And, the priority attached to getting the army back on eight wheels is far-sighted. It means Canada will have an option it presently does not: The extension of its mission to Afghanistan beyond 2011--something Parliament may well wish to consider closer to the time, for all manner of good and sufficient reasons.
Extending the Afghanistan mission beyond 2011 to apparently fight the recession
Tue, 2009-08-04 12:21
#1
remind
Extending the Afghanistan mission beyond 2011 to apparently fight the recession
Tue, 2009-08-04 19:04
#2
I've never thought that the goverment was serious about ending the mission in 2011. It wasn't serious back in 2006 when it said it would end in 2009. Ignatieff is looking for a reason to stay in Afghanistan and so is Harper. Whether it is revamping the army, or a request to stay from the Americans, or Pakistan, or whatever, they'll find an excuse and use it. Liberal MPs who say in private that they oppose the war simply don't have the moral courage to work with the NDP to try and stop the mission from being extended.
So no matter who wins an election before 2011, liberal or conservative, the war isn't ending. Just the name of it.
Tue, 2009-08-04 20:10
#3
The notion that the solutions to the economy lie in buying more weaponry and outsourcing more training contracts to the businesses courting Mr. Harper is totally unacceptable. Just imagine the amount of jobs, community projects and vital resources Canadian society could inherit if these five billion dollars were not turned over to Washington's interests to buy LAVs and bullets to kill carefully manufactured "enemies" abroad. As more and more young Canadians are dying to sustain this policy, more and more of us must protest the kind of lies propagated by the Calgary Herald in this story.
Tue, 2009-08-04 21:02
#4
remind
Good luck with that martin given the focus around here.
Tue, 2009-08-04 21:56
#5
My own theory of what this is about,
We're heading towards a major international conflict, and Afghanistan is an opportunity to acquire combat experience, and to pick who are the true leaders in our military.
Tue, 2009-08-04 22:06
#6
remind
Greed, men and war, as always.
Tue, 2009-08-04 23:05
#7
Good luck with that martin given the focus around here.
Seems like you're right. The Herald would not even print the abridged version of my comment...
Tue, 2009-08-04 23:15
#8
Is it just me or does it seem wrong for the mission in Afghanistan to be NATO-led when Afghanistan is nowhere near the North Atlantic. It would seem that if the war is even a just war, it should be UN-led in the name of neutrality. And that, if the Afghan War is even just.
Tue, 2009-08-04 23:18
#9
Honestly, if the UN could gradually introduce an international military force of, let's say, a maximum of 100,000 well-trained and equipped men, able to recruit from worldwide, and all nations funding it, Canada could essentially gradually get rid of its own military and just rely on the international force, which would cost Canada a fraction of the current budget while still providing more than sufficient protection to our country.
Tue, 2009-08-04 23:33
#10
Do we even need a military?
No, who is going to attack us? We should disband the military and melt everything down to build houses for the homeless across out cities.
Tue, 2009-08-04 23:49
#11
My own theory of what this is about,
We're heading towards a major international conflict, and Afghanistan is an opportunity to acquire combat experience, and to pick who are the true leaders in our military.
I really, really hope youre wrong about that
NATO should be disbanded, dissolved, broken up etc Not just my opinion,
That the Soviets ceded the cold war caught the west by surprise. Instead of imagining the opportunities for peace, trading freely with the former USSR, and global prosperity, small minds, criminal minds in high places took the opportunity to plan full spectrum world domination in a unipolar world. Also not just my opinion. Nuclear weapons can have no legitimate purpose. Same goes for [url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14619]biological weapons of mass destruction[/url], nanoweapons etc
Again, I really hope youre wrong, 500_Apples 
Wed, 2009-08-05 09:46
#12
...Canada could essentially gradually get rid of its own military and just rely on the international force, which would cost Canada a fraction of the current budget while still providing more than sufficient protection to our country.
The argument that we are waging an aggressive war in Afghanistan to defend ourselves again violates the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Charter and other international laws, treaties and protocols on war that Canada and the U.S. are signatories to. The Afghan war is an illegal genocidal war.
Wed, 2009-08-05 09:50
#13
Do we even need a military?
No, who is going to attack us? We should disband the military and melt everything down to build houses for the homeless across out cities.
You're right SparkyOne.
Canada has no natural enemies. No one who will invade us, that is. Through culpability, the clowns in Ottawa may give our resources away to the U.S.A. and Russia, who will use money and treaties (guile and intrigue) to separate us from our natural wealth and our country's heritage.
Wed, 2009-08-05 10:03
#14
Nuclear weapons can have no legitimate purpose. Same goes for [url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14619]biological weapons of mass destruction[/url], nanoweapons etc
And crazy George II had the gall to accuse Saddam Hussein of possessing WMDs. Like ol' W was 
.
Wed, 2009-08-05 10:14
#15
M. Spector
![http://i31.tinypic.com/2wrlqua.gif[/IMG]](http://i31.tinypic.com/2wrlqua.gif[/IMG]){kind=link}
Wed, 2009-08-05 10:35
#16
Do we even need a military?
No, who is going to attack us? We should disband the military and melt everything down to build houses for the homeless across out cities.
"Do we need a military?"
What do you mean by "we"? If you mean Canada, then I'd say that as long as we don't have a world military defending us, we do need a national military. Let's not forget that German U-boats had entered the St. Lawrence in WWII. It could always happen again.
Now if we had an international police force, then I could see getting rid of the Canadian military. In fact, I'd be in favour of that as it would allow many nations to pull their resources togetehr, thus allowing each nation to contribute a much smaller amount than we do now while still getting just as much protection from loose cannons.
Wed, 2009-08-05 10:38
#17
...Canada could essentially gradually get rid of its own military and just rely on the international force, which would cost Canada a fraction of the current budget while still providing more than sufficient protection to our country.
The argument that we are waging an aggressive war in Afghanistan to defend ourselves again violates the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Charter and other international laws, treaties and protocols on war that Canada and the U.S. are signatories to. The Afghan war is an illegal genocidal war.
Then we should get out of Afghanistan. That doesn't negate the merits of an international military force to replace national military forces though.
Wed, 2009-08-05 10:38
#18
...Canada could essentially gradually get rid of its own military and just rely on the international force, which would cost Canada a fraction of the current budget while still providing more than sufficient protection to our country.
The argument that we are waging an aggressive war in Afghanistan to defend ourselves again violates the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Charter and other international laws, treaties and protocols on war that Canada and the U.S. are signatories to. The Afghan war is an illegal genocidal war.
Then we should get out of Afghanistan. That doesn't negate the merits of an international military force to replace national military forces though.
Wed, 2009-08-05 10:44
#19
M. Spector
Whose rule would be enforced by this international military force? How much say do you think you and I would have over who gets killed and who doesn't?
Wed, 2009-08-05 10:48
#20
Whose rule would be enforced by this international military force? How much say do you think you and I would have over who gets killed and who doesn't?
Obviously that would have to be agreed to ahead of time. One possible model could be to say that this force could be used only with approval of the UN General Assembly and in full accordance with international law, unless one nation should invade another, in which case there would then be no time for that. Of couse this is just my first attempt at possible rules and it might be flawed, but I think it coud be a starting base for discussing what the rules may be.
Wed, 2009-08-05 10:58
#21
M. Spector
Obviously that would have to be agreed to ahead of time.
Yeah, uh, when the day comes when everybody in the world can agree on who the good guys and bad guys are, then get back to me. Until then, you're welcome to your own little fantasies.
Wed, 2009-08-05 11:41
#22
Why even an international police?
It's none of our buisness what goes on in the rest of the world we need to stop interphering with other countries and their buisness and start worrying more about Canada. It's not ourplace to go to Afghanistan or Iraq or Africa or Somalia or where ever and try to tell them what to do.
Wed, 2009-08-05 13:00
#23
Why even an international police?
It's none of our buisness what goes on in the rest of the world we need to stop interphering with other countries and their buisness and start worrying more about Canada. It's not ourplace to go to Afghanistan or Iraq or Africa or Somalia or where ever and try to tell them what to do.
So I take it we should withdraw from the UN and all other international organizations and just close off our borders?
Wed, 2009-08-05 20:54
#24
Is it just me or does it seem wrong for the mission in Afghanistan to be NATO-led when Afghanistan is nowhere near the North Atlantic. It would seem that if the war is even a just war, it should be UN-led in the name of neutrality. And that, if the Afghan War is even just.
The U.N. doesn't do war. According to the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Charter and other international laws, Afghanistan is an aggressive (and therefore) illegal war. When the U.S. formed its coalition to shoulder the burden of fighting the Afghan war, the Pentagon assigned NATO the task of directing the war effort. NATO sent its ISAF troops to Afghanistan and then informed the U.N. afterward. The U.N. violated its own Charter by accepting this fait accompli. The U.N. is the supreme international body. NATO is but a subordinate organization. NATO doesn't tell the U.N. what to do - it's the other way around.
Wed, 2009-08-05 21:13
#25
Now if we had an international police force, then I could see getting rid of the Canadian military. In fact, I'd be in favour of that as it would allow many nations to pull their resources togetehr, thus allowing each nation to contribute a much smaller amount than we do now while still getting just as much protection from loose cannons.
We do have an international "police force" - U.N. peacekeepers. NATO, at times, seems to move in the direction of attempting to become an international "police force". You don't want that as NATO is "Murder Inc." NATO is an army made up of foreign legions of mercenaries. NATO does the bidding of the Pentagon.
The one reservation I have of Canada eliminating its national armed forces is the "Icelandification" of Canada. Iceland has no national military. What happened? A more powerful country (the U.K.) stepped in (uninvited) and now provides, unasked, military "defense" for Iceland.
Canada is already in such a situation with NORAD and this SPP agreement that American units can patrol Canadian cities and American officers can command Canadian units in the shared interest of providing defense and security for North America. Watch for this during the 2010 Olympic Games.
Wed, 2009-08-05 21:22
#26
Then we should get out of Afghanistan. That doesn't negate the merits of an international military force to replace national military forces though.
Again, U.N. peacekeepers are an international military force. Again, the problem with, say, a Super NATO international military force is corruption. If you have either the U.S.A. or Russia, or China, or India or the EU dominating it and controlling it, then other countries will become victims of such an organization's imperialist agenda.
Wed, 2009-08-05 21:34
#27
Now if we had an international police force, then I could see getting rid of the Canadian military. In fact, I'd be in favour of that as it would allow many nations to pull their resources togetehr, thus allowing each nation to contribute a much smaller amount than we do now while still getting just as much protection from loose cannons.
We do have an international "police force" - U.N. peacekeepers. NATO, at times, seems to move in the direction of attempting to become an international "police force". You don't want that as NATO is "Murder Inc." NATO is an army made up of foreign legions of mercenaries. NATO does the bidding of the Pentagon.
The one reservation I have of Canada eliminating its national armed forces is the "Icelandification" of Canada. Iceland has no national military. What happened? A more powerful country (the U.K.) stepped in (uninvited) and now provides, unasked, military "defense" for Iceland.
Canada is already in such a situation with NORAD and this SPP agreement that American units can patrol Canadian cities and American officers can command Canadian units in the shared interest of providing defense and security for North America. Watch for this during the 2010 Olympic Games.
NATO may be international, but by no means representative nor neutral. I'd be looking at a UN-led force, not NATO-led.
Wed, 2009-08-05 21:35
#28
Obviously that would have to be agreed to ahead of time. One possible model could be to say that this force could be used only with approval of the UN General Assembly and in full accordance with international law, unless one nation should invade another, in which case there would then be no time for that. Of couse this is just my first attempt at possible rules and it might be flawed, but I think it coud be a starting base for discussing what the rules may be.
Usually, it's the Security Council (the executive branch) of the U.N. that makes these decisions and then imposes them on the General Assembly. The 5 permanent members are the U.S.A., the U.K., France, Russia (former U.S.S.R.) and China. The U.S.A. and the U.K. were allowed to wage war against Afghanistan because they and France convinced/bought Russian and Chinese acceptance. The same occurred when the U.N. was informed that NATO had sent the ISAF to Afghanistan.
When it comes to nations invading other nations, the U.N. Charter has statutes that clearly cover such cases. The purpose of the U.N. is to end war.
Wed, 2009-08-05 21:35
#29
I would also say that once we have an international military force, we then get rid of the Canadian force, and any international conflict could be dealt with by a neutral power like the UN, not Canada.
Wed, 2009-08-05 21:38
#30
In a Tariq Ali article I reposted in the Af-Pak war thread(M Spector posted it another thread last September), I believe TA hints at why a UN mediated peace negotiations are req'd in this case. Add to that rabble's Jerry West and his brilliant comments as to who could be funding, aiding and abetting the Taliban, besides the Pakistani ISI.
There are more countries involved than just Afghanistan, Pakistan, Can-Am contingent and armies from 38 other countries occupying Afghanistan. Afghanistan's larger Asian neighbors and some not-so large, really dont want NATO in their backyards. This is another proxy war happening in Afghanistan. And all countries involved need hauling by scruff o the neck to the negotiating table/tent/5 star hotel/designated UN base whatever for talks on how to resolve the real issues. Contrary to what the newzpapers are saying, this isnt a war on terror.
Wed, 2009-08-05 21:52
#31
Why even an international police?
It's none of our buisness what goes on in the rest of the world we need to stop interphering with other countries and their buisness and start worrying more about Canada. It's not ourplace to go to Afghanistan or Iraq or Africa or Somalia or where ever and try to tell them what to do.
It's like the problem of evil for Christians: God is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent. Therefore, when evil exists God would know about it (because he is omniscient), he would want to do something about it (because he is omnibenevolent) and he would do something about it (because he is omnipotent). Why then does evil exist?
To the point, we are human beings and are not omnipotent and omniscient. We did know about Rwanda (1994) and we cared about what happened in Rwanda and we had the opportunity to do something about what happened in Rwanda.
What in fact happened, was that the U.N. failed. Why? Because that is what the Pentagon wanted. The U.S. through its influence on the Security Council, made sure that the U.N. debated the issue until it was too late. The U.S. then pointed at the U.N. "failure" and posed an alternate "solution": A rapid military deployment force. That force was to be NATO. The first time NATO assumed its new role in practice was in Kosovo in 1999. Kosovo was a dress rehearsal for the U.S., NATO's and ISAF's current war in Afghanistan. NATO is an instrument that is more easy to control by the U.S. than the U.N.
The U.N. is an international organization for peace.
NATO is an international organization for war.
See why the U.S. prefers NATO?
Wed, 2009-08-05 21:59
#32
I like that last post. And that's why I'd support the creation of an international police force to replace Canada's military along with Canada's membership in NATO. I'd support Canada adopting the Swedish policy of involved neutrality (as opposed to isolationist neutrality), but gradually shift from reliance on our own force to a shared international force under the direct authority of the General Assembly.
Wed, 2009-08-05 22:00
#33
And I'd support getting rid of the Security Council.
Wed, 2009-08-05 22:04
#34
I like that last post. And that's why I'd support the creation of an international police force to replace Canada's military along with Canada's membership in NATO. I'd support Canada adopting the Swedish policy of involved neutrality (as opposed to isolationist neutrality), but gradually shift from reliance on our own force to a shared international force under the direct authority of the General Assembly.
How about if we reverse what we have been doing since the 1990s? Gradually reduce our commitment to NATO and (once again) gradually increase our commitment to the U.N.?
Wed, 2009-08-05 22:21
#35
Sounds good to me, FrmrSldr.
Wed, 2009-08-05 23:30
#36
Isn't the UN just about paying lip service?
Thu, 2009-08-06 00:09
#37
Isn't the UN just about paying lip service?
The U.N. can be, but it doesn't have to be.
The U.N. is like a chain. It is only as strong as its weakest link. The U.N. is a composite of its member states.
When the U.N. fails, it is because we have failed.
This is what the U.S. wants.
Is it what we want?
Thu, 2009-08-06 00:21
#38
How is the US responsible for the UN failing though?
Thu, 2009-08-06 00:30
#39
How is the US responsible for the UN failing though?
The UN was formed as a result of WW II, I believe. Part of its mission is to recognize and support human rights and international sovereignty. Hitler and the Nazis were prolific violators of sovereign borders. Does that remind you of the recent military actions of any particular country to the south of Canada?
[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7786]Mr. Ban Ki-moon and the Future of the United Nations[/url]
"The United States...simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant." Harold Pinter, 2005 Nobel Laureate for Literature
"The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States, formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. -Regarding Iraq,...the United States went to war, in violation of the charter." Benjamin Ferencz, Chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials
Thu, 2009-08-06 00:46
#40
How is the US responsible for the UN failing though?
Also, see posts #28 and #31.
Fri, 2009-08-07 12:58
#41
The world is structured around exploitation. I don't see how we could hav an international force that would not be scary unless we had an international government to go with it-- one that accorded equality to all world citizens. Otherwise the internaitonal force would be global in name but responding to those with the power.
In the meantime, I think Canada does need a military but we should seriously consider what it is for and reconsider what roles it might have.
Much of this is connected to repairing our own democracy because a government working in the intersts of Canadians with a high level of accountibility is less likely to get into military mistakes and foreign wars of aggression.
Fri, 2009-08-07 13:26
#42
remind
Meanwhile, today, the new Danish head of NATO, is imploring Canada to remain after 2011, but to no avail.
The Cons have state emphatically; "No!"
So that's it...we are leaving and apparently we are supposed to ignore the accompanying; "We are pulling out our 1200 person battalion units...and leaving 1300 there to train Afghan's in military and policing strategies" and the fact that they have been training Afghans for 8 years already and so should have some fairly senior officers even.
I guess they are relying upon the racist belief that Afghan somehow need more training than anyone else in the whole world.