a hard line on Afghanistan and wants more troops to put down that insurgency. That means there will be new pressures on Ottawa to continue or even increase its troop deployment

He has talked of smacking Pakistan if it doesn't control its northern borders better. He appears to want to re-open NAFTA, and the Democrats are trade protectionists. And away from foreign policy, Mr. Obama supports the death penalty, opposes gay marriage, and is almost as much a born-again Christian as Mr. Bush. His environment policies, moreover, while better than Mr. Bush's, seem about as radical as those of Stephen Harper's government.

So how will Mr. Obama appeal to Canadians once the rosy afterglow wears off?

In particular, how will his presidency sit with the Canadian anti-American coalition, the New Democratic Party, the Greens, the Bloc Québécois, and all those raging grannies of whatever age who despise the United States and all its works?

Not well is my guess. Certainly in the first months, Mr. Obama will be cut some slack. How can one attack an African-American leader who has created a political coalition of whites, blacks, and Latinos strong enough to turn red states blue? How can a silver-tongued orator with charisma to burn be denounced at once? He can't, but if history is any guide, by Spring 2009 he will be.

John F. Kennedy was hugely popular in Canada, so much so that prime minister John Diefenbaker, consumed with jealousy, hated him. But that did not stop many Canadians from denouncing him for the abortive Bay of Pigs attack on Castro's Cuba or from risking nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis 18 months later.

Bill Clinton was similarly cheered by Canadians after his 1992 election victory, but those on the left soon complained about NAFTA and his use of American troops around the world, and prime minister Jean Chrétien tried hard to camouflage his good relations with the Arkansan. It wasn't only Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan that many in Canada detested.

What this means is that Canadian anti-Americanism has never been a tap to be turned on and off. It is moved by age-old historic forces and remains endemic in Canada.

The left sees the United States as the great Satan and, while Mr. Obama might be marginally better than Mr. Bush, the forces of capitalism, even a capitalism in ruins, will oblige him to act to protect American global and continental interests.

So when President Obama calls Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask that the Canadian troop commitment in Kandahar be increased -- and he will -- the response from the anti-American left will be as vehement as if it had been George Bush asking. The shouts won't initially include the same sneers hurled at Mr. Bush -- moron and ignorant cowboy -- but Canadian critics will attack the United States and the Obama administration with equal fury.

Over time as Obama fails to live up to expectations -- no one could meet the high hopes he has created -- new personal slurs will emerge.


Mr. Obama is too young, too inexperienced, a captive of the industrial states/the auto companies/the stuck-in-the-mud unions or the fat cats who financed his rise to power, and so on.

We will see all of this when Mr. Obama's environmental policy and his revisions to trade agreements begin to work their way through Congress. Maude Barlow, Jack Layton, and Elizabeth May will denounce the policies, whatever they may be, as either inadequate or too much and point to a clause or two that, they will say, shows that the Americans are trying to steal Canada's water/jobs/money/independence. Mr. Layton, who made Harper-Bush into almost a single word in our recent election, will by the next one find himself using Harper-Obama in the same way.

In other words, nothing much will change. Canada is a small nation living next to a superpower. Our national interests are not always the same as those of our giant neighbour, and there is a long-lived predisposition to shout at the U.S. to raise nationalist passions here.

Mr. Obama is on his Canadian honeymoon today, but tomorrow he is certain to become merely another target for those who reject America's world view.

Historian J.L. Granatstein is a senior research fellow of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008​


There is a large, strong and organized anti-military faction in Canada. It was rooted, in the '30s, '40s, and '50s in Stalin's old, defunct COMINFORM and COMINTERN but it survived Stalin and B&K and all the rest and sustained itself on a mix of juvenile, knee-jerk anti-Americanism, moral relativism, and a (self-induced) sense of moral superiority. The movement never met a murdering tyrant it could not excuse because (s)he was/is poor or black or just not us.

As we can see, clearly, from the horror story of the schoolgirls and the acid throwing terrorists, Pinko is willfully blind to the most basic facts. We – ISAF, NATO and especially Canada have done 'good' – girls couldn't even go to school a few years ago – and we are winning. We know we're winning because the pond scum people Pinko evidently supports are reverting to random acts of terrorism against the weak and defenceless because that's all they can manage.
 
pinko said:
"Do you agree with the policies of the Taliban"

You certainly are an insular group. I don't particularly care what policies the Taliban may have nor do I buy into the hype used to justify the continued occupation of Afghanistan.

I do note that jingoism is alive and well here though.

You must be from Rabble.ca.

It's nice that you don't care what the politics of the Taliban are nor do you buy into the hype of the "illegal war" and the evil occupation bla bla bla.
Luckily for the people of Afghanistan many of us DO care what happens to them.

The people we're fighting against are people who walk into schools and give little girls the burka test. Thats where they throw acid in the faces of little girls, anyone wearing a burka "passes" the test. Ones that don't are treated to an acid facial.
You'll have some clever retort no doubt-but no one here is really going to care. We have bigger issues to worry about.
 
pinko said:
"Do you agree with the policies of the Taliban"

You certainly are an insular group. I don't particularly care what policies the Taliban may have nor do I buy into the hype used to justify the continued occupation of Afghanistan.

I do note that jingoism is alive and well here though.

I should know better but...

NATO is not occupying Afghanistan.  We are supporting the democratically elected government of Afghanistan against terrorists and insurgents, many of whom are foreigners.  Families in Afghanistan seem to want to send their children to school and have opportunties for progress and advancement.  We are supporting the people of Afghanistan and working to ensure our own security at the same time.  The Taliban allowed themselves to become intertwined with Al-Queda, and that brought the coalition to Afghanistan.

To leave Afghanistan would be to doom them to another open civil war that would still invovle foreign fighters and foreign interests. 
 
pinko said:
You certainly are an insular group. I don't particularly care what policies the Taliban may have nor do I buy into the hype used to justify the continued occupation of Afghanistan.

I do note that jingoism is alive and well here though.
I note the irony of criticising jingoism while subjecting us to more jingoism.
 
pinko said:
"Do you agree with the policies of the Taliban"

You certainly are an insular group. I don't particularly care what policies the Taliban may have nor do I buy into the hype used to justify the continued occupation of Afghanistan.

I do note that jingoism is alive and well here though.

Ummmm....'kay. So what do you propose Canada/ NATO do?

You've identified a problem (your personal opinion) so what is the answer? Don't leave out any details either.

You sparked a discussion...so don't just come in here and troll.

Hell, even Steve Staples comes in here and tries to have a discussion.

Regards
 
Okay freedom fighter. I am aware of Steve Staples position on the issues. It seems to me that Canada would be better served by leaving the combat effort to the Americans and concentrate instead on helping the Afghans in developing an effective policing and judicial system.

The occupation of Afghanistan is largely a strategic effort related to developing petroleum pipelines and it is to this end I see this incursion by the Bush Adminstration and it's stated desire to capture the AlQueada leadership as something they should do on their own. It is interesting to note that the Americans are now considering initiating a dialogue with the so called Taliban with a view to some sort of reconciliation and common ground for peace.

As a civilian whose taxpayer dollars are presumably paying for this effort I am quite concerned that our government has followed the USA lockstep in this incursion while at the same time stripping civil liberties here in Canada in the name of the so called war on terror.

I see no valid reason to support the bully to the south of us just so you and your fraternity might feel good about your cause.

That my point of view doesn't meet with your approval or preconceived standard doesn't bother me in the least.


 
pinko said:
As a civilian whose taxpayer dollars are presumably paying for this effort I am quite concerned that our government has followed the USA lockstep in this incursion while at the same time stripping civil liberties here in Canada in the name of the so called war on terror.

What civil liberties are in jeopardy here in Canada?? ???
 
Once again we are NOT occupying thier country, we are not squatting to rule thier way of life. We ARE there to rebuild and educate, but that also means being in harms way of those who wish to keep thier Fanatical regime in place by ANY means necessary. Thus we are forced to defend ourselves and other innocent people from being targeted by these people.

When people aren't having acid thrown on them or having bombs go off in thier markets will the mission be complete.

Any and all money spent on curbing mindsets such as the Taliban and Al Qeuida is a dollar WELL SPENT!

Cheers.

 
pinko said:
The occupation of Afghanistan

Others have already stated that the CF and its NATO allies are not occupying Afghanistan. Repeating a fallacy over and over again does not make it true.

is largely a strategic effort related to developing petroleum pipelines

What petroleum pipelines? Please elaborate and give support to your claim (not just rumour and gossip).

As a civilian whose taxpayer dollars are presumably paying for this effort

Military personnel pay taxes, too.

I am quite concerned that our government has followed the USA lockstep in this incursion while at the same time stripping civil liberties here in Canada in the name of the so called war on terror.

Stripping which civil liberties exactly? Again, please be specific and include support for this argument.

I see no valid reason to support the bully to the south of us just so you and your fraternity might feel good about your cause.

Fraternity? Well, let's just hope you never need the military to come to your assistance for anything since you think so little of our country's Department of National Defense.  ::)

That my point of view doesn't meet with your approval or preconceived standard doesn't bother me in the least.

Spewing untruths and gossip DOES bother me, though. If you disagree with the mission, that's fine. However, don't spread BS around and then fail to back up any of what you are claiming. Furthermore, don't come to a forum where the vast majority of members are military and make anti-military slurs. This is why many of us have already formed the opinion that you are a TROLL.  ::)
 
pinko said:
Settle down boys.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnsecurity/


Everything in there pertains to people who are doing something they know they shouldn't be doing. Which means if your a terrorist then look out, if your not a terrorist then relax all will be fine you have nothing to worry about.

Self explanatory.
 
pinko said:
Settle down boys.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnsecurity/

Yeah, there's nothing in there that really makes me fear for my civil liberties, since, y'know, I'm not a terrorist.  There's nothing much at all that concerns me here being a fairly vigourous support of civil liberties either.  And nothing you've said about Afghanistan makes any sense to me either, except for you parrotting a lot of discredited nonsense - or at least - summaries of it.
 
pinko said:
It seems to me that Canada would be better served by leaving the combat effort to the Americans and concentrate instead on helping the Afghans in developing an effective policing and judicial system.

Fine, you've stated that.  You have not explained why you think that.

The occupation of Afghanistan is largely a strategic effort related to developing petroleum pipelines and it is to this end I see this incursion by the Bush Adminstration and it's stated desire to capture the AlQueada leadership as something they should do on their own.

*sigh*

It is interesting to note that the Americans are now considering initiating a dialogue with the so called Taliban with a view to some sort of reconciliation and common ground for peace.

Do you have a reference to support that?  Anything?

As a civilian whose taxpayer dollars are presumably paying for this effort I am quite concerned that our government has followed the USA lockstep in this incursion while at the same time stripping civil liberties here in Canada in the name of the so called war on terror.

You, like me and all other taxpayers, have the chance to vote for whoever you want.  Are you as concerned about the money wasted in the Sponsorship scandal?  Who did that benefit?  That was your tax dollars at work too.  "Selective concern"?

I see no valid reason to support the bully to the south of us just so you and your fraternity might feel good about your cause.

The underlined portion is nothing but a rude comment to a profession of people who continue to protect and provide the freedom and security you enjoy daily.  

That my point of view doesn't meet with your approval or preconceived standard doesn't bother me in the least.

And as a Canadian, that is your right.  That you exercise your right to freedom of thought was paid for, and is paid for, in lives and blood of people that are brave enough to take a stand, not just stand on their soap box.  And I salute and support every single one of those ladies and gents.

I encourage you to go to Afghanistan and see the reality for yourself.  Make sure you stop in to see those poor little girls that were blinded with acid and explain to them why Canada/NATO should not be there.
 
LOL

Ya you might be right.
Kinda like how hard core bikers are all F*&% the police!  Until someone dents their bike and they want to bring them to court to get sued. Oh how they love the justice system then.



I just get a kick out of these guys with their illegal war occupying force mantra.  You mention that the UN sanctioned what's going on in afghanistan and the elected president WANTS Nato troops in his country, infact publically asks for MORE nato soldiers and it doesn't phase them they just keep blabbing. A countries elected president asking for more soldiers sure sounds like an unwanted occupying force to me  ::)
 
Some people should go figure themselves.  Michael Den Tandt sets things out nicely in the Sun papers:

Do we still recognize a 'just' war?
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2008/11/14/pf-7408326.html

Immoral, they say. I don't get that. I doubt the eight Kandahar schoolgirls who were sprayed with battery acid this week would get it either, if anyone bothered to ask for their opinion.

We are so comfortable, it seems, with relativity. To call the Taliban evil is terribly unfashionable. Better to persuade ourselves that there are no good guys and no bad guys, anywhere.

In 10 days, some 2,000 high school students from across Canada will gather in Ortona, Italy, to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Ortona, which took place in December of 1943. This battle has long been eclipsed in Canadian history by the Invasion of Normandy. There is an effort underway now to bring the heroism of Canada's Ortona veterans to light.

Lately I've been reading about this battle, in books such as And No Birds Sang, by Farley Mowat, and Ortona, by Mark Zuehlke. Here's what I take away from my reading: The experience of combat was no different then from now. If anything it was more horrifying then, because human life seems to have been cheaper 65 years ago.

The 1,375 Canadian men who were killed at Ortona, most in brutal close-quarters fighting, were generally in their late teen and early 20s. Even the senior officers tended to be quite young. The strategic objectives sought and achieved at Ortona by Gen. Bernard Montgomery, commander of the British 8th Army, were debatable even at the time.

DEVOTION TO DUTY

Yet the mindset that emerges time and time again in first-hand accounts by men who fought at Ortona, is one of devotion to duty, to their fellow soldiers, and a grim determination to see it through...

Every party in Parliament now endorses the idea that Canada must leave Afghanistan in 2011, win, lose or draw.

ON THE WAY OUT

Will our NATO allies still need us in 2011? Will the Afghans whom we've trained and supported still need us? Well, yes. No knowledgeable person thinks Afghanistan will be stable by 2011.

Former Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier famously predicted it would take 20 years, and he was right.

But that requires commitment, grit, patience, endurance and a willingness to suffer. All of which are laudable in retrospect, through the lens of history, in wars long ago.

But today, now, in our time? Immoral.

We'd rather leave, and turn Afghanistan back over to people who throw acid on schoolgirls, in the name of God. Go figure.

Meanwhile, St. Rick Salutin of the Globe and Mail certainly avoids even a suggestion of "relativity":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081114.COSALUTIN14/TPStory/?query=salutin

Silly me. I thought the "double standard" mentioned in a Globe and Mail editorial
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081111.EFUNG11/TPStory/?query=fung+editorial
after the release of kidnapped CBC reporter Mellissa Fung might refer to all the security resources available to Western mainstream journalists, versus their absence among ordinary Afghans, such as schoolgirls blinded by acid in Kandahar...

...Barack Obama, meanwhile, will celebrate his inauguration by ratcheting up violence in Afghanistan. The U.S. commander there has requested 20,000 more troops, which will still leave them with far fewer than the Soviets had when they were chased out. But it should be enough to bomb some more weddings [emphasis added].

Mellissa Fung says she most regrets not finishing a story on refugees that she was doing when kidnapped. But that's a timeless tale that, at most, will spread sadness and despair among viewers without offering a clue about what caused it all or where to go now. The real story is exactly what happened to her: the dearth of security - which has only ever been aggravated by pouring more foreign troops into Afghanistan.

Mark
Ottawa
 
pinko, I read that link that you posted.  I found this part interesting: "If this is the test," he said, "the clauses should sunset because they have not proven absolutely necessary to public safety. The government, in essence, has not proven its case and on these questions where our liberties are at stake the government has to prove the case of public necessity beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Anyone who doesn't believe that these measures are necessary in the world that we live in today should be thanking whatever god they do or do not believe in that, here in Canada, we have not needed to resort to using them yet.  If, and god forbid when, the time comes to use them, I'm sure you won't mind having them in place.
 
Flawed Design said:
LOL

Ya you might be right.
Kinda like how hard core bikers are all F*&% the police!  Until someone dents their bike and they want to bring them to court to get sued. Oh how they love the justice system then.



I just get a kick out of these guys with their illegal war occupying force mantra.  You mention that the UN sanctioned what's going on in afghanistan and the elected president WANTS Nato troops in his country, infact publically asks for MORE nato soldiers and it doesn't phase them they just keep blabbing. A countries elected president asking for more soldiers sure sounds like an unwanted occupying force to me  ::)

Yep, God forbid.  

There are always going to be these wingnuts that are so blinded by their Anti-American rage that they can't see the facts even when they're laid out for them like an all you can eat buffet.  "I'll have a slab of misinformation with a side of crazy please, oh and a little righteous indignation to wash it all down with - thanks"

But, my mom always used to say "You can't teach a Heinz Pickle nothing".
 
pinko said:
Okay freedom fighter. I am aware of Steve Staples position on the issues. It seems to me that Canada would be better served by leaving the combat effort to the Americans and concentrate instead on helping the Afghans in developing an effective policing and judicial system.

The occupation of Afghanistan is largely a strategic effort related to developing petroleum pipelines and it is to this end I see this incursion by the Bush Adminstration and it's stated desire to capture the AlQueada leadership as something they should do on their own. It is interesting to note that the Americans are now considering initiating a dialogue with the so called Taliban with a view to some sort of reconciliation and common ground for peace.

As a civilian whose taxpayer dollars are presumably paying for this effort I am quite concerned that our government has followed the USA lockstep in this incursion while at the same time stripping civil liberties here in Canada in the name of the so called war on terror.

I see no valid reason to support the bully to the south of us just so you and your fraternity might feel good about your cause.

That my point of view doesn't meet with your approval or preconceived standard doesn't bother me in the least.

Pipelines: The USA and Europe were negotiating with the Taliban for pipeline access BEFORE 9/11.  Now, the pipeline is probably moot, as now technically/economically recoverable oil in the USA - the light sweet crude from the Bakkens play, for example - will soon help make the USA oil independent.
Plus this:
"U.S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!
Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains
lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world is more
than 2 TRILLION barrels."
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-33062

So, why fight for oil we don't need?  
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3021/
 
There was a time when the left wing types would drop what they are doing and fight for their beliefs, I wonder if the Leftwing veterans of the Spanish civil war are turning in their graves at the thought of their political descendants?
 
Back
Top