[urbanfan89]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...cy-on-either-parliament-or-pm/article1541233/

I can just imagine Harper refusing to release any documents at all despite orders from Parliament, courts, and so on.

Then, the Parliament building will suddenly burn down one night and immediately all NDP supporters across the country are rounded up. That morning Harper publicly declares the NDP and Taliban collaborated to burn down the building and will rush through an Enabling Act by harassing enough Liberal MPs to either stay away or vote for the Enabling Act. New elections with only Conservative candidates permitted will be held.

Once the Governor General is up for replacement, Harper will appoint himself as Governor General and combine it with the Prime Minister, calling himself Chancellor of Canada and making himself constitutionally oblivious to Parliament. At the same time, all blue-eyed, blond-haired 10 year old boys will be made to join the Harper Youth, whose uniforms will resemble the Scouts uniforms except for their brown shirts, black boots, and red armbands with the blue C logo. Police will be replaced by Conservative Party goons who answer directly to the Chancellor. The Chancellor will then disown any connection with the Queen, and declare himself Leader for Life. Liberal supporters will be required to wear a red L badge in public, and the Harper Youth will go around smashing the windows of Liberal party offices and businesses owned by Liberal supporters.

Plans are draw up to send six million Quebecois to new camps in Nunavut, and Harper demands that Denmark hand over Greenland for more room to live in for the Canadian Master Race. In Calgary, an annual mass rally is held where Harper makes inspirational rantings in front of thousands of Conservative Party faithful, which are interjected with ever louder cries of "Heil Harper, Heil Harper, Heil Harper!"

While the above is not entirely true, it sets a very bad precedent if the "government" is permitted to simply ignore any orders issued by Parliament. It turns the system of governance into a de-facto elected dictatorship and goes against all principles picked up by the English over centuries.

 

[jade_lee]

"To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether "tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them."
Shakespeare

In the end it's all about Karma ain't it. What goes around comes around.

 

[jade_lee]

The Canadian detainee issue that our current government claims to be a non issue appears to be very much an issue as the truth unfolds. I suspect that many Canadians don't want our good name to be dragged into the murky waters of torture but if so they would want the issue dealt with and not hidden like a dirty secret. I look forward to hearing what Hillier now has to say about his stellar leadership and his further denials about when he knew what. Is it possible for the person in charge of a war effort to be that ignorant?

 

[jade_lee]

The war hawks on this forum have all but disappeared. The Canadian public doesn't appear able to stomach much more of this failed Afghan war. The government is wasting our cash on jets that will only serve to prolong our war engagement. The detainee issue continues. The trial in Cuba should be interesting to observe and it's outcome may change our Canadian perspective or perhaps our current government. Wishful thinking on my part.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Any thoughts on the now likely three year extension to the Afghan mission? I don't care if it's now referred to as a "training" mission instead of "combat", the moment a dead or wounded Canadian comes home in 2012 it will be on Harper's head.

if we're just doing training behind the wire, then why don't we fly the Afghan soldiers to Canada for training? This is done for many NATO nations, such as the British, where they train their tank and fighter crews in western Canada. I say bring the Afghan troops to Canada, provided they commit to not applying for refugee status in Canada when they get here, train them, and send them back.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Any thoughts on the now likely three year extension to the Afghan mission? I don't care if it's now referred to as a "training" mission instead of "combat", the moment a dead or wounded Canadian comes home in 2012 it will be on Harper's head.

if we're just doing training behind the wire, then why don't we fly the Afghan soldiers to Canada for training? This is done for many NATO nations, such as the British, where they train their tank and fighter crews in western Canada. I say bring the Afghan troops to Canada, provided they commit to not applying for refugee status in Canada when they get here, train them, and send them back.

1. If you'd prefer to pay for the costs it'd take to move (and house and feed) thousands of Afghani soldiers for training to Canada or the US for several years, then be my guest. Or we can just keep Canadian soldiers over there teaching Afghanis, also improving the civilian state at the same time..

2. By simply pulling out of the country before the job's done, we're leading the country back into the hands of the Taliban. Look at how much progress has been made over the past 10 years under western peacemaking. If you'd want to let that loose, work that Canadian soldiers have died for, and think it's right for our country, Afghanis, and the world, then I'd suggest you reconsider just how connected the world is, and what exactly has been done in Afghanistan.

3. How does the death of a Canadian soldier in the country compare with the death of Afghan one? Or a score of civilians? Why is there no justice in losing a Canadian to better the lives of hundreds of people somewhere else?

 

[Admiral Beez]

1. If you'd prefer to pay for the costs it'd take to move (and house and feed) thousands of Afghani soldiers for training to Canada or the US for several years, then be my guest.

Might be cheaper than moving, housing and feeding (and especially equipping and logistically supporting) thousands of Canadians in Afghanistan over the next year, plus now three more.

3. How does the death of a Canadian soldier in the country compare with the death of Afghan one? Or a score of civilians? Why is there no justice in losing a Canadian to better the lives of hundreds of people somewhere else?

If Afghans want to kill each other, that's their business. All I care about is the safety of the Canadian soldiers. As for the Taliban, I had no issue with them, and neither did any nations in the West until they foolishly supported Bin Laden and crew. Had they turned over Bin Laden on Sept 12th 2001, the Taliban would still be in power, and 150+ dead Canadians would still be alive. It is not Canada or the West's job to force other nations to adhere to our ideas of government, human rights, democratic rights, law and order, gender equality, etc., etc. As long as the Afghans are not a threat to Canada, there should be no Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan.

Besides, what happens in 2013 if, as you say, the job isn't done? Do we decide to stay another three years? How about until 2020? Is this an indefinite mission? Has the last Canadian soldier to be killed in Afghanistan even been born yet?

 

[Second_in_pie]

Might be cheaper than moving, housing and feeding (and especially equipping and logistically supporting) thousands of Canadians in Afghanistan over the next year, plus now three more.

Haha right. The Afghan Army needs to train hundreds of thousands more soldiers, likely tens of thousands in the next couple years. Compare that to maybe one or two thousand Canadians needed to train all those men, if that, who already have accommodations within Afghanistan.

If Afghans want to kill each other, that's their business. All I care about is the safety of the Canadian soldiers. As for the Taliban, I had no issue with them, and neither did any nations in the West until they foolishly supported Bin Laden and crew. Had they turned over Bin Laden on Sept 12th 2001, the Taliban would still be in power, and 150+ dead Canadians would still be alive. It is not Canada or the West's job to force other nations to adhere to our ideas of government, human rights, democratic rights, law and order, gender equality, etc., etc. As long as the Afghans are not a threat to Canada, there should be no Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan.

Besides, what happens in 2013 if, as you say, the job isn't done? Do we decide to stay another three years? How about until 2020? Is this an indefinite mission? Has the last Canadian soldier to be killed in Afghanistan even been born yet?

What if Afghanistan was a Canadian territory? Or what if there was insurgency in British Columbia? Then would things be different, would we be less reluctant to stay and fight against oppression, even though they are still as distant for an Ontarian or Quebecer? The point is Afghanis are people: people who are being violently oppressed. Even if it was not partially the fault of the west for creating the Taliban insurgency in the first place, we still have a duty as a incredibly well off Western nation to help people who do not have the luxuries of freedom and equality as us.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What if Afghanistan was a Canadian territory? Or what if there was insurgency in British Columbia? Then would things be different,

Exactly, I couldn't have put it better. Things would be different, and I would expect Canadian soldiers to be involved in an insurgency in BC, since trouble in BC would be an internal matter to be dealt with by Canadians.

we still have a duty as a incredibly well off Western nation to help people who do not have the luxuries of freedom and equality as us.

It is not by dumb luck or good fortune that Canada is a well off Western nation. We could have chosen the route of totalitarianism, tribalism and violence-based theocracy. Instead we chose to continue, improve and build upon our British and French foundations (to the likely consternation of our aboriginal peoples) in economics, democracy, human rights and religious freedoms. We did not have to choose this path. After the last British soldier left Canada post-1867, there was no occupying military force from distant shores pushing us to make these choices. Canada is a well off western nation because its founders and all those citizens who followed chose to make it so.

As for the Afghans, and for that matter those in every other savage, violent place on this earth, it is up to them to choose the paths their nations follow. Bring the Canadians home now, I say, we had no quarrel with the Taliban, if the Afghans don't want the Taliban, let them throw them out. It is not our job to enforce a western model upon the Afghans, and it won't work - as demonstrated by the now stated need for continued Canadian involvement to further prop up the Karzai government, after almost ten years of Canadian forces on the ground. Without western forces, the Afghans themselves would quickly depose Karzai. The Afghans themselves need to decide for themselves what sort of country and life they want to live.

And, if, as you suggest, it is Canada and the West's responsibility to impose our ideals of human rights and democracy upon the unfortunate and unenlightened backward nations of this world, then why aren't our forces in Zimbabwe, or Iran, or Burma, or North Korea, or Turkmenistan, or China? After we forcibly convert the Afghans to our point of view, where do we go next to militarily preach the gospel of Western values and traditions?

 

[Second_in_pie]

It is not by dumb luck or good fortune that Canada is a well off Western nation. We could have chosen the route of totalitarianism, tribalism and violence-based theocracy. Instead we chose to continue, improve and build upon our British and French foundations (to the likely consternation of our aboriginal peoples) in economics, democracy, human rights and religious freedoms. We did not have to choose this path. After the last British soldier left Canada post-1867, there was no occupying military force from distant shores pushing us to make these choices. Canada is a well off western nation because its founders and all those citizens who followed chose to make it so.

As for the Afghans, and for that matter those in every other savage, violent place on this earth, it is up to them to choose the paths their nations follow. Bring the Canadians home now, I say, we had no quarrel with the Taliban, if the Afghans don't want the Taliban, let them throw them out. It is not our job to enforce a western model upon the Afghans, and it won't work - as demonstrated by the now stated need for continued Canadian involvement to further prop up the Karzai government, after almost ten years of Canadian forces on the ground. Without western forces, the Afghans themselves would quickly depose Karzai. The Afghans themselves need to decide for themselves what sort of country and life they want to live.

And, if, as you suggest, it is Canada and the West's responsibility to impose our ideals of human rights and democracy upon the unfortunate and unenlightened backward nations of this world, then why aren't our forces in Zimbabwe, or Iran, or Burma, or North Korea, or Turkmenistan, or China? After we forcibly convert the Afghans to our point of view, where do we go next to militarily preach the gospel of Western values and traditions?

How inaccurate. Do you think the people of Afghanistan made a conscious decision, or even any decision at all as to how their country is run or what values they have? No: it's a host of different issues, many foreign, that have led them to live in the hellhole that they do today. I mean, we can trace the Taliban's rule directly to what the US back in the 80's. No single person makes a decision, and individual people certainly don't make the decision as to how exactly they live their lives. I know plenty of Afghanis, even a bunch that actually lived in the country, and they all wanted change (it's one of the big reasons they left the country.) And a vast majority of the country doesn't like the unstable, partially oppressed condition it's in right now.
EDIT: I'll even bet that a majority of Taliban fighters dislike the country the way it is now. Do you think those people want to live in a war-ravaged place? No: in so many of them, they just wanted peace and stability and chose the wrong side, or were played by more powerful leaders. Diplomacy could very well work to turn Afghanistan around, but we need troops inside the country to continue to maintain stability and put pressure on the Taliban.
At that, we probably need to change the way we conduct operations too. If you want a reason for all the Taliban fighters, just take a look at all the civilian deaths that've been caused by NATO, or all of the US' airstrikes with their 'collateral damage' along the Pakistan border.

And let's say that some Afghani way back when made a grand plan which is the cause of every one of Afghanistan's problems today. How is it fair to say that all the Afghanis should be doomed to live their lives in fear because of the decision of a person who lived in the past? It's like lauding your neighbour for Sir John A's work in creating the dominion. And not to mention that, as you said, Canada got it's start on democracy from the UK, with the US' help, which was built off of France. If it wasn't for France to start the big democratic club in Western Europe, Canada would likely be some form of a tyranny currently. And France's democracy was built off of ancient Greece, which was built off of a system of the Sumerians, which took their practices from the tribal practices that were widespread from time immemorial.
So if any one of those legacies had by chance made it to Afghanistan rather than Canada, it'd be an entirely different story. Or even something much simpler, such as if Britain won the Great Game and had Afghanistan as a British colony. The truth is that democracy has been seeded around the world for millenia; it's not some great Canadian who saved the country from tyranny that should cause us to be puffed up about it. It means that we, being a country who by chance acquired a democratic system of government early on, have the responsibility to continue seeding this form of government and freedom further around the world. Ask someone in England back in the 1600's whether they'd rather have a democracy than be ruled by the King, and I'm sure the'd be skeptical about introducing a new form of government. But ask a British citizen today? They'd likely be terrified at the prospect of living in an absolute monarchy.

And for that last part, we probably should be in half of those countries. But Afghanistan is important because it's a strategic location internationally that had a large negative international influence, as the Taliban were harbouring terrorists within the country. Yet we came in not just to destabilize the Taliban, but also to introduce security into the lives of Afghanis. It's unacceptable to simply throw up our hands right now and say the job's finished when it's clearly not.

 

[jade_lee]

Libya is the new Afghan for NATO and guess who pays for the damage? All of us. This is another civil war where NATO fights another proxy war. What fools!

 

[nfitz]

We've been in Afghanistan for 10 years now (that's as long as World War I and World War II combined). I'll bet we won't be in Libya for 10 years. I bet we won't be in Libya for another 10 weeks!

 

[jade_lee]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ght-on-the-war-in-afghanistan/article2194918/

more evidence against this retarded war adventure!

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

PUBLICATION: The Toronto Star
DATE: 2009.04.08
EDITION: Ont
SECTION: News
PAGE: A02
BYLINE: Rosie DiManno
COPYRIGHT: © 2009 Torstar Corporation
WORD COUNT: 987

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't bail on Afghanistan now; The West must abide by the revered mujahedeen leader's words: There's no reasoning with the Taliban

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The country has gradually been occupied by fanatics, extremists, terrorists, mercenaries, drug Mafias and professional murderers. One faction, the Taliban, which by no means rightly represents Islam, Afghanistan or our centuries-old cultural heritage, has with direct foreign assistance exacerbated this explosive situation. They are unyielding and unwilling to talk or reach a compromise with any other Afghan side."

- Ahmad Shah Massoud in a "Message to the People of the United States of America," 1998

He warned us. He warned the world.

And two days before 9/11, in a quid pro quo between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, Massoud was assassinated by agents of Osama bin Laden posing as TV journalists, explosives hidden in a camera.

The "Lion of the Panjshir" is buried on a mountain crest overlooking his beloved and breathtaking Panjshir Valley, the river of that same name a torrent down below.

Rusting carcasses of Soviet tanks, bellies ripped open, still litter the valley, nearly two decades after they failed to penetrate the steep, narrow gorges in pursuit of Massoud and his loyal mujahedeen. Those obstinate "insurgents" - chased by Soviets, later chased by the Taliban - repeatedly retreated into their craggy bolt-hole, always maintaining the high ground, carting artillery into their caves on the backs of donkeys.

Helicopter gunships peppered the escarpments but invaders could gain no traction, no toehold, in the crevassed cul-de-sac that was Massoud's sanctuary. The Taliban, in their grim era, couldn't catch Massoud either, although his Northern Alliance forces were pushed to the edge of the precipice by their black-turbaned nemeses, at the end - just before the Taliban's end - holding no more than 5 per cent of Afghanistan soil, in the far reaches of Badakhshan province.

"There will never be another like him," a custodian, unlocking the green- domed shrine that has been built around Massoud's tomb, told the Star when we visited the site last June.

He's even more revered dead than alive.

And he remains as correct about the Taliban - the hard-core Taliban, aligned anew with Al Qaeda - as he was a decade ago.

In Kabul, in most of the country - but not the Pashtun south - Massoud's picture is still affixed to public buildings and private homes, garlanded with flowers in car windshields.

To understand the abiding love for Massoud is to understand, a bit, about Afghanistan; that the vast majority of citizens have nothing but revulsion for the Taliban and deeply fear the movement's return to power.

There is no such idolatry for Hamid Karzai, though the government has tried replacing Massoud's ubiquitous image throughout the capital with that of the president.

Massoud could in no way be viewed as a liberal, by Western standards. He was, in general terms, a warlord himself, accused of war crimes during the civil war era. But that comes with the territory of governing Afghanistan. He was staunchly and conservatively Muslim. His wife wore a burqa. But he held firm to some principles of embryonic democracy, Afghan-style - government by shared power and accommodation, even if it meant holding his nose and bargaining with sworn enemies. His Islam was also practical, rather than confrontational and Sharia-obsequious.

But he full well understood that the radical Taliban, and most certainly Al Qaeda, could not be reasoned with. Fighting that alliance - underpinned as it was, and remains today, by Pakistan - could only succeed with the West's intervention.

Afghans believed - and perhaps this was their enduring naivete - that Western powers would protect them from Taliban resurgence and violent reprisals.

NATO and the U.S. have tried to do this over the past eight years, yet not forcefully enough. European leaders, in particular, have grown weary of the responsibility. Many Canadians demand that our troops be withdrawn forthwith. They ask, especially in light of repressive and misogynist laws under consideration by the Karzai government: What are we dying for?

Soldiers know what they're dying for because they see it every day in local shuras and schools attended by girls and Afghans who warn them about IED placements. Canadian governments keep recalibrating the reasons for our military involvement, alternately bruited as denying operational territory to anti-West terrorists - avoiding another 9/11 - or promoting the democratic institutions critical to nation-building.

In truth, there are many good reasons for abiding in Afghanistan. Technically, however, the reason Canada sent combat troops was to extend the writ of the central government. That was the NATO mission.

It was the U.S., with a separate and independent deployment - quite apart from their NATO contribution - that was tasked with routing Al Qaeda elements. This they have been doing for years in eastern Afghanistan and now, with President Barack Obama committing more troops, they are extending to the southern provinces.

Obama may talk about shifting the emphasis, laying out an alternative and less ambitious agenda, but his actions speak differently: America's military involvement is expanding. That may be a matter of strategic urgency but it ill- behooves a liberal, Democratic president to abandon America's moral commitment to Afghanistan, the promise of basic human rights pledged, in pursuit of a premature exit strategy.

Does this president of optimism for the planet really want to be the one who washed his hands of Afghanistan, disengaging to concentrate only on the security threat to the U.S.? Have Democrats turned into isolationist, self- absorbed and cynical Republicans?

This makes as little sense as NDP Leader Jack Layton calling for dialogue with the Taliban, in place of combative confrontation, then flipping over in indignation when political accommodation - the result of dialogue - results in regressive laws that would legalize marital rape and the renewed sequestering of Shia women.

Bringing moderate Talibans inside the parliamentary tent has been a key objective of both the Karzai government and the United Nations mission in Afghanistan since 2003. That Karzai, desperate to win this summer's elections, would knuckle under to the most extremist religious demands shows that he's just another politician corrupted by power and the desire to retain it.

But this is where negotiating with the Taliban hardcore command will inevitably lead: A medieval Afghanistan of enshrined cruelty, religious zealotry and hopelessness.

It's what Massoud fought against. It's what America and Canada and NATO were fighting against. Back when we could look Afghans in the eye and say: Trust us, this time.

Rosie DiManno usually appears Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.

It's always nice to revisit the purported rationales that have been advanced by our leaders and pundits to hide the fact that we're spending billions of dollars to bomb wedding parties and secure oil and gas pipeline routes in Afghanistan. In today's installment, we get to see how Rosie DiManno and Stephen Harper stand in fervent, turgid support of pedophiles (shurely not Vic Toews, though!), according to the Washington Post:

Afghan men have exploited boys as sexual partners for generations, people who have studied the issue say. The practice became rampant during the 1980s, when mujahideen commanders fighting Soviet forces became notorious for recruiting young boys while passing through villages. In Kandahar during the mid-1990s, the Taliban was born in part out of public anger that local commanders had married bachas and were engaging in other morally licentious behaviour.

You keep fighting the good fight, Rosie. Maybe The Hockey News can re-label the "Person of the Year" award it just took back from Graham James with your name, and you can gaze happily at the plaque while you imagine pre-pubescent Afghan boys getting kidnapped and forcibly sodomized thanks to your propaganda.

 

[jade_lee]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/1...g-to-damning-previously-unreleased-documents/

read this and weep!