Yesterday, I discussed the need for an open discussion about Canada's future in Afghanistan, focusing primarily on recent requests from our NATO partners to extend our commitment to the Afghan mission. I was careful to remain personally neutral on the issue, though the article largely supported the argument to prolong the Afghan presence. However, as is the case in every debate, there are key arguments supporting the opposing point of view. In regards to the future of the Canadian forces in Afghanistan, there are serious concerns that need to be addressed and troubling developments that can not be ignored.
Following Hillary Clinton's interview on CTV, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff appeared with Tom Clark to debate the future of Canada's presence in Afghanistan. Ignatieff directly responded to Clinton's request for an extended role, telling Clark that "any renewal of a combat mission is just out of the question." Ignatieff also addressed the possibility of 'non-combat' training roles.
"If it's in Kandahar, we're right in the line of fire. If it's in Kabul it's another question. Who are we training? what kind of training? There's training that's essentially indistinguishable from combat. Canadians require precise answers to precise questions...We can't sit here playing around in the dark."
When the discussion moved to his personal views on probability of the mission's success, Ignatieff shared his concerns about the government of Afghanistan.
"I have expressed my skepticism about the core issue, which is the Karzai government. Who are we fighting for here? Are these people capable of cleaning up their act and giving Afghanistan the honest government that it so desperately needs?"
"We can't sustain in Afghanistan unless we've got a partner we can trust, and Canadians can trust. I can't as a responsible political leader, even in opposition, ask my fellow citizens to support further action in Afghanistan unless I can say 'we've got some people out there you can stand with; that you can trust, that will deliver', so the question you asked earlier about training; Training with whom? For what purpose? Is the Afghan Army the kind of instrument, serving the kind of government that Canadians can support? These are the kind of fundamental questions we have answers to, because this is about Canadian lives, this is not just an interesting political debate. If we get the wrong people might die in vain, and I as a responsible political leader don't want that to happen"
The questions put forth by Ignatieff precisely address the current frustrations affecting NATO forces; The credibility of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
Back in 2006, reports began to surface that Afghans were becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the Karzai government; They openly criticized him for "being too docile in his dealings with corrupt governors and police chiefs and for maintaining ties for the country's former warlords." Reports also discussed growing suspicions about Ahmed Wali Karzai, younger brother of president Karzai, and his role as the "head of a group involved in opium and heroin trafficking that smuggles drugs to the West."
But it's not Karzai's past that has created a renewed tension between himself and the West, it's his recent accusations that cast serious doubt on the true commitment of the Afghan government.
On April 1, Karzai lashed out at the the United States and United Nations, accusing them of perpetrating fraud in the 2009 Afghan presidential election.
"There is no doubt that the fraud was very widespread, but this fraud was not committed by Afghans, it was committed by foreigners," Karzai asserted. "This fraud was committed by (deputy United Nations special representative) Galbraith; This fraud was committed by (chief election observer for the European Union) Morillon and this fraud was committed by (international) embassies."
The New York Times notes that Karzai also accused the NATO coalition currently fighting against the Taliban "of being on the verge of becoming invaders - a term usually used by (Taliban) insurgents to refer to American, British and other NATO troops fighting in Afghanistan."
Two days later, during a Parliamentary meeting on April 3, Karzai stepped up his anti-West rhetoric, warning those in attendance, "if you and the international community pressure me more, I swear that I am going to join the Taliban."
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs spoke to the media following Karzai's remarks, saying that such accusations are a "cause for real and genuine concern."
After eight years of war and 141 Canadian soldiers lost on the battlefield, Karzai's inflammatory remarks are not just a 'cause for concern;' They are a cause for NATO to rethink its commitment to the Afghan government. Success in Afghanistan cannot be realized without honesty, co-operation and integrity from all parties involved. The West cannot create a democracy in a Country who's government has no interest in adopting such a system. No amount of time and effort spent working with the Afghan military will completely curtail the rampant corruption within the ranks.
The United States may feel Karzai's statements are a 'cause for concern,' but for the Canadian forces, it just may be the cause for a total withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
But isn't that already the plan? Upon closer examination, the answer seems to be no.
The 2011 withdrawal from Afghanistan, as it currently stands, will not be a complete withdrawal. Prime minister Stephen Harper has been artfully disingenuous when commenting about the details and scope of the 2011 pullout date. Harper's doublespeak was evident following his remarks that his government is "very much planning to have the 'military mission' end in 2011." This carefully worded sound byte was later undercut by Ben Rowswell, Canada's representative in Kandahar. Rowswell revealed that the Canadian Provincial Reconstruction Team, which includes hundreds of soldiers, will in fact remain in Afghanistan beyond the 2011 deadline.
Canadians are being mislead by Harper in regards to our post 2011 role in Afghanistan, which is precisely why Parliament needs to have a frank discussion on the matter. Has the Harper government already assigned troops to 'non-combat' roles post 2011, as detailed by Rowswell and recently requested by Clinton? If so, why hasn't Harper been honest about it with Canadians? If no commitments have been made, is Harper planning on opening the door to a new role for Canadian soldiers after the 2011 withdrawal date?
If Harper is committed to a 'complete' troop withdrawal, he needs to publicly, and definitively say so. Our soldiers deserve better than to have their future secretly decided by a Conservative government with an aversion to accountability, and Canadians deserve to know the details pertaining to the upcoming troop withdrawal. After eight long years in Afghanistan, and facing allegations of complicity in torture, the Harper government owes Canadians an honest explanation.
---
UPDATE April 8: A new poll released by the CBC shows Canadians are overwhelmingly opposed to extending the Afghan mission.
UPDATE April 11: Canada will remain in Afghanistan beyond 2011
UPDATE April 12: Afghan president Hamid Karzai threatens to block NATO offensive
UPDATE April 25: Afghan mission needs credible partner: Former envoy
Not if I see you first.
Alheli, I don't deal with conspiracy theory... I deal with conspiracy fact. Really? You marginalize the top General of the CIA/FBI/NSA, top brass in the military, and AWAL anti-war vets? See, it takes courage to poke a hole in the comfortable bubble that we have created in our minds. I understand that we are all at different stages of awareness and thats fine with me. What seems juvenile to me is when people refuse to review evidence presented right in front of their eyes and then "devolve" into tossing shoutable slogans like "truther" or "denier." Finally, censoring someone for speaking the truth proves a heinous and cowardly thing to do.
It is a waste of time trying to create rational dialog with these people. They have culminated an identity within themselves where they instinctively marginalize anyone who has the courage to challenge their belief system. But for those of you who have the capacity in your hearts and minds to see, there are many blessings on you way. And Alheli, regardless what you may think, I really hope something positive will come from your work here... if that is sincerely your objective. I hope these critical conversations might evolve into brighter and better things.
Only time will tell.
Take care all, and see you next time.
Once again Ravenise, I have no interest in conspiracy theories or juvenile personal attacks.
Just a little recap:
-Frmrsldr-What kind of a one sided, pro war crap article is this?
-Pensive-While I'm not going to call this "pro war crap", I have to admit I am surprised at the tone of the article. It's not what I expected from the title of the piece.
-a_picazo-Yes, I am limited to space, but will have a follow up article with the other side of the argument.
-M. Spector-Picazo, you've got to be fucking kidding me! - M.Spector-Why does rabble publish this shit?
-Frmrsldr-Should we have had a debate over Afghanistan? Absolutely. That debate should have taken place in 2006 and 2008 and should have included input from the Canadian public.
-radiorahim-I don't come to rabble.ca to find out what Hillary Clinton, David Milliband, Tory hacks/politicians and the mainstream media have to say about an issue. I can read the corporate media to find that out.
-Ravenise- In order to have an open an honest debate, we need open and honest politicians.
In order to have an open and honest debate, you have to openly address critical facts that you will never see in the manufactured garbage mainstream media.
For example, on March 29, 2010 an anonymous hero leaked classified documents revealing how CIA is working with governments and media to manipulating public opinion to Europeans. What makes you think that the Canadian government isn't working hand in glove with such despicable intentions in mind? Here is an article on this subject, and links to these classified documents here
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/27/wikileaks
/insert: Bam, end of discussion:
Follow up article:
-Frmrsldr- Again, this is another pro war crap article.
-Ravenise- Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of studies at the US Army War College, along with Phil Tourney, survivor of the attack on his ship, the USS Liberty, have just gone on the record admitting that Israel, and traitors within our own nation committed the 9/11 attacks.
Top Brass in the US Military KNOWS Israel did 911
http://theuglytruth.podbean.com/mf/web/gtvb38/uglytruth15MARCH2010sabros...
Keep that in mind next time you want to debate an illegal war based on a pack of lies.
-Frmrsldr- @_picazo: Your article quotes "Iffy" and yip-yaps around the question of should we continue to prop up our sock puppet Karzai and try to get him to change a little or should we depose him and replace him with a more compliant sock puppet.
-a_picazo- @Ravenise "Afghanistan was the primary focus after September 11 because that is where Al Qaeda was stationed." snip "just debate the facts, whether or not you like them."
-Ravenise- You want to debate facts? Contact the high ranking military officials in the links provided above. BBC: Al Quaeda doesn't exist as an organization
-a_picazo- "I'm not sure why both of you seem to think I am advocating war?"
-Frmrsldr- For an article that is supposed to be a case for withdrawal from Afghanistan, it's a pretty timid and conservative piece. (understatement)
a_picazo: "My intention is not to trumpet one side or the other"
/insert Remember your previous post?
"a_picazo: Yes, I will have a follow up article with the other side of the argument."
a_picazo: "I provided arguments on both sides, but left my own opinion out."
/insert Are you auditioning for Fox News?
-M. Spector- It's clear to me that you are taking sides in a minor disagreement between the imperialists and their erstwhile puppet - and moreover siding with the imperialists!
-a_picazo- "I understand you feel that Canada shouldn't have gone to begin with. However, like it or not, snip"
-a_picazo- @Frmrsldr "YOU provided details to back up your argument. Stating a position is one thing, haveing substance behind it is another."
========================================================================
Gee Alheli, you seem to have conveniently overlooked my links. Am I the only one who smells a mole? At least one mole recently posted articles on this topic at globalreserach.ca which contain just as much apathetic rhetoric as these ones here, Particularly: [1]
Anyone who believes a single word coming from 'Haarpers' mouth is a moron, he has shown time and again his true colors to the people, and the only reason he won't play the 'withdrawal troops' card is because he will not 'win' the next election. The mainstream media is very good at gaining your trust with apathetic material disguised as anti imperialist propaganda. Once they gain your trust they stab you in the back. If half of the population is dumb enough to actually believe what they peddle on the main stream media, they use it as leverage to conquer and divide populations, turning us against one another while they go about raping, pillaging, and destroying more nations for resources day after day.
All of this is based on 9/11, a pack of lies. I would appreciate if you would at least take a look at this a_pacazo: General of All American Intelligence (CIA/FBI/NSA) says 9/11 was a fraud
I think you are right Frmrsldr... my hunch is that elements within our own government and the white house are setting the stage work for another empty debate. Why? Perhaps their next false flag didn't go as planned (grin). And of course misery loves company. Perhaps the Obama administration doesn't want to look like a complete and utter moron all on its own, so they want Canada to wear their "I'm with stupid" tee's.
The CIA is conspiring with Europeans to stay in Afghanistan because "apathy might not be enough." You bet your ass the same empty suits are up to the same game right now in Canada. Keep in mind that the neocons are preparing to go viral on social sites...
Ravenise.
I have neither the time nor the patience for conspiracy theorists.
My post was cut and censored. heheh. Hey, if I'm not making people angry, I'm probably not doing my job. So much for free speech. I will re-post it shortly. If it is cut again, I will post it on another website.
You are a filthy disgrace a_picazo, find another website to post your garbage
As I said before, Harper has been working behind the scenes. Lo and behold, the info comes out
Canada may stay post 2011 to train Afghan army, police
What the hell's wrong with the Cons?
First they rebuke State Secretary Hillary Clinton and say that no troops will stay beyond 2011. No troops will remain in Kandahar or in Southern Afghanistan. No troops will provide training for Afghan forces or protection for PRTs or aid organizations.
For its lack of clarity, the 2008 War Resolution is clear that Canadian troops are to be withdrawn from Kandahar by 2011.
Yesterday, newly released Torturegate documents show that the Conservative government was warned that working with Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security (NDS) could lead to illegal activities and cause (legal and political) problems for the Canadian government.
Now MacKay announces that an additional 90 Canadian soldiers will be sent to Afghanistan to train Afghan forces. They will either be deployed to Kabul or Kandahar. If they are sent to Kandahar and stay beyond 2011 (which it looks like they will) that violates the 2008 War Resolution agreed to by the House. If they are going to stay in Afghanistan beyond 2011 and train Afghan forces, then Harper has been caught publicly lying to Hillary Clinton.
So, this is what (for the moment at least) it looks like the Conservatives are going to do.
Will the Canadian public allow them to get away with it?
One has to wonder if this is not a trial balloon to test the reactions of Canadians. If Canadians are silent, then the Cons might go all the way to break the 2008 War Resolution and send more troops to Kandahar to engage in combat beyond 2011.
Let us not forget that roughly a year ago when the Cons were talking about sending an "exponentially" smaller number of troops (than there are currently deployed) to Afghanistan, they stated that they would NOT bring the matter before Parliament for a vote.
Mackay Announces he's sending more troops
Ah, see. YOU provided details to back up your argument. Stating a position is one thing, haveing substance behind it is another.
Thanks for the links and the info and your dedication to the cause!
Oh my god!
Regarding your latest reponse to M. Spector,
You seriously need to read all the babble blog pages titled The Afghan People Will Win and the Swiss Military Model For Canada.
Why do you think we have to justify anything to "Murder Inc." ie., the American Empire and NATO and their sock puppet Karzai when it comes to military disengagement from Afghanistan? We don't have to justify a single thing to them when it comes to leaving Afghanistan. As far as the U.N. is concerned, they would be perfectly fine with that. Heard of the recent decision by the Dutch government to pull out of Afghanistan?
Here at rabble, for the months I have been a member, I have consistently made two main arguments concerning why we should never have waged a war of aggression against Afghanistan and its people:
1. Hamid Karzai is a former representative and shareholder of Unocal. Unocal has plans to build TAP (Trans Afghan Pipeline) when (if) security is ever achieve by U.S./NATO/ISAF in Afghanistan. Karzai was/is on the CIA payroll. The Bonn (Germany) Conference hosted by the Pentagon that lasted from Septermber to December, 2001 saw the Pentagon appoint Karzai (as President) and his ministers as the interim Afghan government in exhile. On December 15, the first NATO/ISAF, along with additional U.S. and U.K. troops, arrived in Afghanistan. On December 25 2001, Hamid Karzai and the interim Afghan government in exhile arrived in Kabul escorted by their U.S./NATO/ISAF bodyguard. The government created by the local Afghan people themselves was swept aside and our puppet regime was installed instead. Because Karzai's remaining in power is dependent on our forces remaining in Afghanistan, despite his occasional squeaks to the contrary, Karzai obviously doesn't want foreign forces to leave Afghanistan. At no point did the Afghan government ASK us (our military forces, specifically) to be there.
2. The Afghan war is illegal. In the interest of space, you will have to go to the above mentioned rabble blog pages (go to the two most recent pages of both.) Concerning a case that establishes the precedent that the argument that the Afghan war of aggression is justified on the grounds that the Afghan Taliban government harbored terrorists, is illegal, see the 1984 International Justice Court case Nicaragua v. U.S.A.
http://en.allexperts.com/e/n/ni/nicaragua_vs._united_states.htm
Yesterday, on Power Play, Tom Clark talked about exactly what I've been saying for days.
Talks ARE happening, out of the public eye, in regards to keeping troops in a 'non-combat' role.
2 MP's also shed light on the discussions for a future 'non-military' role.
This is why I have been talking about the need for an HONEST and OPEN discussion, because Canadians are not being told the whole story.
M. Spector.
I'm not sure what you are looking for. I understand you feel that Canada shouldn't have gone to begin with. However, like it or not, we went in and are being asked by everyone, including the Afghan government, to stay. They feel we have a place there, so arguing that 'we shouldn't have gone in the first place' won't hold water when telling our allies that we will not extend the mission.
The international community is not interested in personal views on war; they are more inclined to listen to concrete arguments and evidence to justify refusing to stay post 2011.
I am NOT saying your position is wrong, I am simply looking at this from various points of view, not just my own.
Stupid move on the part of Harper. Until now, he's been silent about Karzai's latest doings. Now he's shown the Canadian public that he's Captain Peg Leg's shoulder parrot and that Canadian foreign policy is slaved to American foreign policy. For the moment, this looks like mildly rebuking Karzai publicly while continuing the policy of propping him up - subject to change (of course).
N.B. I would be amiss not to mention that the "Captain Peg Leg" metaphor is not mine. To my knowledge, it was originally brought up by our friend Fidel.
Here's an introductory crash course on the U.S.A.'s meddling in the affairs of other countries, propping up sock puppets and its relevance to the current Karzai/Afghan situation.
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-04-05.asp
So, Picazo: describing Karzai's remarks about the foreign interference in Afghanistan as "anti-West rhetoric" and "inflammatory remarks" doesn't amount to expressing your opinion?
It's clear to me that you are taking sides in a minor disagreement between the imperialists and their erstwhile puppet - and moreover siding with the imperialists! You even single out for particular scorn, with the help of the New York Times, Karzai's assertion that the NATO forces are "on the verge of becoming invaders". Oh, shock and horror! How dare he say that?
And to show that Karzai has gone completely berserk, you even remind us of his allegation that the widespread fraud that (every independent observer agrees) characterized the 2009 Afghanistan elections was engineered (gasp!) by the imperialists! As if such an accusation is so very far-fetched!
Karzai's "inflammatory remarks", you say, "are a cause for NATO to rethink it's (sic) commitment to the Afghan government. Success in Afghanistan can not (sic) be realized without honesty, co-operation and integrity from all parties involved...." So much for your feigned "impartiality"! It seems you believe the honesty, co-operation and integrity are there on the side of the NATO forces, including Canada, but not on the side of the Afghan government. That certainly seems to agree with Iggy's point of view, in which you seem to place great store.
So Canada should withdraw its troops - not because they have no business being there in the first place - but because that ingrate Karzai (who has the nerve to actually suggest that the foreign troops in his country are something less than a force for all that is right and just) doesn't deserve our largesse?
Great analysis there. So that's your "case for withdrawal"?
Well Alheli there is a well documented history of the CIA connection with drug dealers that goes back into the 1940's...if not before.
It's a question of drug dealing dictators that serve the interests of imperialism vs. drug dealing dictators that don't...or show a tiny degree of independence from their masters.
What scares the global ruling class is not drug dealing dictators, "the commies" or "Islamic Fundamentalists" (the new "commies"), what they are afraid of is independent development.
Governments that attempt in any way shape or form to develop their societies in the interests of their citizens are dangerous and must be crushed.
That's the fundamental issue and all of the rest is just window dressing.
Looks like Harper finally got wind of Karzai's statements. Cue the sudden outrage. Also troubling that Harper has no idea what was said and only commented after it was brought to his attention.
What a leader.
The Defense Department is still getting an increase, it's just a smaller increase post budget. Harper hasn't reneged on the 20 year contracts worth $490 billion (round that up by $10 billion and it's half a trillion dollars) he signed with the arms industries for weapons and equipment for the Canadian military.
Uncle Sam is not very kind to his sock puppets when they fall into disfavor. Here are two more:
Saddam Hussein (Iraq)
Diem (Republic of South Vietnam)
Do you know who else is on the payroll of the CIA?
Karzai's drug dealing brother
What we have in Karzhai is a puppet who's shown a teensy weensy bit of independence from his puppet masters...if only to try to maintain a microscopic tidbit of credibility with the Afghan people.
And since he's shown a bit of independence, the puppet masters are debating whether or not they need a new and "improved" puppet.
This is the kind of "debate" that is as old as imperialism itself. It's not something that progressive activists should get caught up in because it's a false debate.
Anyone remember Manuel Noriega in Panama? He was on the CIA payroll for years. Then he had the audacity to support the Contadora peace process in Central America in the 1980's.
All of a sudden, he became a "drug running dictator", and Bush I ordered the marines to invade to depose him...and the U.S. military killed lots of civilians in poor neighbourhoods of Panama City in the process.
This is what I was referring to in regards to defence funding cuts.
And no, neither this piece nor the previous article were opinion pieces. I provided arguments on both sides, but left my own opinion out.
I am well aware of the detainee situation and the war crimes that the government is guilty of.
I will take a look at the sites you suggested. Thanks!
I take it then, for you, this article is not an opinion piece.
Harper did not "slash" defense spending. The Defense Department is getting a 2% budget increase (merely rolled back from an originally promised 4%.)
According to the Geneva Conventions, when a Power (government) transfers prisoners to a third Power (in this case, Afghan prison and intelligence government agents), the transferring Power has the legal duty to ensure those prisoners are not murdered, tortured, abused, denied due process, denied adequate nourishment, denied adequate accomodation, etc. If this takes place, then the transferring power must insist that the third Power stop. If the third Power is unable or unwilling to stop, then the transferring Power must remand the prisoners back into its custody. If the transferring Power lacks proper facilities to accomodate the prisoners, then they must be transferred to another member (signatory of the Conventions) Power who have the proper facilities to house them.
Harper and Hillier have violated the Geneva Conventions. They are war criminals and should be put on trial either by the Supreme Court of Canada or the International Justice Court in the Hague, Netherlands.
If you are interested in the ineffective sock puppet Hamid Karzai we are propping up, you should become a regular visitor of RAWA and antiwar.com.
Well said, Canadians need to make their voices heard, because right now it looks as if there will be troops remaining post 2011.
My intention is not to trumpet one side or the other...when I write an opinion piece, you'll know where i stand on any given issue. But with Afghanistan I am leaving my opinion out of it and simply presenting the circumstances.
Another problem, should Harper decide to sign on for longer, is that inconvenient fact that he slashed the defence funding......oops.
As for the issue of afghan detainee torture, I am firmly in favour of a public inquiry, as it is clear the Conservative government was willingly complicit in the torture of detainees.
That's another reason why I'd like absolute clarity on Afghanistan post 2011, because the torture issue needs to be acted on. Now.
Thanks for the great discussion. You're clearly passionate about this issue.
Regarding Karzai...it looks like he has more than a drug trafficking problem...
Because of Torturegate, Harper is playing it by ear on Canadian military engagement in Afghanistan. If you want Harper to send us a clear message on his post 2011 intentions concerning Afghanistan, then we must send him a clear message on what his post 2011 intentions concerning Afghanistan ought to be.
We musn't allow pro war useful idiots like "Iffy" do our thinking and talking for us. Keep this thought in mind: "Iffy" and "Harpoon" belong to the same party - the War Party.
For an article that is supposed to be a case for withdrawal from Afghanistan, it's a pretty timid and conservative piece.
I'm not sure why both of you seem to think I am advocating war? I am simply stating the Canadians, and Parliamentarians need a clarification about what Harper's plans are.
In an interview today, a Conservative representative stated that yes, troops will be remaining in a 'non-combat' mission. (which I think is bunk...if you're shot at, are you just going to stand there? you're always ready for combat)
I am staunchly against Iraq, and no fan of Afghanistan. What i want is accountability from the government on what the true post 2011 plans are, because they are contradicting themselves.
Before you preach to me about 'emotions,' strap a AK to your chest and go die for your own war. While you are at it, grow some thumbs. You want to debate facts? Contact the high ranking military officials in the links provided above.
BBC: Al Quaeda doesn't exist as an organization
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make her drink. You can put a woman through school, but you cannot make her think.
Removed by poster, double post
Your article quotes "Iffy" and yip-yaps around the question of should we continue to prop up our sock puppet Karzai and try to get him to change a little or should we depose him and replace him with a more compliant sock puppet.
"Iffy" flaps his gums about Canadian troops continuing to provide security for reconstruction and training for Afghan forces.
Harper avoids the issue of propping up Karzai altogether and instead talks about providing direct assistance to the Afghan people. Thomas Walkom: "He'll [Stephen Harper] send aid workers and governance experts to Afghanistan. But another country will have to provide the soldiers that protect them."
If you wouldn't describe an article I write about smoking or the environment where I only quote sources from the tobacco industry or from oil companies, their front organizations, pseudo scientists and climate change deniers, as being either critical of smoking or about environmental justice, then why would you describe your article as being pro withdrawal/antiwar?
I see no quotes from Eric Margolis, Linda McQuaig, Lawyers Against War, RAWA, Malalai Joya, Global Research, the Canadian Peace Alliance, Justin Raymondo, Jason Ditz, http://antiwar.com/ , etc.
The title of the article is: Debating Afghanistan: The case for withdrawal. Yet I see no argument for withdrawal made in this article. The article blah blahs about Harper needing to be clear on the troop withdrawal section of the War Resolution passed by the House in 2008. If you read once again the quotes from the Thomas Walkom article above, you will see that Harper and Cannon are quite clear on this, which suggests that your sources are dated. Either that or "Iffy" is that badly "out of it".
I see no "Out Now" case being made concerning our troops. I see no arguments that question the legal basis of the war. I see no arguments that question why our troops are there. I see no arguments questioning the morality of the war. The article presupposes the "goodness" or morality of what we are doing.
I mean, while you were at it, why didn't you quote representatives from McDonnell-Douglas? McDonnell-Douglas is the world's most profitable arms industry.
Oh goodness.
OK. Whether or not you agree with the war, please don't devolve into Truther-ism. September 11 was not a government conspiracy.
Afghanistan was the primary focus after September 11 because that is where Al Qaeda was stationed. However, Bush/Cheney were hell bent on invading Iraq, which left Afghanistan to flounder for years until Obama was elected.
It is now apparent that the extremists have for the most part abandoned afghanistan and have taken up in Pakistan.
It is a never ending crusade, which is why the argument to leave Afghanistan is strong. However, there are decisions being made for 'non military' roles after the Spring offensive, and that is the issue the opposition needs to raise in the House of Commons. Why is Harper dedicating more man power and money to an afghan government that is corrupt?
You have to put your emotions aside, and just debate the facts, whether or not you like them.
There is nothing to debate. First of all, its none of our bloody buisness to be there in the first place, armies are not trained to rebuild nations, they are trained to kill. Listen to this hero, former army sergeant and anti-war activist Matthis Chiroux who may help you understand, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhkkDgZEfoQ
Second, how many people actually know why we went to Afghanistanin the first place? Well, Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of studies at the US Army War College, along with Phil Tourney, survivor of the attack on the USS Liberty have just gone on the record admitting that Israel, and traitors within our own nation committed the 9/11 attacks. This is the news story of the century, and you would be a damn fool not to check it out.
Top Brass in the US Military KNOWS Israel did 911
http://theuglytruth.podbean.com/mf/web/gtvb38/uglytruth15MARCH2010sabrosky.mp3
Keep that in mind next time you want to debate an illigal war based on a pack of lies.
Don't expect Harper or Iggy to tell you the truth, they are tamed and reigned... unless the people, and parliament can find the courage to break free of the illusion woven by smilly glad hands with hidden agendas and collectively stand up and say "NO! I will not comply!" it will be business as usual. End of argument.
Please explain exactly where this article is "pro war".
Again, this is another pro war crap article.
Trust "Iffy" to attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Just like talk about "choice" concerning the future of Canada's health care is an attempt to slip in privatizing the health care system, this talk about an "open discussion" on the future of the Afghan war is an attempt to escalate Canada's military engagement there.
Now "Iffy's" position on this issue has become a little less murky.
Harper's current position is crystal clear. There will be no troops beyond 2011. There will be no PRTs. There will be no providing security for reconstruction. There will be no troops engaged in training Afghan forces.
Here are some quotes from columnist Thomas Walkom, whose article has been posted on this site:
Clueless "Iffy" is opening up a pseudo debate that doesn't exist. If he persues with this "open debate" about the future of the war and continues to demand Harper to come clear on troop withdrawal, "Iffy" is once again going to increase the popularity of the Conservatives at the expense of the Liberals come next election.
If "Iffy" wants to become the next Prime Minister, he needs to listen to the majority of Canadians who want the troops "OUT NOW!"
Now that (it appears) we've got Harper on board, let's put pressure on him to stay this present course and not blow it with our ineptitude by introducing such non existent pseudo debates.