Harper & Afghanistan - Thoughts?

[Moonlight_Graham]

What do you think of Harper's commitment to Afghanistan, and his recent trip overseas to the area?

 

I think its good. It may be getting tough over there, but when the going gets tough the tough don't become pussies and pull out at the first sign of trouble. Its war, and in war sometimes people get killed. Just reality. Somebody is going to do the dirty work over there and i don't see why Canada shouldn't have to do their small share. Why let all our allies be killed instead?

 

As for his recent trip to Afghanistan, some people have called it a "Bush-style trip". I think it just shows him showing his support for the troops and the operation. Its refreshing to see a PM showing some leadership & vision and a sack of balls.

 

I think a slight upgrade in our military forces will help us be more prepared for any domestic crisis that could occur, as well as give us more of a voice on the international scene. Its amazing how this has degraded over the years.

[ecnarf]

Technically, this is Martin's commitment to Afghanistan. That's one thing we should keep in mind when liberal MP's are calling for a large debate on the subject.

 

But, to the point, I don't think going to some country and shaking hands with some people in a uniform is having balls. Having balls is believing in something and not being afraid to defend it. Defend it passionately, even? That's what I'd like to see more of. Not some silly trip to Afghanistan.

 

Personally, I think the whole Afghanistan thing started off wrong. The debate should have been at the outset of the mission when the liberals were still in power. Harper is merely acting more like Kennedy than Eisenhower in this situation. And I'm sorry for bringing on the Vietnam comparisons, but that's the best example I could think of.

[garsk]

wow, it is kind of nice to see a Prime Minister see or knowing that Canada has troops. This is the first time in a hell of a long time a prime minister has actually been on the front lines of a war/peacekeeping mission. As for the trip and the mission itself.... the trip was a lot like Bush's trip to Iraq, know one knew about it, and the both said a lot of the same thing.

 

As for the mission itself. I don

[Matt]

I think people are talking about similarities like these two that were compiled by 22 minutes... http://www.cbc.ca/22minutes/22_single_play...heardthisbefore

[Monochrome Rainbow]

While I disagree with Canadian troops fighting against the war on terror in the southern parts of the country I fully support Canadian peacekeeping initiatives in the north. However I think it definitely must send mixed messages to citizens of Afghanistan and is likely creating a more hostile environment for our troops.

 

Harper's visit to Afghanistan is admirable and he has earned my respect given that he stayed as long as he did. I don't think our government should ever commit our military to any initiative if they are not in turn willing to go over and personally show their support and thanks. Harper has definitely outshone Martin in that respect.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Technically, this is Martin's commitment to Afghanistan.

 

Yes, i should say "re-commitment" then.

 

But, to the point, I don't think going to some country and shaking hands with some people in a uniform is having balls.  Having balls is believing in something and not being afraid to defend it.  Defend it passionately, even?  That's what I'd like to see more of.  Not some silly trip to Afghanistan.

 

I didn't mean that the trip going over there was having balls. But wanting the troops to stay over there to finish their job & showing lots of support for this position even though war isn't a popular thing in Canada & this war has been tough shows some balls.

[ecnarf]

I guess I'll agree that it shows he has political balls. But the man has no passion when it comes to making a point. In fact, I don't really know what this whole mission is about. Is it peacekeeping or not? My understanding was that this mission is, in its entirety, a conflict mission. The goal isn't a hostile takeover, but more humanitarian based. I've not heard Harper mention anything about that. The entire justification for being there is that we should stay there because we're already there. You can't tell me that there isn't a better point to be made. And if the only reason why we should stay in Afghanistan is because we're already there, then there's something seriously wrong.

[Converge]

First and foremost, i think the whole thing is absurd. Im happy to see a shift in the news to start covering the issue, but i really think people still keep their happy consciousnes about the whole issue without realizing what it entails.

 

i) there is no peacekeeping going on in Afghanistan. Peacekeeping implies UN Sanctioning, a step the U.S. Skipped while "bringing peace and democracy" to Afghanistan.

ii) we are able to sit at home and shame the U.S. for fighting a war in Iraq, when clearly our engagment in Afghanistan was a means of freeing up troops so the U.S. could deploy them in Iraq.

 

Horray for Harper for going over there and commiting our troops. Fine. But lets have a realistic debate about the issue before he tells the world WE are in it for the long run. Harper, Martin, whoever has us over there, where was the democratic debate by our house representatives?

 

I'm opposed to the whole concept. the only slight redemption this engagment has in my eyes is that people may start to open their eyes and say "where else are these pure Canadian love giving peace people active" realize we are supporting destablization of Haiti, and get active instead of passivley loving Canada for all its unreported shame!

[Moonlight_Graham]

Yeah its not a peacekeeping mission.

 

I was amazed when i heard the number of Canadian peacekeepers who have been killed since Peacekeeping began in the 50's. Just over 100 Canadians have died while peacekeeping since the 50's, which i think is an amazingly low number.

[Monochrome Rainbow]

Well, the UN is in Afghanistan just not where the US is located. Canadian troops are fighting alongside the US and are in the northern part of the country with the UN. So they are fighting both a combat mission in the south and a playing a peacekeeping role in the north. Which I think is completely in effective. It sends a very confusing message to the people in Afghanistan and the citizens of Canada; and may further jeopardize the reputation and safety of our Canadians peacekeeping in the north. You can't effectively do either if you're doing both.

 

I disagree with the combat role we play in Afghanistan as I beleive we're only there to start making amends with the US and there has been no real threat to Canada or anywhere in North America for the past 4.5 years. And I think the combat role we are playing is counteractive to our peacekeeping efforts.

 

 

The only reason I think most people support our role in Afghanistan is because they think we are peacekeeping whereas we are primarily in a combat mission.

Edited March 25, 2006 by Monochrome Rainbow

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

I think people are talking about similarities like these two that were compiled by 22 minutes... http://www.cbc.ca/22minutes/22_single_play...heardthisbefore

Wow, how insightful...

 

Edit:

 

Why have a debate at this stage? The time for that has come and gone, and our troops are there. People who want Canadian troops to pull out surely must realise that would be beneficial for the Taliban remnants in the country. I'm not accusing them of treason or anything, but they're not being realistic.

 

I support having a debate in the House over any future deployments, but at the moment, I can't see how it could serve any meaningful purpose.

Edited March 25, 2006 by Cherry Poppin' Daddy

[ecnarf]

Just because the time for the proper debate has past doesn't mean it's wrong to have a debate about it now. You'd think Harper would be more willing to prove his case for the mission with something more than "We should stay here because we're already here." That's circular reasoning. There have got to be better reasons for the mission.

[Converge]

I agree 100% with Encarf, but would hasten to add "so what if our leaving helps the taliban"

 

What is the difference between a war ravished nation with a traditional government and a war ravished nation with a U.S. Installed puppet government? Neither one nor the other is for the peoples benefit.

 

Just because you've been indoctrinated to believe that we are helping the world by destabalizing other nations doesnt make it any better. Our remaining in Afghanistan is for no other reasons than imperial ambitions and to dilute yourself to think "we are helping" is absurd. While the individiual soliders may see themselves as helping, and there is no question internationally supplied aid does help the innocent victims of war, the initial intentions of the invasion were not to help them out.

 

So why should it be debated? Because the reasons we were deployed are not in line with the popular view of Canadian involvment. We can cover our ears and chant "we are helping we are helping we are helping" all we want...it doesnt negate the fact we are fighting as a direct wing of American Imperialst pursuit.

[garsk]

then what about the former Yugoslavia? i mean, you can say the same things about the afgan mission as you can about all the mission to the former yugoslavia at the time. we didnt have the UN with that war, it was NATO. We still have troops there, we have fought land battles there. but is it because that no Canadian troops have died in the former Yugoslavia lately that we dont talk about it? or the fact that there no natural resource in the former yugoslavia that it isnt talk about? or maybe it is because democracy is starting there...

 

just asking

[Converge]

For me the reason i would take an interest in Afghanistan comes mainly with my age. During the Yugoslavian conflict i was 10 or 11...so i wasn't quite so politically minded. I don't doubt there was critiscism, but again, due to my age @ the time i can't really say. As for currently active troops in the region i think this can be directly related to Canada's roles in Afghanistan and Haiti....

 

Because we dont hear about it, we dont talk about it. With the current conflict in Afghanistan there is a whirlwind of coverage around it, thus giving people a look into things. Haiti does not have the same coverage despite the position of Canadian citizens performing gortesque subordindations of the 'democracy' we are helping to implement abroad. And, we dont hear about Yugoslavia either...at least on the networks i check.

 

It is increasingly difficult to understand the world we live in when information is left out of news coverage in favour of lame pet tricks and heart warming stories about lemondae stands....while we do have access to more information than anyone in the world, one could spend their entire day in search of information....

 

As for avoiding Yugoslavia because they have formed a democracy i hardly see that as the reason. As we have done in Haiti and the Americans many times throughout the world, we use and abuse 'democracy' to best fit our needs. Wether it is to implement one, assit in a coup, or financially back guriella forces to bring one down the term democracy is just toyed with the reap our own benifits with little care for the people it affects.

 

 

*thanks for bringing up the Yugoslav. conflict...

i) SPOT on fantastic for a project im working on

ii) what i dont know could fill an ocean so now i will make the effort to understand the issue. Just because i was young when it occured doesn't mean im unaffected! THANKS Again!

Edited March 26, 2006 by Converge

[garsk]

we use and abuse 'democracy' to best fit our needs. Wether it is to implement one, assit in a coup, or financially back guriella forces to bring one down the term democracy is just toyed with the reap our own benifits with little care for the people it affects.

see, here is where I disagree with your point of "democracy" being a used to make our wars justified, and the using it to benefit our needs.

 

Back in the 1930's Germany had this little guy named Hitler who started a bunch of wars. The western democratic world declared war on him to throw him out of power, and set up a "democratic" governments.

 

Fast forward to 2003, America and British go off to war to fight against another guy who was wagging war with his neighbors. And the American and British look for help for a friend who went through the same thing, Germany. But the German government said no, they wouldn

[Converge]

i will definatly look into that book. Sadly (or thankfully) the strike ended so im going to have to relegate it to the Summer holidays! but i will indeed check it out.

 

As for the "humour" part in it...

 

i find the whole explanation as to how we dont twist democracy for our own good to be humourous....hopefully that is what you intended.

 

if not, let me know as i have a variety of alternative opinions to what you said!

[ecnarf]

Fast forward to 2003, America and British go off to war to fight against another guy who was wagging war with his neighbors.

Read that back to yourself.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Big front page article on Canada in Afghanistan the other day. It says we have a few thousand troops fighting in Afghanistan, but we have refused to send 4 troops (yes, 4 TROOPS) as peace-keepers to the Congo to help out there with the U.N.

 

This has changed my tune a bit with what we're doing in Afghanistan. About a thounsand people die everyday in the Congo due to disease, malnurishment, or other preventable causes (not to mention violence). Canada should be sending Peacekeeping troops there, as well as having an active role in Afghanistan. I would think 1000 people dying everyday is just as important if not more so than securing Afghanistan from terrorists & the Taliban.

 

But its hard, because Canada has so few military forces & equipment. Jesus Christ this world is a fucked up place.

[ecnarf]

The problem with peacekeeping missions is that everyone is generally very reluctant to go unless there's a certain reason for them to go.

 

See: Rwanda. There were no natural resources there, other than people. The veto powers didn't even pretend like they thought the mission was a good idea.

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

I agree 100% with Encarf, but would hasten to add "so what if our leaving helps the taliban"

 

What is the difference between a war ravished nation with a traditional government and a war ravished nation with a U.S. Installed puppet government? Neither one nor the other is for the peoples benefit.

 

Just because you've been indoctrinated to believe that we are helping the world by destabalizing other nations doesnt make it any better. Our remaining in Afghanistan is for no other reasons than imperial ambitions and to dilute yourself to think "we are helping" is absurd. While the individiual soliders may see themselves as helping, and there is no question internationally supplied aid does help the innocent victims of war, the initial intentions of the invasion were not to help them out.

 

So why should it be debated? Because the reasons we were deployed are not in line with the popular view of Canadian involvment. We can cover our ears and chant "we are helping we are helping we are helping" all we want...it doesnt negate the fact we are fighting as a direct wing of American Imperialst pursuit.

There is a big difference "between a war ravished nation with a traditional government and a war ravished nation with a U.S. Installed puppet government." The Taliban funded and gave safe haven to a terrorist group intent on the genocide of Americans and Jews. The Karzai government ain't. I'm not a supporter of nation-building at all, but the establishment of at least a friendly stable regime, if not democratic, is in the west's interest.

 

Regardless of the mistakes in past American foreign policy, such as covertly funding the Mujahedeen and other fundamentalists in the 1980s, the Taliban was a major threat and shouldn't be allowed to regroup.

[Converge]

That is a very Ethnocentric way of looking at things.

 

"The Taliban funded and gave safe haven to a terrorist group intent on the genocide of Americans and Jews."

True. And with a wonderful track record of 5000 killed they should indeed be stopped.

How about the western track record in the middle east? Iraq 100,000+? Afghanistan ???? If any regime needs to be stablaized and stopped from killing its Western Regimes. This constant installment of "stable west friendly" regimes is what leads to Anti-West sentiment and groups like the Taliban gaining power.

 

By supporting the deployment of our troops as active soldiers in the "war on terror" we are only stiring things up and indavertently asking for trouble. Its like fighting a war on jelousy (as david cross says) or, perhaps the best look at what we are helping to do with interventions in the middle east...

 

Its like getting stung by a bee. Getting really mad at the bee. Taking a baseball bat and smashing the bees nest and pissing off all the bees.

 

The middle east needs stability. but western nations also need a little reflexivity and the ability to realize the hypocritical nature of killing countless "soft targets" to prevent another 2000 of a civilians from dying. how does the math work on that? 2000 white people = 100,000 brown people? Hardly. Pull the troops out of the racist war.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Converge

[garsk]

2000 white people = 100,000 brown people? Hardly. Pull the troops out of the racist war.

 

Well, when your the leader of a country, no matter if it is the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia or North Korea for that matter. You swear an oath to protect you people. And if someone attacks you, you fight back. I am sure if Canada attacks Mexico, Mexico would have fought back. There is know way in hell, as a leader of a country, if you are attacked, you would turn the other cheek. so how is that racist?

[Converge]

The U.S. was attacked by "al-Qaueda" Not Afghanistan, Not Iraq. So there are 100,000 deaths that needen't happen. The Taliban supported Al-Quaeda...Who has the U.S. supported!?

As for the WMD's used to justify the invasion, how is it not racist that U.S (only nation to deploy nuclear weapons on a nation state in conflict) France, Russia and Israel are allowed to keep nuclear arms, but at the slightest hint of a threat the U.S. invades Iraq and is now gearing up for Iran....

 

"And if someone attacks you, you fight back"

its this eye for an eye attitude that had the U.S. Attacked in the first place...and has endless U.S. soldiers attacked again day in and out. Illegally occupying a soverign nation is not how to provide security regardless of the oath you take.

 

As for how it is racist (perhaps not the best word to use for a description .ethnocentrically inclined maybe?)

2 nations have suffered for the deaths of 2000 people. Inflicted by 17 people. Not states. The U.S. paints an entire grouping of people with a single swath of paint regardless and crushes those who oppose by labelling people fighting an invading nation as insurgents and rebels...

And the institutionalized racism isn't just in the U.S. foreign policy it can be seen reflected directly in the laws and policies at home.

 

I guess the White man has a better spin machine letting us feel better about those hethans who must be straightened out. How dare they oppose our invasion!

[garsk]

ummm... was i for the invasion of iraq, no. i didnt see any reason too like 99% of the world, because we couldnt/didnt see the WMD's. Should the US pull out now? hell no! they have made there mess, and they have to live with it, and clean it up. as for the WMD's, i watched the Daily Show with John Stewart two mondays ago, he had a former Iraq General of the Air Force, who said on air, that he knows that the Chemical Weapons have been flown to Syria, and has written a book about it. So maybe there was? but he is the enemy, so why should we beleive him?

 

also, who do fight an ideal who wants to destroy your way of life?