Previous  1  2  3  Next

Iraq does not have an elected gov't. They have an defacto appointed gov't from the US.

The fault of violence rest entirely with the US.

It never fails to amaze me tha the US uses brutal tactics despite superior training and equpiment in order to assert peace ignoring that fact that perhaps saddam had to do the same thing.



The Taliban arose because the bastards we helped overthrow the legit gov't were so bad that th eworld looked to the taliban as the saviours.

They didn't control the whole country, thats true. Neither do we. Whats your point?



Thats crap. The same UN that we piss on when it affects us is the same UN we recognize as the authority when it comes to supporting foreign wars.

The current afghan gov't is so filled with opium dealers that Canada is a defacto drug supplier.

On the up side we should all get cheaper heroin.

   

An elected government under the occupation isn't elected, rather picked by the occupying force. Thats why there is resistance, if the government was truly elected then majority would oppose the resistance.

I never said state sponsored but it is state organizations such as the police and the army that has been carrying out these crimes, whether the government allows it or not, I am not sure. But, its apprent that the army and the police is still divided, so what was the point of placing this government in power again?



It doesn't matter who recognizes who, just because Iran does not recognize Israel, does not mean its not there. Taliban were a force that controlled the area and the people were not opposed to it since they just liberated Afghanistan from Russia, they were Afghans and they understood the majority. It was a fact after the Russian war that Taliban were the official government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, which was undoubtedly recognized by all.



Why is it that these legitimate governments that were brought into place under a occupation are recognized immediately and why is it that they always favor the USA? Its a known fact today that the Afghan governments power is limited to Kabul, and rest of the Afghanistan is still controlled by the same elements that it was controlled by prior to the occupation. Plus, poppy fields that were eliminated during Taliban reign are back up and prospering under the same warlords that USA has put as rulers of the country now.



There is a difference between occupying a country and intervening between a war that is taking place between two ethnic groups. Afghanistan or Iraq has nothing to do with Bosnia, since Bosnia was fighting for its independence fro Serbs yet there was no war in Afghanistan or Iraq before the invasion.



Yes, I understand how the government works, thats not what I was referring to , I was referring the people who are in the government and the army, are you at all aware of the role of Muslim Mujahideen in the Bosnian War?

   

There were two national legislative elections in Iraq in 2005: Iraqi legislative election, January 2005 for an assembly to draft a Constitution and Iraqi legislative election, December 2005 for the first assembly under the new constitution.

Iraq election at-a-glance



The fault of violence rests entirely with those who use it as a means to advance their agenda. How you can dismiss the belligerent groups who are trying to destablise the region and instigate a civil war as being innocent and the evil rests with the USA for removing a despot who was using even more brutal force to contain these threats is beyond me.



If the world looked to the Taliban as saviours why did every country on the planet except three refuse to recognise them?



We control the entire country in being that we have complete freedom of movement within and absolute responsibility administratively for those regions. During that movement we may be engaged but there is no autonomous region operating as a seperate state as there had been under the former Northern Alliance.




"Crap"? The UN was only one of about 250 organisations and international bodies sending representatives who participated in the monitoring of the elections. Also by scale, the UN played a very insignificant role with the OSCE, Anfrel, Fefa and NDI being the predominate players.

I'm not sure if you completely understand the UN's involvement.




Opium cultivation is a serious problem and is a principle source of revenue for both local warlords and Taliban insurgents. There can be no denying that the culture of drug money will permeate through government in the form of bribes or graft in the same manner that corporate money in Canada influences politicians and causes most of our political scandels.

But the Afghan government is in its infancy. We wax poetically of our own struggles with democracy in the founding of our nation but somehow believe the transition in a region that has never known the concept should be smooth and without incident.

   

Sasme

Even my saddam hating iraqi christian tells me the iraqi gov't is nothing less then US appointed thugs.

He's right. Thast all there is to say.



The US invaded and brought it all. They are as responsible for the results as surely as you are responsible for yours.

The vast majority of the "insurgents" are people who hate US occupation and are defending their homeland. there is not one sigle US soldier who can claim that.



Same reason as always, politics. It wasn't the world. The world didn't give a fuck. Those involved did.



The nazis controlled france.

we invaded and did the wrong thing. Time to rectify this.



Really? The same UN who we told to fuck off over native rights? The same UN you will tell to fuck off over global warming?

That UN?

Fuck the UN.



bollocks. The opium is controlled entirely by our side. The Taliban almost destroyed it and fought against it.

We allied ourselves with the opium lords because they aren't religious.

Its time to leave. Its time to sort our own lives out before we fuck up somebody elses.

If you believe its right for us to be in Afghanistan then I will be in Alberta soon to raise your children.

   

I can only lead a horse to water.......



The US invasion may have fostered the climate for the belligerents to operate within, but they are no more responsible for the actions of a third party then anyone else. The blame for violence must rest with the perpetrators. Has our domestic culture of 'blame the victim' become so ingrained that we extend it so liberally to geopolitical events?



These insurgents are taking opportunity for unrest to advance their position. Iran and other country's are also a significant instigating factor. You are supposedly well read, why do you dismiss them?



I want to think about what you are saying. Most Islamic countries refused to recognise them as did clear enemies of the world such as North Korea. Only those three countries with a vested interest in propagating a ruling class based on radical Whabbism participated. To presume the Taliban wasn't recognised because the oththeer 191 countries were bored with the state of affairs in Afghanistan is a little silly.



I mean to say you are ascribing far more influence and power to the UN in Afghanistan that never existed. In other words, you are directing your comments at a phantom entity.

Refocus and if you truly believe the elections were rigged then you must direct your frustrations at the OSCE etc.



1. You are making extreme statements suggesting that Canada and her representatives are involved in drug trafficking.

2, The Taliban actually encouraged the growth of opium as their graft from the warlords was their major source of income for the portion Afghanistan they controlled.

"The Taliban have provided an Islamic sanction for farmers ... to grow even more opium, even though the Koran forbids Muslims from producing or imbibing intoxicants. Abdul Rashid, the head of the Taliban's anti-drugs control force in Kandahar, spelled out the nature of his unique job. He is authorized to impose a strict ban on the growing of hashish, `because it is consumed by Afghans and Muslims.` But, Rashid told me without a hint of sarcasm, `Opium is permissible because it is consumed by kafirs in the West and not by Muslims or Afghans."

- Rashid,Taliban, (2000), p.118-119

In an effort to extort foreign aid the Taliban officially decreed that poppies could not be grown and claimed to have successfully reduced the harvest from the usual 13,000 acres to 17. I myself do not recognise the Taliban's official figures.



We cooperate with multiple groups and given the size and influence the warlords have over the Afghanistan soceity, we are let with little choice if we wish to minimise bloodshed and avoid a catalyst for another countrywide war.



We should have thought of that before we went there. Once in we need to be committed and take a lessons learned approach towards future engagements.



My children are all proficient in the use of firearms and the older ones have a working knowledge of defensive and offensive tactics. You can come but don't during times of strife or you'll wind up a pooft of pink mist floating over our driveway.

   

They invaded. All blame and violence rests with them.

No other conclusion is possible.



Support the vichy do you?


Every insurgent is a freedom fighter. They are fighting to free their land from invaders.

You would do the same.

We are on the wrong side. Period.



We fucked up.

We failed to support the USSR helping the legit afghan gov't.

We fucked up. We let this happen.



You should have recognized satire.

Be that as it may will you sacrifice your children for Afghanistan?

   

That statement is way off. The violence in Iraq has nothing to do with liberating the homeland from an occupying force but rather to incite a civil war in order that Iraq can be partioned along ethnic lines.



At the time it was not in the interests of Canada to facilitate Soviet expansion as they were by far a greater threat to our national security.



I shall certainly respect their choice to put themselves in harms way to advance the interests of Canada. If those interests happen to lie in Afghanistan then so be it.

Of course, there's always a private expedition to hunt feral Afghanis

[youtube width=425 height=355]http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=e0IFjjVYDpE[/youtube]

   

No. The US is responsible. They should not have invaded and are as such responsible for the violence they brought into the country regardless of any other considerations.

They are not the victims but the perpetrators.



Dismiss them? Quite frankly I think that they and others are taking the very reasonable belief that its better to "fight them there rather then in their old country".

In addition, they are Iraqs neighbours. The US is not. They have a vested interest in their neighbours just as we do in our neighbours. In addition, the Iranians are helping their allies just as much as we are.

Regardless of all other consideration the US must accept responsibility and leave.

For somebody who takes a dim view on gov't interference in your own life you seem very willing to allow that same gov't (in this case western gov'ts) to do it to others.



I want you to think about what happened. The last real gov't begged the USSR for help which they sent begrudgingly. Western societies took the opportunity to vilify them and the subsequent war. They were eventually ousted with western help and the world saw those very same freedom fighter mujahadeen turn about to be worse then we could have imagined. The Taliban eventually rose to power and were initially hailed as heros. Karzai hated the ties to Pakistan (he wanted India) and eventually left them. The Taliban turned out to be more of the same and the western world cared little, even when reports of atrocities surfaced. Muslims leaders tried to prevent the destruction of ancient statues but otherwise applauded islamic adnerance as well as the destruction of all alcohol and heroin/drug production.

Nobody gave a shit until 9/11. Bush negotiated with the Taliban for OBL's head thereby proving by proxy that they were the legit gov't and that they only wanted to capture him. Had they complied we wouldn't be there. Bush would have tried and executed OBL and then gone ahead with Iraq and simply ignored Afghanistan as unimportant.

No matter how you slice it we have interfered in their lives and this BS about bringing democracy to them is just a load of propaganda shite.

You can lead a horse to water........



Actually what I mean is this dishonest tendency of people to hold the UN as both the justification and authority when it says what they want then turn around and cry foul when they go against them. Alot of pro-war Canadians like to point to UN authority as all the justification and authority then need but when that same UN berates Canada on Native affairs then suddenly we tell them to butt out.



What I am saying is that we are providing the backdrop for this to happen. Scapes the real expert but I'll just sunarize a few points. Karzai's gov't is deep in it and it is no coincedence that heorin production has skyrocketed since we invaded and grown in proportion to the amount of control we have.

We could easily draw parallels to the whole Vietnam-CIA-drug rings.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... eroin.html
http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/200402 ... _opium.php

The fact is that something is very wrong if we cannot control a country or train its people to do the same in more time then it took us to win 2 world wars against actual armies. Either we aren't trying, our allies aren't trying or we are out and out lying as to who actually controls the poppy production.

No matter how you slice it, its still their country and their responsibility and we have absolutely no right to be there.



We did such a great job in yugoslavia didn't we?

You are essentially saying that we have to bed down with thieves and murderers in order to bring order.

No we don't. They have to bring about change by themselves and if they want it bad enough then they will achieve it. We did. So can they.



We did. Hillier was more then a driving force behind ensuring we deployed troops there. Bush wanted war at all costs and so many people wanted war, any war, for no other reason then to strike back at islamic people for revenge. Most didn't care about any consequences.

Its entirely why the greater the likelihood somebody supports the war the greater the likelihood they hold the opinion that we should glass their countries or bomb their cities becasue of the troubles muslims cause around the world.

Now you are on record with saying that you don't believe in using our military in such a manner but once committed you will see it through. In other words you feel its not your place to criticize the mission while in uniform.

Thats rather scary isn't it? Thats how atrocities start.

Regardless, it is my responsibility to stop my gov't from doing something I feel they shouldn't, especially if as you say, the military cannot.

   

I am a born and raised Albertan, who happens to be 100% honkey, and I have to say that is the most racist poll I have ever taken, you should be ashamed of yourself.

   

And what 'race' would it be discriminating against?

   

I don't think you understand the meaning of "race". But if you found that poll offensive then stick around because on this site you're going to see a lot worse as people exercise their right to express themselves and you'll find few are too concerned with upsetting your personal predilections.

Also, you can be born in Alberta but never be an Albertan. I suggest you stick your nose back in this weeks issue of Vue or See if you don't want to come across thoughts that bother you.

   

Yep that's the solution, let's start with a Cut & Run from Afghanistan so they can get back to executing women publicly!
Typical Isolationist..

   

Every time there is talk about Afghanistan you right wing fanatic clowns pullthat photo out. I'd repost some of the gory photos of dead children caused by our guys but we had enough of that.

We have no right to arbitrarily decide to invade a foreign country simply becasue we don't like them.

If you are really so gung-ho about human rights then start at the top. Invade China instead of cowardly picking on the smallest and weakest possible opponent.

typical bully.

Really set an example then.

   

If someone hated Canadians solely because they are Canadian, I would consider them racist too. What do you call someone who discriminates solely based on religion or nationality, I can imagine that you are one of those who would be first to cry foul when it happens to a Christian or judging by the flag beside your avatar, a Jew. All would be ignorant and narrow minded even if their isn't a label to put on them, I would say racist fits best, although, I guess I could use bigot.

You are as free, as is anyone, to post whatever discriminatory polls you want, as I am free to express my disgust with you.

I also find it humorous that you would seek to label my views and what I should continue to read, solely based on my opinion about your poll, it just shows the intellect level you possess, keep it up.

   

That's like saying its McDonald's fault for making you fat. Instead of condemning the US so much, at least pepper in the odd condemnation for Iran who is actually funding and coordinating a lot of the insurgent activity.



I believe that Iran is not instigating all these problems out of an attempt to fight a war with the US on Iraqi soil. If they are it is failing miserably as those who bear the brunt of Iran's involvement tend to be Iraqi civilians.



The Iranians only interest is in ensuring that they have sufficient control over the new Iraq. Iran and Iraq have never been all that friendly and I would certainly never use the word "allies" in describing their relationship.

Now describe for me how Iran is exactly "helping" Iraq.



The US should stick it out until such time as Iraq can function on its own. They owe the Iraqi people as much for leading the charge to invade in the first place. I think Iran should accept responsibility and leave.



As I've stated before: I believe we have no business interfering in any country unless that country is a potential or clear threat to Canada then that threat must be eliminated even if it means the complete destruction of the enemy.

Afghanistan as it formally stood was definitely a potential threat to Canada. Though I didn't favour military intervention at the time, I believe it is in the best interest of Canada to ensure Afghanistan is no longer a threat.



Again, at the time the USSR was a far larger threat to the security for Canada and any action in Afghanistan, though at the bequest of the government, was also undertaken as part of the larger scheme to advance the interests of the Soviet empire. Afghanistan just happened to become one of those battlefields where we in the west fought a war of attrition.



And for many hardcore Pashtuns they still are. But remember, the Taliban were created by the Pakistanis and specifically designed to bring Afghanistan under a level of control that could be influenced by the Pakistani government.



I don't know anything about this but if true, it certainly shows good judgment on Karzai's part. Where India has been a success, Pakistan has been a complete failure.



The west and pretty much the entire world was concerned enough to refuse to recognise them as a legitimate government.



Correction: The MSM you derive most of your information didn't give a shit. The rest of the world was concerned enough that they were placing sanctions of Afghanistan and refusing to recognise the government.



Perhaps. Bush did give the Taliban a chance to hand over OBL but that hardly makes them a legitimate government. They just happened to have the guy.



I personally could care less if they get democracy or we drill another water well etc. So long as the threat to Canada is contained or eliminated that should be our only real concern. Everything else is secondary and the impetus for the primary.



Agreed. There is a hypocrisy in some quarters but I don't believe it is confined to the "pro war" crowd as you assert. Examples can be found across the entire political spectrum of people using the UN to endorse or advance their cause.



We are giving the opportunity for Afghanistan to operate with as much autonomy as possible. They make many bad choices. I personally believe we should go in hard.



How long has he lived there for?



Poppy cultivation has consistently risen in our AOR because of our policy to allow the Taliban to encourage its growth as a source of funding rather then risk the wrath of warloards and farmers who may also turn against us. I feel that is a failed policy and would encourage complete eradication as much of that winds up as heroin on the streets of Vancouver which is the leading cause of death of young people there and killing far more civilians every year then military deaths.



Europe was easy because you are fighting and enemy that is essentially the same as you religious and culturally.

In the case of Afghanistan it is not just a case of defeating an enemy, but also nation building and doing so with absolutely no foundation.



So long as they have the potential to return to being a threat to Canada then we should remain. I do not believe they have achieved that level of stability. As I've said before, in hindsight I think the Liberals sent us to a just war and were correct. Do you believe they were wrong to make the decision? (please answer yes or no with no provisos if possible).



Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia and Repulika Srpska have been a huge success.



And you are essentially saying that we should cower from them.



I agree....until such point as they are a threat to Canada.





There are always people like that....just as there are those who oppose war at all costs even if it means capitulating to every demand of an enemy. It is simplistic to think that Bush invaded simply to appease a certain constituency and the forty odd countries that formed the coalition only participated out of fear of economic reprisal.

A decision was made that Saddam was a threat, or potential future threat to global security and these countries devoted resources willingly making their own decisions. Canada's Liberals chose not to participate evaluating the threat to be exaggerated. In hindsight it appears they were right.

Had an emboldened terrorist organisation operating from Afghanistan toppled the CN tower onto the streets of downtown Toronto killing 5000 following a Liberal refusal to deal with the Afghani threat, then in hindsight we'd be saying ti was a poor decision of the Liberals to have not defused the problem when the opportunity presented itself.



And I could debate that the more likely you are to try and stuff a flower down the barrel of a terrorists gun then the more likely you are to support despotic leaders and ruthless self serving regimes. However, I don't think these assertion do anything constructive to advance the debate.



I shall continue to maintain my record of not interfering in countries that are not a threat to the security of Canada. Sudan and the Darfur region come to mind. I do not criticise the mission out of some respect for some partiality I suppose you are alluding to but rather because when my nation is at war I will not do anything to embolden the enemy or threaten the lives of Canadians. The Taliban are quoted as saying they find encouragement in those who oppose the war in Canada and feel that if they can fill enough body bags the resolve of many will deteriorate and they will demand that Canada retreat or surrender their responsibility.



I think I could more effectively argue that atrocities start by ignoring or encouraging those who commit them. Your position on Afghanistan would clearly lead to more atrocities being committed in that country.



Should have done that in the time leading up to deployment. Hopefully right now you are making your position on Sudan well known so that we don't have to go there. For the record though, I may vote against the MP or party that sends us but once committed I will still stand by Canada and never ever the enemy.



I have never said that the military cannot restore order. Kick out the media and allow us to engage the enemy from an offensive platform rather then the defensive limitations we are contained to which exist in order that those of you with a more delicate constitution do not become even more horrified.

   

Previous  1  2  3  Next