Canadians now support troops in Afghanistan

Written By: Anonymous
Date: 2006-03-19 11:44:00
<a href="/article/214447851-canadians-now-support-troops-in-afghanistan">Article Link</a>

Prime Minister Stephen Harper not only talked the talk when it came to the military but he walked the walk, making his first trip outside of Canada as PM a two-day surprise visit to Afghanistan where he addressed the troops in the volatile region of Kandahar. His actions were a far cry from those of his predecessors, who went to far less dangerous areas of the world and did nothing more than pose with some soldiers in a photo/op.

The letters to the editor and callers to talk shows by those who are opposed to Canada’s role in Afghanistan reveal that they are by and large influenced by one factor: George W. Bush. Those who criticize Stephen Harper by saying that he only travelled to Afghanistan because he’s in Bush’s pocket are in fact the ones who are the most heavily influenced by the U.S. president. Many Canadians are opposed to the Afghanistan intervention on the well worn theory that if we are nice to terrorists, they’ll be nice to us. But what is really funny is the number of people who oppose our involvement in Afghanistan simply because Bush favours it. It is these people who are being governed by Bush’s actions, not Harper and the Conservatives. We should stay out of Afghanistan simply because Bush and the Americans are there.

<a href="http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/weinreb031606.htm">http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/weinreb031606.htm</a>

[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 21, 2006]

a CTV poll the other day showed canadians were against being in afghanistan.

either i misheard and misread or you did.

small wonder no one trusts any media at all.

aahhhhh...here it is udated feb 24/2006...62% against

I GUESS YOU MISREAD...

GOOGLE CTV afghanistan poll.

No, now that they have waved the bloody shirt, Patriotic Types are supporting the war out of guilt over injured troops.

Or they are just lying to us again, telling us what we collectively think....

“Talking about Afghanistan and the military would just remind Canadians of the United States and the last thing that the Liberals would have wanted was to alienate their anti-American base”{

“Many Canadians are opposed to the Afghanistan intervention on the well worn theory that if we are nice to terrorists, they’ll be nice to us.”

These are just two examples of the coarse gravel in the gears of this guy’s logic. Hello? Many Canadians, like their American counterparts will buy into this kind of flim flam but, hopefully, not too many of them will be the regular readers of this website.

"Supporting the troops in Afg" and "Supporting the troops being in Afg.", or the politicians who sent them there, are competely contradictory questions and concepts.

I support the troops, but not the people who sent them there, or are writing childish, propaganda blurbs, trying to justify this irresponsible action.

Even the junkiest Soviet propaganda was a step above the crap this guy is writing.

Ed Deak.

Terrorism and Sham - poo 
 
Is it Sham poo, or real poo? 
Ever since 911 we have bee indoctrinates with the Memetic vira of ‘sleeper cells’ (yet to be awakened, it appears) various so named ‘terrorists’ who will bomb, main and kill any and all in order to get at those forty virgins. 
Well at least that is what we are told, and I have no choice but to believe it because it comes directly from G*d, via Bush. And the bring democracy to The Middle East, kinda like Gunboat diplomacy in China. 
 
 
. <a href="http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws2.htm">http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws2.htm</a> 
(Gunboat diplomacy had its origins in the Opium War, when the Chinese rebelled against the British importation of opium into China, and the British response was to send a gunboat up the Yangtze River. The resort to force in diplomatic initiatives has roots in antiquity, from the original disputes in the Fertile Crescent; but every generation has refined the use of coercion, to the point that today government's use of coercion is a well-oiled machine. There is almost an unwritten gentlemen's agreement that national governments will look the other way when any one of them abuses its own population; and when a strong national government attempts to overwhelm a weak nation's government, the world community feigns disapproval. All action is deliberately confused, however, because underlying all of the appearance of law and order, the world community still honors the law of conquest.) 
 
 
<a href="http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMLEX.html">http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMLEX.html</a> 
 
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism</a> 
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism</a> 
 
Definition of terrorism 
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. One 1988 study by the US Army (PDF) found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used. For this reason, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc. 
 
Among these definitions, several do not recognize the possibility of the legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country, and would thus label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence. Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment 
Barnun was off on the timing, There is a sucker born every SECOND! 
See ya in the funny papers--- to realise our knowledge is ignorance is a noble thought. 
To regard our ignorance as knowledge- 
This is mental illness 
Lao-Tzo

While some polls are quite accurate, this one smells....especially those media polls that are used to try to persuade people so blatantly.....no war for non-Canadian interests.

---
"A Liberal is someone who refuses to take his own side in a fight".

-Robert Frost

Strategic Counsel has ruined its own reputation. Allan Gregg was
part of Brian Mulroney's team ... and has never lost the rightwing
faith. Strategic Counsel continues to pop up at STRATEGIC
moments, such as on the eve of the BC provincial election, with
spectacularly off-the-rails polling results which invariably improve
the Conservative fortunes. (And make no mistake, BC Liberals are
LINOs -- Liberals In Name Only -- made up mostly of old
Conservative, Reform, Socreds.)

I would never believe anything reported by Strategic Counsel,
especially at the precise moment when their polling results are so
necessary to Conservatives.

This sudden, convenient change of Canadian minds, from an anti-
war position to a Conservative warmongering position,
could not have happened. And those poll results stink to high
heaven. Don't be fooled. There's too much at stake.

Who is the Canadian Free Press? I think they should rename themselves the "Aren't we lucky there's free speech in Canada rag"? Why was the submitter anonymous? Huh? Huh?

I don't read the National Enquirer and I now know not to go back to the CFP either. I had to shake off pop ups and I now probably have a virus attatched to me. Icky, poo, yuk, blah.

---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

Here is a good article: 
 
Fear of a grey planet 
Stuart Trew 
 
One silly little poll comes out last week suggesting 62 per cent of Canadians would never have sent troops to Afghanistan had they ever been asked, and it's like the sky is falling. In a sense, I suppose it is. 
 
To recap, Canada helped Dubya oust the Taliban in 2001 even though none of the 9/11 terrorists were Afghans (they were Saudis and Egyptians for the most part). This was brushed aside at the time as being less important than freeing the women of Afghanistan from their burkas and finally purging the country of al-Qaeda training camps the CIA had known about - Jesus, they helped build them! - for decades. In fact, until shortly before "Operation Enduring Freedom" (I feel dirty just saying it), the Taliban were U.S. buddies for obvious but underreported reasons: In the ongoing history of American foreign policy, despots have always been easier to control than democratically elected governments. 
 
Luckily for Canada's blabbering leaders of the time, there was no political or media opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan and our troops jumped headlong into the U.S. "war on terrorism" without any debate. 
 
Today there is still no debate, at least not in the House of Commons or in the pages of our illustrious mainstream press. Maybe that's why The Globe and Mail, which last week asked Canadians what they think of it all, was baffled that not even its readers shared the paper's popular brand of warlord humanism. According to a hastily drafted editorial in the weekend edition, Canadians simply did not understand our role in Afghanistan because our leaders were not doing a good enough job of explaining its virtues! 
 
Do you see where this argument falls apart? Our leaders are unanimously in favour of keeping Canadians fighting in Afghanistan and say as much on a regular basis. Our daily papers not only faithfully ("objectively") reproduce those unanimous political opinions, but also make it clear in regular editorials that they agree with them. Our "leaders" could not make their position clearer or more often, and yet still 62 per cent of Canadians disagree with them! 
 
Clearly this is not a case of missing "facts" but of thinking about the invasion/occupation (whatever you want to call it) of Afghanistan differently. Of course not everyone is worried (as I am) that unless we pull out now Canada will be sucked permanently into America's imperial orbit, acting only as an unwitting extension of its hyper-militaristic will. There are those who simply don't want to see Canadians dying for the sake of U.S. strategic/economic interests in Asia. Others would rather our troops be made available to a reinvigorated United Nations for peacekeeping missions instead of bandied around the world by NATO. The point is, they refuse to believe in the necessity of continued involvement in Afghanistan, no matter how often (and by how many people) it is promoted. 
 
The Globe's response was predictable - an editorial correcting our obvious false consciousness - but I could not have guessed last Friday how far they would push their re-education plan. 
 
The philosopher kings in the editorial department must have been busy over the weekend, because on Monday much of the back page comments section was taken up by four 400-word opinions of Afghanistan from our new Defence Minister and three federal defence critics. The Conservatives say it is Canada's duty to fight the good fight in Afghanistan, killing and incarcerating (illegally at Gitmo) Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters as NATO orders. The Liberals agree (they're the ones who committed us to fight). The Bloc agrees (it is our humanitarian duty to fight). And the NDP? Well, they'd like a chance to debate it in the House, but as the Globe reported on Tuesday, Canada's only left-wing party "still broadly supports the objective of stabilizing the Afghan government, and strongly supports the troops overseas." 
 
On Tuesday, that same space in the Globe (A15) was dominated by an op-ed from historian J. L. Granatstein, who also chairs the advisory council of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee, whose aim is to "provide Canadians with factual and comprehensive policy analysis to promote their understanding of Canada's foreign policy and the state of our military preparedness and national security." 
<a href="http://www.ottawaxpress.ca/news/firstwatch.aspx?iIDArticle=8535">http://www.ottawaxpress.ca/news/firstwatch.aspx?iIDArticle=8535</a> 
 
--- These days, if you are not confused, you are not thinking clearly. Mrs. Irene Peters

Granatstein is a smart guy I've had mixed feelings about....his writing is good though he does at times dismiss Canada.....he has stood up for Canadian history though where few would and has covered it and complained about the decline of the military and the history tought in our schools in two of his books....I think he is simply on a payroll and a paid expert.

---
"A Liberal is someone who refuses to take his own side in a fight".

-Robert Frost

Allen Gregg also was ridiculously pro-Liberal last election....he changes with the wind.

---
"A Liberal is someone who refuses to take his own side in a fight".

-Robert Frost

Something to read. and understand why! 
 
"Why We Are In Afghanistan - Joining The Dots". 
March 08, 2006, 07:52:19 by Ruxted Editor 
Why we fight (2006) 
 
Some Canadians, maybe even most Canadians are opposed to or at least sceptical about the current mission in Afghanistan. 
 
The Ruxted Group considers that former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien: 
 
 
Did the right thing, the honourable thing in early 2002 when he ordered nearly 1,000 Canadian soldiers to go to Afghanistan and fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda; 
 
Probably did the logistically sensible thing when he restricted that mission to one, six month, tour of duty; 
As was his wont, took careful note of the radical shift in Canadian public opinion which occurred after the Anglo-American (plus) invasion of Iraq; and 
Ordered a second Afghan mission – with ISAF in Kabul – for base and dishonourable reasons: to appease the USA which was displaying growing frustration with and distrust of Canada. Many Canadians felt that US frustrations might be vented in other areas – like border restrictions with severe economic impacts - right in Canadians’ wallets. It appears that PM Chrétien calculated that sending troops to Afghanistan and playing a ‘lead’ role in a UN sanctioned, NATO(+) mission would mollify official Washington while not alarming Canadians. 
 
 
Former Prime Minister Martin endorsed Chrétien’s decisions and, in 2005, agreed, in accordance with Afghanistan’s request to NATO, to shift the mission focus from Kabul to the provinces. Because he dithered Canada was amongst the last to agree; the relatively safe, easy provinces were all taken by other allies; Kandahar was left. 
 
The official rationale for the current mission is: "… The Government of Canada's main objective is to help Afghanistan to become a stable, democratic and self-sustaining state that never again serves as a terrorist haven." 
(From: <a href="http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/background-en.asp">http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/background-en.asp</a> ) 
 
Let us step backwards: 
 
 
Afghanistan was, most likely still is, in some regions, a haven for terrorists. Al Qaeda had training camps and bases in Afghanistan; it was the base from which it fermented anti-Western sentiment and from which it, and its allies, planned and mounted terrorist attacks against the West; 
Canada is a charter member of the liberal-democratic, secular West. Even though there have been no direct attacks on Canadian cities and even though fairly few (but one is too many) Canadians have suffered from terrorist attacks, Canada is part of the target; Canadians are in Al Qaeda’s sights. Al Qaeda has declared war on the West – that means it has declared war on Canada, too. There are those who deny this. Such deniers misguided, at best; 
 
Afghanistan became a terrorist base because the national government was overthrown by Soviet aggression in 1973, was replaced by increasingly weak, corrupt and illegitimate governments and, finally, post 1995, by the Taliban who allowed criminal and terrorist organizations to take root and flourish; and 
In 2001 President Bush demanded that the Taliban expel Al Qaeda and turn over bin Laden. The Taliban refused; the UN endorsed (UNSC Res. 1368, 1373 and others) US led military action to ‘suppress’ terrorism. 
 
For those Canadians who insist that our foreign policy must be made in New York, by the UN, this is, exactly, what the UN said: 
 
 
Quote 
The Security Council, 
 
Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, 
 
Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security 
caused by terrorist acts, 
… 
Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable; 
 
4. Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 (1999) of 19 October 1999; 
 
5. Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations … 
 
That's clear, the United Nations says that we, Canada, a UN founding member, must “suppress terrorist acts” and hold accountable “those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors” of terrorism. That’s what the UN says it wants us to do; that’s what Canada is doing in Afghanistan. 
 
Canada, along with NATO (plus), has decided to do more – to go beyond just suppressing terrorism and holding the Afghans responsible for the actions of their former, and would be, leaders. Canada, and the others, decided to help the Afghan people so that they can better hold their own leaders to account. 
 
Canadian soldiers are doing still more: they are defending Canada, they are defending Canadians right now, in Afghanistan. The more Canadian soldiers there are in Afghanistan and the better they do their hard, unpleasant, even deadly work, the harder it is for the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regain a foothold in Afghanistan and use its rough, difficult terrain as a secure base from which they can launch attacks on our allies, our friends and neighbours and on us. The more Canadians there are in Afghanistan and the better they do their hard, unpleasant, even deadly work, the harder it is for Al Qaeda to secure and retain moral, financial, political and logistical support elsewhere. If countries know that harbouring Al Qaeda will bring NATO soldiers to root them out then the support dries up. 
 
This will be a long, long war – even the work of a generation. This is not easy duty. Canadians are suffering and dying. Our friends are dying. We affirm that their deaths are not wasted; they are dying doing what they swore to do: defending Canada and safeguarding Canadians. 
 
Canadians must reject the siren song of the timid nay-sayers. They are wrong; they do not understand the issue at hand; they fool themselves and try to fool others. This is a war; it is our war. We are Canadians – the same Canadians who earned our charter member of the West spurs in the Battle of the Atlantic, the Battle of Britain and at Hong Kong. Dieppe, Normandy and in Korea; we do not run away from hard work, danger or even death – not when it is in defence of our country and our fellow citizens. 
 
So: Stand up Canada! Shed a tear, please, for our lost young friends. Sadly, there will be more; but see them in their proper perspective as part of the long, long line of the greatest Canadians who have done their duty and now "shall not grow old as we who are left grow old." We are proud of and grateful to all those who have played their part in defending Canada, defeating our enemies, and advancing the cause of peace for all people, everywhere. 
--- 27 in the military, 9 tours.