Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Topaz

Do Canadians UNDERSTAND we are in Afghanistan?

Recommended Posts

What was the legal (government) mechanism for sending Canadian Forces to Afghanistan??

Easy; the Ministry advised the Governor General to send forces to Afghanistan, and she did so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Easy; the Ministry advised the Governor General to send forces to Afghanistan, and she did so.

OK...that's as good a start as any. Mr. Eggleston advised Ms. Clarkson to authorize about 100 Canadian Forces exchange personnel to participate in immediate American operations. Can't tell if this included JTF-2....but in any event, various operations were executed with Canadian contributions in 2002. Initial misson reasons from Wiki:

Defend Canada's national interests;

Ensure Canadian leadership in world affairs; and

Help Afghanistan rebuild.

As we walk from Operations Anaconda to Apollo to Athena to Archer etc., there is no shortage of reasons and mission statements. So what changed beside the yammering of Jack Layton? Body count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As we walk from Operations Anaconda to Apollo to Athena to Archer etc., there is no shortage of reasons and mission statements. So what changed beside the yammering of Jack Layton? Body count?

Mission Creep, I think. Things are not as easy as Gen.Hillier thought they would be. The Operations were cobbled together without much thought to the overall picture or where things were going. Thus last minute approvals that Canadian exchange officers or Canadian Naval Officers commanding USN vessels be allowed to contribute to wars that Canada refused to partake in.

Or agreeing to take on major roles in Afghansitan thinking Canada could easily find other nations to take over in one or two years time.

Unintended results. It isnt body bags but Jack Layton et al realizing that the sun may soon shine and a bountiful crop of political hay lay in the future due to the catch-as-catch can nature of Canadian Foreign and Defence policy, or more likely - lack of policy in Afghanistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....due to the catch-as-catch can nature of Canadian Foreign and Defence policy, or more likely - lack of policy in Afghanistan.

Noted...but I am reminded of a scene from the film "Behind Enemy Lines" wherein disgust is expressed at the realization of NATO missions not being as exciting and definitive as killing Nazis during WW2. Indeed, Afghanistan has all the pitfalls you identified, but these were common to other Canadian "peacekeeping" missions as well.

There is not going to be any V-A Day parade (victory in Afghanistan).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is NOT a baiting question its a serious question asking for more than my view. The Libs sent Canadian troops to Afghanistan with other countries because of 9/11 with the US saying that al Queda had training camps there and was responsible for 9/11. When Martin took over as PM , he only meant for them to stay for ONE year. Harper, then becomes the PM and he decides to extend it to Feb.08, with a session in Parliament to decide the final decision. Harper now says he wants Canada there til 2011. I UNDERSTAND that we should be there to help REBUILD the country BUT until the fighting is stopped there's no way that that is going to happen. The question is how long is the fighting going to go on, which no one can say and no one can say how long will it take for Afghanis to look after themselves? This war is heading just like the Iraq war, were we will lose alot of our military, the government is and will keep things from us and all the money Canada has given, will go and no one knows were. IF the next president of the US decides to pull their troops out, Canada will be fighting the war almost alone. So what is Canada's interest to stay, other then to help the people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noted...but I am reminded of a scene from the film "Behind Enemy Lines" wherein disgust is expressed at the realization of NATO missions not being as exciting and definitive as killing Nazis during WW2. Indeed, Afghanistan has all the pitfalls you identified, but these were common to other Canadian "peacekeeping" missions as well.

There is not going to be any V-A Day parade (victory in Afghanistan).

Just as the heading reads "Do Canadians know why we are in Afghanistan?" Do Americans know why they are in Iraq, a war that has taken so many lives and produced nothing. Time they were told the true story, its the oil.

And time Mr. Harper just told us that instead of peace keeping we are just obeying his American Masters. Lets all quite the BS and be a little more honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just as the heading reads "Do Canadians know why we are in Afghanistan?" Do Americans know why they are in Iraq, a war that has taken so many lives and produced nothing. Time they were told the true story, its the oil.

And time Mr. Harper just told us that instead of peace keeping we are just obeying his American Masters. Lets all quite the BS and be a little more honest.

hear hear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just as the heading reads "Do Canadians know why we are in Afghanistan?" Do Americans know why they are in Iraq, a war that has taken so many lives and produced nothing. Time they were told the true story, its the oil.

And time Mr. Harper just told us that instead of peace keeping we are just obeying his American Masters. Lets all quite the BS and be a little more honest.

As usual another margrace post filled with inanities and the sounds of her brains rattling amongst the empty spaces. The irony is the request for honesty in a post that is blatantly dishonest.

Her first tidbit of rhetorical dishonesty is juxtapose harper telling us instead of peacekeeping, he obeys his American masters...

EARTH TO MARGRACE!!!! (hard to break through the static produce by tinfoil and talking toasters)

Harper has never said this mission was a peacekeeping mission. I challenge you to find one instance to back up your nonsense of harper saying so...

....and as far a Harper obeying his American masters, you should be reminded that it was Chretien and the liberals who started the mission and it is a nato. I'm not sure if it is productive to explain you how the leadership of nato works.....I might practice on a pylon first.

Edited by M.Dancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As usual another margrace post filled with inanities and the sounds of her brains rattling amongst the empty spaces. The irony is the request for honesty in a post that is blatantly dishonest.

Her first tidbit of rhetorical dishonesty is juxtapose harper telling us instead of peacekeeping, he obeys his American masters...

EARTH TO MARGRACE!!!! (hard to break through the static produce by tinfoil and talking toasters)

Harper has never said this mission was a peacekeeping mission. I challenge you to find one instance to back up your nonsense of harper saying so...

....and as far a Harper obeying his American masters, you should be reminded that it was Chretien and the liberals who started the mission and it is a nato. I'm not sure if it is productive to explain you how the leadership of nato works.....I might practice on a pylon first.

I know how little you think of us M. Dancer, you would go to the ends of the earth to protect you little oil cartels. Admit it this whole business has been nothing but a ploy to protect Internation Oil interests, I think you are the tin foil idiot, we are not a bunch of lambs but we sure act like it when we listen to BS's like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did your toaster tell you there was oil in Afghanistan?

Come on Margrace, try to be honest or at least lucid for a change, either admit that Harper (or Chretien) never said it was a peacekeeping mission and you were over the top or find a quote showing they did.

By the way Margrace, there is only one oil cartel, it's called OPEC. Some of it's members are Iran, Venuezuela.....

Sort of blows that cartel theory of yours away. Time to find a new tinfoil brand Margrace, your has obviously stopped working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know how little you think of us M. Dancer, you would go to the ends of the earth to protect you little oil cartels. Admit it this whole business has been nothing but a ploy to protect Internation Oil interests, I think you are the tin foil idiot, we are not a bunch of lambs but we sure act like it when we listen to BS's like you.

I do note that this response completely avoids the specific request made in the post being responded to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....IF the next president of the US decides to pull their troops out, Canada will be fighting the war almost alone. So what is Canada's interest to stay, other then to help the people?

This is a very unlikely hypothetical situation, as the US has no intention of leaving Afghanistan, since it is a beachhead in the WoT. Either way, Canada is responsible for any past, present, and future commitments, including the reasons for being there. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just as the heading reads "Do Canadians know why we are in Afghanistan?" Do Americans know why they are in Iraq, a war that has taken so many lives and produced nothing. Time they were told the true story, its the oil.

Yes, Americans know exactly why they are in Iraq. It's even a matter of public law. Not all agree with such a policy for one stop shopping for a host of Mideast issues, and if it includes oil, so what? Blood is a renewable resource....sweet crude oil is not. You may not agree with this, but please don't confuse the American purpose with any form of muddled thinking about why Canada is in Afghanistan.

And time Mr. Harper just told us that instead of peace keeping we are just obeying his American Masters. Lets all quite the BS and be a little more honest.

See NATO membership....privileges and responsibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Libs sent Canadian troops to Afghanistan with other countries because of 9/11 with the US saying that al Queda had training camps there and was responsible for 9/11. When Martin took over as PM , he only meant for them to stay for ONE year. Harper, then becomes the PM and he decides to extend it to Feb.08, with a session in Parliament to decide the final decision.

Well, it was the Liberals who expanded the mission from policing Kabul to combat around Kandahar; they also supported Harper's extension of Canada's military involvement.

Harper now says he wants Canada there til 2011. I UNDERSTAND that we should be there to help REBUILD the country BUT until the fighting is stopped there's no way that that is going to happen.

And, in the meantime, there are equally valuable human lives being destroyed in parts of the world where our finite peace-keeping resources might be more effectively employed. It's not a choice between doing something and doing nothing; it's a choice between Afghanistan and places of similar or greater need, but perhaps better prospects of success. This point about using our powers where they are likeliest to do the most lasting good is one that Jack Layton has made clearly; it strikes me as incomparably more tough-minded and realistic than meaningless bumper sticker slogans about not cutting and running.

So what is Canada's interest to stay, other then to help the people?

The question is whether our efforts there are apt to have a long-term benefit. It is far from obvious that they are doing so; hence the questions I posed earlier in this thread -- the only intelligible reply to which, so far, was a link to the notes from the Afghanistan compact.

Edited by Kitchener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it was the Liberals who expanded the mission from policing Kabul to combat around Kandahar; they also supported Harper's extension of Canada's military involvement.

And, in the meantime, there are equally valuable human lives being destroyed in parts of the world where our finite peace-keeping resources might be more effectively employed. It's not a choice between doing something and doing nothing; it's a choice between Afghanistan and places of similar or greater need, but perhaps better prospects of success. This point about using our powers where they are likeliest to do the most lasting good is one that Jack Layton has made clearly; it strikes me as incomparably more tough-minded and realistic than meaningless bumper sticker slogans about not cutting and running.

The question is whether our efforts there are apt to have a long-term benefit. It is far from obvious that they are doing so; hence the questions I posed earlier in this thread -- the only intelligible reply to which, so far, was a link to the notes from the Afghanistan compact.

The best thing to do is to let the Afghanis fight it out amongst themselves. If they take it to another country, then they should be beaten back and isolated. Once Afghanis stop fighting, then we can offer them assistance on their terms.

However, we all know that this doesn't fit into Bush's agenda (and Harper is his bum-buddy) of stealing oil while there is conflict.

Edited by charter.rights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that the left supports human rights all the time but does not believe in Afghanis having any rights. They should do the right thing and support the military, the Afghan government, Afghanis and the Harper government. Quit the cut and run crap. Be brave and fight for human rights like you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny that the left supports human rights all the time but does not believe in Afghanis having any rights. They should do the right thing and support the military, the Afghan government, Afghanis and the Harper government. Quit the cut and run crap. Be brave and fight for human rights like you say.

From what you just said makes me believe you are on of Harper's yes guys or you watch alot of c-pac? Those words is what we hear when the government is on TV. The Taliban were in power alot of years before 9/11, were was the Cons then??? OBL is NOT in Afghanistan so why is NATO there now?? This war has NOTHING to do with OBL, but everything to do with military power over another Middle-East country. IF you want to fight for human rights, why isn't NATO in the African countries??? BTW, Harper would have to do a 360 before I'd support him and that's not likely to happen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny that the left supports human rights all the time but does not believe in Afghanis having any rights. They should do the right thing and support the military, the Afghan government, Afghanis and the Harper government. Quit the cut and run crap. Be brave and fight for human rights like you say.

Was there some particular post you were replying to, or was this outburst just randomly dropped on this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The left wing crowd would solve this war by running away like cowards. If we went into African countries you would be whining about that too. Whats wrong? Cant take a bit of conflict to support human rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that a lot of Canadians, like me, thought we were going into Afghanistan for human rights. But this has not proved true, more and more we realize it is a pipeling to Oil north and east of it. You know it really shows how little some people on here think of us Canadians, I think they see us as a lot of rednecks with riches that they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The left wing crowd would solve this war by running away like cowards. If we went into African countries you would be whining about that too. Whats wrong? Cant take a bit of conflict to support human rights?

Once again: are you actually replying to some particular post, or are you just venting about nobody in particular -- or nobody who actually exists save in your imagination?

For example, you wrote about some vague entity called "the left" that "does not believe in Afghanis having any rights". Wow! The whole left! Afghans not having any rights!

Now, one possibility is that this is a childish, groundless smear that you've pulled out of thin air, in order to indulge your wish to blurt out something despite not having an actual point supported by actual evidence.

But maybe, just maybe, somebody on this thread did indeed both identify as a leftist, deny that Afghans should have any rights, and give reasons to think that "the left" more generally shared this view. If so, you should be able to quote them saying that.

I guess we'll see which it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that a lot of Canadians, like me, thought we were going into Afghanistan for human rights. But this has not proved true, more and more we realize it is a pipeling to Oil north and east of it. You know it really shows how little some people on here think of us Canadians, I think they see us as a lot of rednecks with riches that they want.

Of course you're the authority on the question of what you thought at the time. But I don't know of evidence that the oil pipeline is or was Canada's main reason for getting involved in Afghanistan. I can't see much reason to doubt that humanitarian aid was part of the reason. But for my money -- and this is mostly an educated guess -- I'd say that there was also a strong element of realpolitik regarding Canada-US relations. Remember, Feb. 2003 (the Liberal 1000-soldier commitment to Afghanistan) was when Iraq invasion hype was at a fevered pitch, and the Bush admin was pulling out all the stops to assemble the appearance of a broad-based coalition. The pressure on Canada to go along was substantial and was only going to get more intense, as Celluci was ramping up his aggressive rhetoric month by month. Chretien was not going to participate in Iraq, and wanted to have a bone to throw both to the US and to hawks in Canada. The Afghanistan mission accomplished this, to a degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kitchener you must be a cut and run lefty. I dont buy your conspiracy theory about George Bush and oil. We're in there because of the events of 911. I think it would be very irresponsible and foolish to leave Afghanistan. Our soldiers lives would be wasted for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we know that Ben Laden ever existed. Remember the babies in Kuwait. What a horrible diescription that was and as with Ben Laden we all were suitably horrified. Now we know that was made up so how much more was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitchener you must be a cut and run lefty.

So, that would be option (A), then: vacuous and entirely fictitious smear job.

I dont buy your conspiracy theory about George Bush and oil. We're in there because of the events of 911.

Monty, making things up is not a good way of establishing yourself as someone worth taking seriously. I mean, look at what I actually said.

I don't know of evidence that the oil pipeline is or was Canada's main reason for getting involved in Afghanistan.

Look again at how you replied.

I dont buy your conspiracy theory about George Bush and oil.

Now, read those two things very carefully, Monty. What did I say about oil? What did you say I said about oil? Uh-huh... So that would make your post a... what, now?

The icing on the cake is that you don't seem to know what a fallacious conspiracy theory is. Note: it's not just something you disagree with. In problematic cases of conspiracy theories, somebody must have postulated a conspiracy whose actions include the elimination of evidence for the conspiracy. Since I postulated no conspiracy of any sort, this would be another case of you making things up.

Words have meanings, Monty, and making up things about your interlocutors is unmannerly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...