15 tanks, 120 more troops to Afghanistan
Keep Condoleezza Home and bring our troops home - don't send more. Open the House of Commons for debate on this issue.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Peter Piper pipes to the American drums
Condoleezza Rice will be in Nova Scotia today to thank Canada for its 911 support. What does MacKay have to offer Rice on her visit?
15 tanks, 120 more troops to Afghanistan
Keep Condoleezza Home and bring our troops home - don't send more. Open the House of Commons for debate on this issue.
15 tanks, 120 more troops to Afghanistan
Keep Condoleezza Home and bring our troops home - don't send more. Open the House of Commons for debate on this issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Get real Sue. There's a reason why our Newfoundlanders make up a larger share of the armed forces than one would think given our share of the general population . . .
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians believe in standing up for people, fighting for freedom and other such principles. We also believe in duty and honouring our commitments. It's for that reason that we comitted more than most allied countries to the war effort in both world wars.
Stop with the Laytonesque paranoid delusion that every single part of Canadian foreign poliy must be defined in naysaying the Americans. The current government has taken several stands on several issues that are not favoured by the US government - including one on arctic sovereignty that will only continue to heat up.
It's just petty and misinformed politics to assume that any action on Afghanistan is about appeasing Americans. It's about keeping this country's commitment to help the people of Afghanistan. They're after having a democratic election there. they've made progress there.
When this country has the ability to help make the situation better in a country like Afghanistan, when it makes a commitment to do just that, it is nothing short of prejudice and bigotry for us to then turn around and go back on that commitment. It's saying to the world "Our freedoms are worth fighting for, as our grandparents generation did, but the Afghanis aren't worth it." That's really inexcusable.
As much as I would like to know that all my friends from home who joined the forces would not have to worry about going into these conflicts, I'm proud of every one of them for realizing that the mission here is just. It's not about the Americans or any other bogey man. It's about doing the right thing.
Thank you Liam for your input - we have a difference of opinion. That's exactly what they fought for.
For a further look at where I am coming from visit this post.
The Elite and the War in Afghanistan
Putting aside the same sex tangent, I fail to see what this proves. You can focus on the names of people who come from your ill-defined "elite." For every one of them I can name five minor hockey buddies or classmates of mine who come from families of miners, fishermen, woodsmen, loggers etc. . . who support this mission and who understand it completely. Many of them have family members who are in the forces and served in Afghanistan.
In any case, there's nothing about somebody becoming successful or making greater income that makes their opinion less valid or makes them less worthy of franchise. Indeed, we should be careful not to assume too much about which friends or family of these people might indeed be involved in the forces in some capacity.
Exacttly Liam, youhave made my point. Let's see the list and I have yet to hear from one politician or business leader that has a child in service. There is a socio-economic reality here and it should be corrected before those who suffer no direct loss tell us what is best.
Sue, you seem to be saying that nobody who doesn't have somebody in the forces in their family should be able to speak their opinion on the matter of the mission in Afghanistan.
Most people I know who join the forces understand full well that they are joining on to forces that are directed by a government based basically on representative democracy. Decisions are made as a result of public input (we hope) from all parties (not just certain parties) who are enfranchised and/or affected.
While I certainly care very much and maybe disproportionately more for the views of those involved in the forces, I think it's unfair to say that they're the only ones or even the main ones affected.
The people of Afghanistan will be very severely negatively affcted if countries like Canada just pull out. Lack Layton and company can talk all they want about negotiating with Taliban (would they ever consider negotiating with the mafia or the KKK?), but what does that mean in practice? As Murphy pointed out, What part shall we negotiate with the Taliban? You must drop the ban on girls going to school, but can you keep the part about stoning homosexuals?
I think Canadians and NLers, regardless of their background, have a right to point out that this country has the capacity to do the sort of thing that it helped do in other major world conflicts. It may even have a moral obligation to act.
Maybe more people from all backgrounds or certain socio-economic backgrounds should join the forces. And if they do, and if we encourage them to do so, they will all be aware that they do not join on the condition of never having to fight against terrorists, engage in a war, or see combat. Judging from the views of some of my best friends who serve now, they damn well understand that and don't see themselves as mindless victims of their circumstances.
First of all my views are not formed by Jack Leyton or anything he may say. I will take what he says into consideration as I will with all federal leaders.
The socio-economic issue must be dealt with and I shall not be brainwashed by the elite of our society explaining to me why those from lesser financial backgrounds must fight to keep anybody's rights.
They are hypocrites.
With respect to the civil war in Afghanistan based primarily on religious values and what extreme level they are dealing with in any faction is something like the USA and Canada - they have to sort it out themselves. They also have issues with Opium as you are aware no different than the cartel in Mexico - should we move in there also. What of Cuba you want to invade them? Give me a break. Until Afghanistan wants to treat its people men, women and children with respect I have no interest in fighting among them. Why are we not in China Liam?
Inconvenient for the corporate elite. Conservative, Liberal or NDP not interested in following some wing or another into oblivion. The elite should get off their arses and go fight the war on "terror" or "rights" or "democracy" themselves.
Yes people know what they are getting into when they join the forces - to some extent - it changes with administrations - but do you think if they had financial wealth they would choose to get an education that way?
Sue - is every expression of opinion from somebody in a higher income bracket "brainwashing"?
What about the socio-economic status of the people who were under the Taliban regime? Ask if women who were once legally stoned and beaten for certain transgressions and who are now attending schools and voting if they feel brainwashed for appreciating the regime change.
You seem determined to have a visceral dislike for people based on their income and means. Fine. Grind that axe. Just remember that by simply naysaying their opinion on those grounds of spite, you're not standing on a very strong position. It's not much of a reason for opposing the afghanistan mission. one would hope an opinion on the afghanistan mission would be formed based on (at least in part) an assessment of the situation in Afghanistan. . .
Also -- what is your definition for "corporate elite," are they a homogenous group? If so, how so?
You're being very creative to call the situation in Afghanistan a "civil war." The united nations just renewed its support for continued presence there and a figt against the taliban regime.
Three days ago was the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
A lesser known fifth anniversary was the one that happened two days ago.
Yesterday, September 12, is the fifth anniversary of NATO invoking
Article 5 of the NATO charter.
" . . .The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of
them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against
them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack
occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or
collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the
United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking
forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such
action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to
restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. . . "
The article was designed more with them envisioning an attack on one
or more western european countries, in which case the US was obligated
to help deal with that. It turns out the first attack was on the US.
But in reality, it was an attack on us all. Don't believe me? read the edicts and the activities supported. not Canada, not even Newfoundland and Labrador is immune here.
The people who did that and the people who harboured and supported
those people were in Afghanistan. Even the United Nations supported
action against the taliban. They continue to do so.
They did so with good reasons.
- The prospect of keeping a brutal and undemocratic regime form
reforming is worth a fight.
- If a known terrorist harbour is re-established, as would be the
likely result of a full pull-out, then they will not cease at their
own borders (they never had any intention of doing that, just read the edicts). They will come after us here. It is imperative that the fight be taken to them and that we go after them. Not because of the yanks or bush or any of that crap, but because it will directly affect THIS COUNTRY if we turn a blind eye to this situation and become insular
and withdrawn on it.
The difference between China and Afghanistan is that we can do something about Afghanistan by intervening with the military. That has already been proven. Many if not most of the people of Afghanistan already enjoy more freedom and other benefits now thna they did under the Taliban. It is the heights of hypocrisy and prejudice for any North American who knows that something can be done in a situation to argue against it when they are enjoying freedoms that our grandparents generation fought for on several occaisions.
We are part of alliances and we benefit greatly from them and from protecting these alliances. The greatest successes of these alliances are the things we didn't see happen over the years. The Soviets never crossed the Elbe. The North Koreans stayed behind the thirty-eighth parallel. The Nazis didn't win. It's a good thing they didn't.
But given your insular attitude towards the people of Afghanistan, I'm just glad you weren't in charge in '39, '50 or during the cold war.
I think most of Afghanistan does indeed want better and fairer treatment for its citizens. Most germans weren't SS officers. But Hitler still happened. In this case, they need help to fight the taliban.
sue said:
"but do you think if they had financial wealth they would choose to get an education that way?"
There is no greater insult you can lay on any officer of the Armed Forces than to assume that they're just their for a degree and some cash. Please don't project your own rather nasty views of the people who protect this country onto those same people.
But if there are people who are going into the forces for just the reasons you mention, it is not for lack of recruitment officers and recruitment forms explaining precisely what is involved in joining the forces.
Now Liam watch this - you and I can agree on everything if we compensate them like NHL hockey players or even a politician.
Until we compensate them appropriate to their duties you are the one insulting them.
Post a Comment