News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.3K     0 

I wonder what Harper has in store for the military in the new budget.
Probably more deep cuts. Conservative governments in Canada have historically cut military budgets, usually while making statements about commitment to the military. Here's a good link on military spending in Canada http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/WorkingPapers/wp031.pdf

I do not mean to imply that Liberals spend more than Conservatives on the military, but only that the latter spends no more, and IMO, spends often less wisely.
 
. It is a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference. This is not to say that either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less bloodthirsty ... war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries, ... But in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at... War has in fact changed its character. More exactly, the reasons for which war is waged have changed ... the object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war. ... The primary aim of modern warfare ... is to use up the products of the [economic] machine without raising the general standard of living.

George Orwell, 1984
 
"Everything about this war feels wrong. Entered for political, not security reasons. Unclear in its objectives. Did we enter because of Al Qaeda or the Taliban? Were the latter a threat to Canada or just obnoxious? When would we know we had accomplished our objectives.

If the war was worth engaging, it certainly makes sense to stay until the end, whatever that is. One does not go to war with an end date or closing whistle.

If it was not worth engaging, and it appears it was not, everything has been in vain. The death of our soldiers, the Afghans killed by our coalition. A war for political egos and objectives. Criminal really". Globe
 
Hillier has some explaining to do about the war prisoner transfer process he signed in Afghanistan.
 
Remember how our government and Nato sold this war to us?

"The package never was "helping democracy and women's rights". That was just the wrapping that held it all together. There is no democracy in Afghanistan or any inclination towards it but a propping up of misogynist warlords and tribal chiefs whose record concerning women's rights is even more deplorable than the Taliban's. Afghanistan is full of US bases - as is another 176 countries. That was the whole point, but the rhetoric enmeshed the easily fooled, the feel-gooders and those who just simply love war. Killing people has never been helpful, especially when it's a strong state against a weaker but more determined one, based on, well, lies." Globe
 
I do not believe that Afghanistan was based totally on the US's agenda. Obviously, the US was the fastest to react, being the sole recipient of the devastating 9/11 attacks and having a huge population and region to protect. But other countries could just as easily have been attacked in 9/11 instead of the US, and they still could have been. So they tried to strengthen world security by going into a terrorist hotspot (ever so brain-smashingly stupidly the sole creation of the US government and CIA.) I love how they can make heroes out of the CIA operatives that "fought them damn commies trying to save Afghanistan," while swearing to not rest until they have Bin Laden's head on a stick.

World peacekeeping and international development is still, to be quite blunt, a complete joke. We pop in one place, kill a couple of "bad guys", prop up "the good guys", then flee.
Why not instead, try peacefully negotiating with the party you disagree with? How about you bring troops in under the UN to provide pressure and to act as neutral peacekeepers while you continue to negotiate with the aggressors? Why not build infrastructure for the people that, if schools and hospitals are found disagreeable, could include sewage systems, sustainable energy sources (the types that tend to have a myriad of other uses as well,) roads & rail, and irrigation?
And why not, for god sake's, try not to kill thousands of innocent civilians while you're "Protecting the good ol' American Dream"? Honestly, I'd say that it'd take 20 Taliban to make up for a single civilian casualty, and that's if we should even by trying to wipe out the Taliban. A great many are in fact not religious extremists but citizens who feel they're not being treated fairly. How the hell does it make a shred of sense to go around killing the very unhappy villagepeople that you're trying to make happier? Well I guess that if you killed enough of the really unhappy guys, it'd raise the average, but it'll just make the rest of the people pissed off 'cause their husbands and sons all went and got shot down by Mr. USA.
Let's say your brother's out protesting against some stupid government decision (let's say prorogation of government.) Then, the government cracks down and police arrest hundreds of peaceful protesters, including your brother. What're you gonna do? You're gonna take some action against such an unjust thing. So you go out and protest, but the government comes down again. Now you're in jail. And your son figures that he wants his dad and uncle back, so he goes out and protests... By the end of the month, your jails are going to be jam packed, and there's going to be nobody left to be angry about prorogation, just a bunch of innocent people that were responding to violence locked up in cells.

Perhaps instead of having a big military presence showing off their guns and having a "my tank's gun is so much bigger than your's" contest, we should actually make foreigners seem human. Get more humanitarians out there; teachers, infrastructure workers. Hell, guys that go around villages, knocking on people's doors and saying "SALAM! Tasharafna! Kaya halak?" to everyone they see. I certainly would be a lot more inclined to be nice to a country if I got more than a bunch of burly, armoured men walking around with sunglasses and giving off fake smiles as though their work was a continuous photo op as what their people are like. And if they didn't go around killing my family members by accident and say "We're sorry." with absolutely no emotion whatsoever and only admitting it about a month after the fact.

Don't get me wrong, I think we need to be in Afghanistan. In fact, we need to be in a lot of other places too, including regions closer to home. But the problem is the strategy being employed. In a global world, war can not be waged as it was before, especially against an insurgency. And with a future where basically all the world's conflicts will be insurgencies and constantly changing heterogeneous battles of ideology throughout countries and regions, that strategy needs to be figured out now. It doesn't work to just kill all the bad guys and send money packets to the guy you like for the rest of your life. It won't be stable, and it sure won't create a better world for anyone.
 
"Champ is the lawyer at the centre of several investigations into the alleged abuse of Afghan detainees. He said the NDS can't be trusted with detainees transferred into its custody by Canadian soldiers, and the harper Conservative minority government is well aware of this.

"Make no mistake, the methods of the NDS are well known," Champ told CBC News. "It's electric shocks, it's pulling out toenails, it's beating people with chains, it's hanging them for days. So when someone says abuse, that's a euphemism for torture."

The memo's assessment of the directorate seems to make use of that euphemism. It cautions Canada ought to be concerned about its ongoing and longstanding relationship with the secret police.

"Canadian partnership in NDS projects without prior insight into its methods runs the risk of appearing to condone human rights abuses and acts which would be illegal under Canadian law," the document states.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/06/afghan-detainee-transfers.html#ixzz0kNQOAE8A
.
.
..

Why did Mr harper prorogate ???

harper gambled that people would forget his real motivation for closing down Parliament: the string of incoherent arguments used to weave the fiction that official Ottawa had no credible warning about mistreatment of Afghan detainees.
.
.
..

What alleged war crimes should the International Criminal Court look into when trying harper and MacKay ???

Aiding and abetting torture......

Unlawful confinement......

Unlawful transfer of prisoners.....

Is Canada's still a minority violating International Law.....????

Things just don't look good for the harper minority" globe
 
Last edited:
"The Geneva Conventions make it a war crime to transfer prisoners to those who would abuse them, and oblige the detaining power to recover transferred prisoners if they are being abused."

There is no "way" to peace, peace is the "way".
 
Last edited:
So, lets figure out the options.... you capture someone who is an enemy.... what do you do with him?

Hand him over to the local government? Apparently not.

Yes, I know we send him to Gitmo.....
 
Apparently our military heads including Hillier had no idea what the right option would be. They sent prisons of war to be tortured by the Afghanis, closed their eyes to any proof of torture and then pretended to give a shit after the fact.. It's not like our military and government have not made grave errors before re Japanese prison camps here on our soil. Perhaps this time it will not take decades to admit failure and guilt. I still wonder why the Hague is not interested in this matter? The only option ie build our own prison over there to house our prisoners of war did not happen because we have stupid people engaging in a stupid war, that much is now obvious. As far as Canadians having a say in the matter, how could we when the truth was hidden from us? Hopefully Canadians are now paying attention.
 
"Build prisons over there" - you mean no longer "help out with security" but to fully occupy the country (I know it is a very fine line).
 
Clinton bombed the "camps" in Afghanistan. It's no secret. Sadly the plans for war didn't include any meaningful plan. Reconstruction, bringing democracy to the Afghans and fighting a war at the same time was the plan.......how's it going? IT'S A VERY COSTLY MESS. LOOK HOW MANY KIDS ARE DEAD. LISTEN TO THE GENERALS EXPLAIN THEIR INEPTITUDE TO THE CANADIAN PUBLIC. WHY ON EARTH WOULD WE CONSIDER THE DNS IN AFGHANISTAN AS A SOURCE OF GOOD INTELLIGENCE? 2011 IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER. WILL THIS BE ENOUGH TIME TO CONSTRUCT A MEANINGFUL "STORY" ABOUT OUR WAR ADVENTURE?
I say keep the generals talking because it appears that they are not all on the same page and it also appears that this government is willfully blind.
 
Last edited:
What many people forget: the Afghan invasion was planned at least 6 months to a year before 911.

Do you know who many invasion, defence, potential conflict plans are drawn up every year? Lots, and almost all of them never executed....

If not for the harbouring of Al Queda and it's training camps, there would have been no interest in the US administration for any invasion - there would be no political interest. Before the invasion, post 9-11, the Taliban were given options to expel or not harbour Osama Bin Ladin and Al Queda, the Taliban refused. The invasion plans pre 9-11 (since they were allowed to be known also pre 9-11) were likely a form of pressure on the Taliban to not harbour (walk softly and carry a big stick) Osama Bin Ladin - who had already declared war on the US, and had attempted previously to bring down the towers (failed attempt). By supporting these actions, an invasion of Afghanistan and our support via our treaty obligations, became pretty well inevitable.
 

Back
Top