semper idem, vie et armie, sic transit gloria mundi

This situation, where force of arms is of less value, has happened before.

At the end of the Roman Republic and the birth of its 'empire'.

Syria, Judea, Armenia these places reverberated with strife (we still have people whom revere a messiah that was punished during this era) just as the Imperial might of Rome was coming into its own, yet even at year 32 CE the reduction of return from use of military force could already be measured. It took another 200 years for the rot to reach the imperial centers of power and a further 200 for the collapse to overcome that seat of power, yet whom living in Revenna in 457 CE would have the wit to say that Rome was dead?

Even in 800 CE we have Frankish rulers claiming to be the 'Holy' Roman Emperor!

It took Napoleon Bonaparte, in 1805 to finally end that line!

The reality is that the 'rate of return' to the use of violence has been, to use a financial term, 'going sideways' since about 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

What has started is a drop in the 'rate of return' and watch for that drop to begin to accelerate, just like a stock sector that has come to its 'cyclic top' and begins to drop; so too now is the value to be obtained by military extortion.

Consider that in about the year 1000 CE (when the rate of return to violence was just starting to come up off a really deep low) it was the robber barons and wild knights whom were able to gain the value from such raiding. Once marauding armies started parading across the continent like plagues of locusts (about 1500 CE) we see such innovations as bankers notes (so that the value of business or the location of the buried treasures) could be quickly and easily moved out from harms' way and the value that could be gained in a seige of a city began to drop off.

Now with the ability to vapourize a nation, we see that the speed of communications and the ability to encrypt it has made even the powerful nuclear aircraft carrier a museum piece. Since an offender may simply encrypt the $$$ strings and locations of the hidden bank accounts and transmit that data over to the other side of the planet at the speed of light, while the CVBG is still cresting over the horizon...

Our future includes such things as, kidnapping for extortion (since only the living body of the truly rich is worth anything now), giving rise to the power of the 'gated community'; meaning that we should expect to see more almost medaeval walled areas within our cities, leaving behind the similarly medaeval ghettos.

Sistema del Potere, is it not already in power?

In places like Russia, Japan, parts of the Balkans, Spain, Pakistan, and the USA?

Who does the CIA and Homeland Security really work for?

As Isaac Asimov said,

As Isaac Asimov said, "violence is the last resort of incompetence".

Ed Seedhouse

I'm reasonably sure that Asimov was not fighting for his life at the time he said that.

FWIW If the US was truly at war in Iraq and Afghanistan the war would have been over a long time ago. The current situation, however, would reinforce Asimov's belief.

Wealth is the temporary

Wealth is the temporary control of energy.

Wealth can not be created, only taken.

War and crime are the ultimate forms and degrees of economic competition for the control of energy.

Wasting more energy in the process, than what's gained.

Ed Deak, WW2 vet.

Hmmm

"Contrary to popular opinion, most suicide bombers are not motivated by religious fanaticism. According to Robert Pape's seminal book on the subject "Dying to Win", 95 per cent of suicide attacks have had one strategic goal: to remove an occupier."

And ... find me a suicide bomber who doesn't believe in the after-life. I'm sorry, but this new type of "war" is fueled very much by religious fanaticism. That doesn't change just because a terrorist is strategic. It's hard to fight against a people who don't care if their family lives or dies in this world.

this isn't war

War is total destruction of your enemy, and to hell with trying to be politically correct about it.
The Americans learned this in Viet Nam, but it didn't help the present situation.
AQ or any terrorist group doesn't care about PC stuff.
They are attacking our weak, liberal, PC society because they no we no longer have the resolve of our ancestors.
Our generation couldn't fight WW2.
We are weak and defeated by liberalism.
It's sad that this message isn't getting out through mainstream media ( MSM ).
It is getting out on alternative media, but I fear for us. We are weak and ready to go down.
It's important that we don't allow the Democratic Party to defeat us.
We must do all we can to fight of these enemies.
Defeat isn't an option.

Mitchell, good article and

Mitchell, good article and sentiments, but I think you're unaware of something. Wars are not for "winning", they are for waging. The war industry is the largest on the planet, eclipsing even drugs, and the warmongering elite have no intention of ever stopping. The points you make are good and obvious to most of us regular folks but the elite could give a shit. War is not so over and until the people hit the streets and stop participating... you'd better get used to it.

Re: This isn't war

IAMC, you make no sense whatsoever and offer absolutely nothing to legitimize your assertions.

The Americans worked hard to destroy Viet Nam (to "save" it!) and killed millions in the process. They lost.

The same thing is happening again, albeit on a smaller scale, but the result will be the same.

This has nothing to do with weakness or the Democrats. It has to do with a privileged oligarchy stealing from the majority.

Pure and simple, the American military industrial complex in the service of unbridled greed will, by default, generate the most highly motivated opponents who will volunteer to sacrifice themselves to defend their sovereignty.

Our enemies are among us, as are the solutions. Your prescription is unjust and immoral.

Re: We must defeat the Islamists

More bollocks about the "Clash of Civilizations." This is a completely fraudulent, disingenous construct by an apologist for the world's biggest thieves.

When someone is stealing from you, you don't just sit back and lay out the red carpet for them, do you flattax? You whack them!

Why do you think Muslims should let their corrupt leaders sell out to Western oil companies? Because they're sub-humans and the Judeo-Christian nations are the chosen people?

Acting tough and being stupid is still being stupid. Single prescriptions are for simpletons.

...on war.

I AM Clueless:

This was a correct view until 1945, then a new weapon came into being and changed the face of war.

Nuclear bombs.

IAMC, are you advocating the use of all weapons in the arsenal to waging your "total destruction"?

If so then you had better consider that it will be impossible to 'kill them all' in one blow unless you do it to the entire planet!

Yes, these folks you call 'enemies' are everywhere on earth, moreover there are more of them in China, India and Africa than all of the population of the US and Canada put together!

Also, before you go pushing that little red button and releasing 'buckets of sunshine' on everyone, think that even if you used a 'limited' nuclear action in say Iran/Iraq or Afghanistan/Pakistan, the reaction from all the other nations that support Iran or Pakistan will be to nuke Israel...so your 'limited action' will not end up so limited after all.

the 10,000 day war...Vietnam

I AM Clueless:

Not unlike the moment the 'gloria romanorum' was broken in the teutoberg forest, the might of American arms was broken in the jungles of Vietnam.

Lessons were learned, and they were properly applied in Gulf War I. I know as I was on the front lines of the cold war then and had first hand accounts of the actions going on in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. There were no soft hands and no plans for 'post conflict' resolutions.

General 'stormin' Norman was sent in without restrictions on his battleplans, something that then CoS General Powell knew had been a mistake made by Westmoreland.

Then, during Gulf War I, 500,000 men were massed and a coalition of nations (including many muslim ones) was amassed, something that Vietnam never did since the US took over from the French in colonial enforcement (a classic case of mission creep). The lesson of Vietnam was to not allow the main-line action to become side-tracked, nor to permit 'mission-creep' to take over. In the end President Bush, in consultation with General Powell decided to halt the tanks short of Baghdad, as they realized that to go any further was to invite mission creep and total disaster on the scale now being seen.

Mission Creep

Now, in the aftermath of Gulf War II, no plans were made for post-combat resolutions, just a occupation, thinking that all would go like post WWII in Germany. Not so and any study of the history of Iraq would show that this fantasy was exactly that - fantasy cooked up in pentagon think tanks and served in the cool-aid at the whitehouse.

so IAMC, keep on drinkin' that kool-aid!

flattax and the flatearth theory...

flattax wrote:

ahem,
Plains of Abraham, I and II
War of 1812
Boor War
WWI and WWII

Candians fight like devils when it is in their best interest, just like anyone else. Bollux I say to your notion that Candians cannot or will not fight.

No, they chose to.

Wrong again, it was the Royal Navy blockade that won Canada, and the proclaimantions from the British Parliament that permitted Catholic faith and French language to continue in Canada were what started the American Revolution = what do you think the "Quebec Act" was?

Isaac Azimov

Isaac Azimov also said; "Policy is the last refuge of a fool."

No such thing as a coward, Stump.

Just somebody with a very strong sense of self preservation. Nothing wrong with that.

Where the problem lies is when others choose to not recognize this.

A coward is

A coward sends someone else in to do their dirty work.

Romeogolf

Uh, I hate to disagreee with you, RG, but have you considered what we in Canada are doing..........?

Quote:It's not that war is

Could some explain to me when it would be right to start a war ?

Somebody should remind our

Somebody should remind our warmonger nutcases the terrible damage caused to our "own side" by the criminal use of DU ammo in Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, with thousands of soldiers dead and dying of multitudes of cancers with Western governments denying any responsibility and producing and using more.

Not to mention the millions of innocent, yet unborn children, who'll face sickness, deformities and death on the lands poisoned by these criminals on "our side", for thousands of years to come.

Get the multinational corporate mafia out of those countries and terrorism will stop for all practical reasons.

There are veterans organizations in all countries that took part in the Gulf etc. wars, fighting their governments over the use of DU, not to mention Agent Orange, another illegal weapon that ruined the lives of thousands of US draftees.

I hope to see the day when the politicians and officers who ordered these war crimes will be sitting in jails for the rest of their crooked lives.

The terror bombing of European cities was criminal enough, accomplishing very little, but the use of these DU and other chemical and nuclear weapons by these fascist governments is the utmost crime against humanity and the Earth.

Ed Deak.

Perverse Logic

I'll never understand how anyone can pontificate on the virtues of conducting a faraway war in Afghanistan while saying little on applying the same kind of ruthlessness on homelessness and poverty here in Canada.

Successful War = Severe Repression and Genocide

It seems to me that War no longer has any efficacy for major industrialized nations, simply because the only way to win a guerrilla war, or a war against small cells of civilian-targeting bombers, is to employ severe repression and genocide, effectively sacrificing the values that we supposedly fought for in WWII, which are still held dear by the citizens of many democracies (their leaders and elites notwithstanding ;-).

No large democracy has done that since. Not even the US. They're prosecuting their so-called War on terror using half-measures. 'Winning' it would require something like rounding up all persons under suspicion at home, and entire ethnic groups in other parts of the world, then engaging in something not seen since the Holocaust. Not even the Bush adminstration is willing to go that far.

War and Civilians

RickW, I have to add a small correction. Throughout history, wars have killed far more civilians than soldiers. In fact, WW1 was the first war where combat killed more soldiers than disease.

The idea that war killed more soldiers than civilians came from the Thirty Years War. The ruling cliques of Europe were so horrified at what happened that they decided to "limit" wars by using the dregs of society to create standing armies. That lasted almost exactly 100 years until Napoleon came along.

The limited war myth is also eurocentric; the Great War caused the deaths of relatively few civilians in the West but not the east where hundreds of thhousands died. Further, wars in Asia never made a differentiation between armies and civilians. Have a study of the Hyedoshi invasions of Korea for some info on that.

War has evolved because one power has become too powerful to beat in a "conventional" war like WW2 was. For once I completely agree with Ed; war is maintained for the profit of the military industrial complex. Companies still produce ever more high tech weapons when winning wars still boils down to the morale and resolve of individuals.

Further, the author of this article 100% when he describes how the tactics of conventional armies only alienate the occupied population and turn them against you.

Ed, I am sure, can confirm this: When Germany was occupied in 1945, the American fed the German people. I have heard Germans tell me that the US army pulled up to schools and fed hungry people. They restored utilities and the Marshall plan Europe. George Marshall himeself stated that the cost of rebuilding a country is a lot less than fighting a war. Marshall also correctly believed that

Finally, Marshall was brilliant in that he used local industry to do the work. America only supplied the capital. In Iraq, the American plan was to use Americans to do all the work and use Iraqi oil money to pay for it, classic imperialism. The Americans now spend $200m a day in Iraq. Imagine what the outcome of the fiasco would have been if even half that money (or a quarter!) was given to the Iraqi people to rebuild their country! The insurgents wouldn't have had a chance as the population would have given them up instead of seeing their water and electricity going out.

Chickenhawks

It is disgusting but not at all surprising to read the postings of our Resident Republicans.

It is perhaps more surprising that more Canadians don't share their unbalanced views. After all, no wars have been fought on Canadian soil for more than 200 years. On the surface, there could not possibly be a shared memory of a landscape despoiled by battle to make people here reticent to go overseas and pummel somebody else's country.

That, of course, would be a flawed analysis. Many of us come from somewhere else, often parts of the world where experience with armed conflicts is much more recent. We have had parents and grandparents who have told us in vivid detail how miserable the experience actually is. That being the case, we are understandably reluctant to impose it on someone else for trumped up and airbrushed reasons.

Instead, the SHC's (Self-Hating Canadians) see this as weakness. We are wimps, cowards, losers, for failing to sign on in a ruinous project to conquer Iraq, which, in 2003, was already a pitiful sad-sack among nations. No amount of hosannas about the War on Terror or Weapons of Mass Destruction convinced us otherwise. It proves what a civilised place this is.

It is, of course, unfortunate that the mission in Afghanistan, which at least enjoyed the support of the international community when it started, continues without any credible or articulable goals.

As for the SHCs, if they honestly believe that the world is so perilous and the West has so many enemies, did it make any sense to wast trillions of dollars in Iraq? It is much easier to vanquish a bankrupt foe. Often, keeping one's powder dry is a sign of intelligence, not cowardice.

so we are a few Centuries behind?

I agree that resorting to war is a failure to solve problems in a sensible fashion.

Somewhere in the 16th century the Danes decides they wanted some certain territory back from the Swedes and they waged a war with the motto: "Now or never!"
realizing this was the last time they could entice anyone to way to solve conflicts in that fashion.

Well, a few centuries have passed since then, and aside from the soccer matches the two countries live in harmony.

What was percieved as a matter of national honour, proved to just be a waste of lives and rescources.

The area in question has its ties to Denmark as well as some parts of Norway has, but nobody questions the borders anymore as it really is of no consequence.

Proving that war solves nothing!

WM, There's no question

WM, There's no question that without American food supplies to Europe, after WW2, millions might have died of starvation. It was bad enough as it was, but that was the time when the US could do no wrong. 1200 calories a day is just one line up from starvation and we were hungry all the time.

I was working for the US Army myself, at Wels, Austria, mainly for the extra food and some dyed uniforms and boots they were giving out to their civilian workers.

There was no resistance against the occupation, American soldiers were free to walk around, pick up girls for nylons, and I've never seen any carrying any arms, or any military exercises, or convoys, with the exception of the odd MPs.

On their days off, soldiers often packed some cans of food, cigarettes, chocolates, lining up the goodies on a bench, or bombed wall and waiting. Women would walk by and give them a signal to follow them home, often to feed their children.

It was disgusting that people had to sink that low, but that's what war does to people. Something ideological idiots justifying it could never understand.

In 1951, when we were living in England, we
had all our papers ready to go to the USA, but a friend who went earlier was called up 6 months after he arrived, and with the Korean war raging, I had no wish to take another chance, so we didn't go. The way I looked at it, I survived by a series of miracles and there was no point in pushing my luck.

Came to Canada instead, 4 years later. The best decision we ever made. Whenever we went to the US for a few days, we could hardly wait to get back to civilization, now being sold off by jerk politicians

Ed Deak.

Why?

It is useful to have a couple of warmongers posting here. It reminds people that amongst the reasons for contemporary wars is the propaganda effect on the warrior nation's own population. "Rally 'round the flag, boys", "support the troops", "never cut and run" are the types of slogans intended to coerce the population into believing a conflict is just, regardless of the true motivation or consequences. Overlay on this the creation of a national paranoia, a sense of the "clash of civilisations" and the always useful dehumanisation of the "enemy" and you find compliance with a false and inhuman agenda.

Our warmonger friends merely reflect the power of the coercion.

The current conflicts have been pursued for various purposes. It is an imperial agenda as others have so eloquently explained. It is also a highly profitable enterprise for the elites in what Eisenhower so aptly called the "military-industrial" complex. Control of resources is a primary motivation, but never forget the Boeings, Haliburtons, Blackwaters or Brown and Roots.

At this beginning (Afghanistan and Iraq) the political elites saw war as a means to consolidate power for themselves and their confreres. It worked, but as always there comes a time when the effect of war changes from the equivalent of a high school spirit club to an albatross and the dues must be paid.

War will never become obsolete as long as there is short term gain to be had by the promoters. It may be understood that wars may only ever be won, but that fact is subject to the myopic vision of how we conduct ourselves. The slogan "Never Again" from the Great War was relegated to memorial services even as young men and women marched again into Europe, then the Pacific, Korea, Viet Nam and now the Asia continent.

To end war is to end the system, policially and economically, that thrives on its existence.

To our warmonger friends, I can only say this; if this makes me a wimp and a coward, then I wear the terms proudly.

Religious Fanaticism

Chris remarked:

"And ... find me a suicide bomber who doesn't believe in the after-life. I'm sorry, but this new type of "war" is fueled very much by religious fanaticism."

And the Western countries involved in attacking and occupying countries where oil is the booty and Islam is the dominate religion, specificall the US and Britain and Canada, are using the religion of Christianity too to to their advantage to pursue their imperialistic agenda. The use of religious fanaticism is not monopolized by the followers of Islam.

The author wrtites

Forward this to the Taliban extremists please.

Watch this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1562628844802297255

War's perceptions.

The perceptions created in war are most often those left by the "victors" so we keep repeating the same mistakes. When the accounts of war for the vanquished have the same impact as those for the conquerors then maybe the futility of war will sink in. There are no winners and losers, only losers.

Wars are fought over

Wars are fought over territories so what are we doing in a war between local war lords?

If one has a large standing army, well you got to have them doing something. Each time they fly a plane, shoot a gun or run a ship, it's making profits for the fellows selling all the stuff. We ennded up in a unwinnable war because George Bush couodn't find the author of the New York bombings. Iraq was not involved but it looked like a good place to try out the latest stuff.

It's over

bpither

Simple, the answer is that here in Canada homelessness and poverty are utterly insignificant in this modern and wealthy time. The plight of women and children, in particular, under fanatics in Afghanistan who recently, for example, beheaded a 10 year old boy for delivering bread to 'the enemy', is a far greater job for us to be considering. Particularly since we Canadians are compassionate about all living people.

Surely we can't be pre-occupied with global warming and the Bangladesh flood-plain yet not be concerned that under Taliban extremists young girls are not allowed go to school.

murdock, you're forgetting the Korean war. Canadians fought bravely there under terrible conditions. By the way, was that a waste? Is South Korea ungrateful?

Suicide Bombers

I'd suggest the biggest motivator for suicide bombings and other forms of guerilla action is a result of two factors, neither of which have anything to do with religion:

One, those being attacked are seen as foreign occupiers and, two, in a case where one side is heavily armed and protected, the weaker side will always adopt whatever practical and effective methods fall to hand.

And, for those who think the West can cure sectarian violence and change behavior in these countries I'd suggest a long hard look at the history of Ireland in the 20th century.

And for those who are all bent out of shape at the way Islamic attitudes toward women seem out of step with modern western cultural practices I'd suggest you have a good look at another avatar of human values - the Catholic Church. And don't forget to refer to the Vatican's recent statement about the 'value' of other, non-RC religious traditions.

"Utterly insignificant"

Hardly.

You need to do a great deal more research realisticman.

You can start here:
http://intraspec.ca/povertyCanada_news-and-reports.php

For the elimination of the

For the elimination of the Taliban the West would have to put 500,000 foot soldiers into Afghanistan for at least the next 20 to 30 years. The present mobilized troops are useless waste of material and lives.

The Taliban are a despicable bunch of criminals, orginally put into government, financed and feted by the USA. Until they balked on an oil pipeline, when they became enemies.

As it happened thousands of times in history, showing that wars are not fought by people, but by ruling classes.

From the military point the present NATO involvement is a dirty joke, that causes more harm than good, the Taliban will inflict gradual casualties on the occupying troops, until the people of the NATO countries force withdrawal, as it happened to the USA in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan.

There's absolutely no chance for the elimination of the Taliban with the present
involvement, it only makes things worse and
loses lives for nothing, except chestbeating by screwballer ideologues.

The Soviets had 130,000 troops there and got kicked out after 10 years of losing them.

What was gained with the US occupation of Vietnam, or the Germans and satellites invading Russia ?

Ed Deak.

Care to elaborate, West

Am I to suppose you don't care about those women, or are you suggesting, with your reference to the Catholic Church, that two wrongs make a right?

Should we have ignored Idi Amin? Should we ignore Darfur?

Minimal bafflegab appreciated.

Moths

Foreign troops in Afghanistan attract Taliban like moths to a light. This fact will be their downfall as soon as NATO starts to use more moth bait.

Not at all - I'm concerned about all human beings

Including the ones currently starving and being murdered indiscriminately in Darfur.

I'm just not blind to the crimes and excesses, or lack of equality in our own western tradition - as some seem to be.

No bafflegab at all - just facts. Including the ones about Canadian poverty and homelessness to which YOU applied the adjectives utterly insignificant.

Remember?

This thread is about the futility of war.

A point which, given the lack of moral development and maturity in the world today, seems to need underlining more or less constantly.

Had the West used the peace bonus available at the end of the cold war in 1989 to do something other than increase its globalizing economic hegemony over the developing world we would not be in the situation we are today.

Instead...well, you know what happened. And our prime minister is playing footsie with a criminal in Colombia - someone even that 'conservative' body of US lawmakers
(in the congress and the senate) will not sit still for Bush's free trade deal. Canada is determined to ruin its hard eared reputation as an independent actor on the world stage and to waste Canadian lives into the bargain.

I wish I felt that were 'utterly insignificant'.

Russian Afghan vet

A Russian Afghan vet now residing in Vancouver was remarking the other day on how much the present government rhetoric resembles that which they were hearing from the Soviet government when they embarked on their Afghan "mission".

realistically...Korea is not 'over'

realisticman wrote:

That war is still not 'officially' over and I count the long cold war there as something that we should not be proud of at all.

Contradictory Arguement

You just argued that war is obsolete by saying it doesn't achieve our set objectives, but then go onto show exactly how it meets other group's set objectives. Those bands of small, armed guerillas have found a tool they can twist greatly their advantage: Just look at how effective war is for them in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel. The strange part is how you freely admit how effective war is for them in your post yet claim war is ineffective, period.

Even many states have found war to be highly effective, like when the Congo's neighbours happily involved themselves in that conflict to enrich themselves on the Congo's vast resource wealth. And Sudan?

John Lennon didn't get very far making that claim and i don't think you will, either. As noble as it is, it's wishfull thinking.

moth bait...hmm sounds kinda like Dieppe

snert wrote:

I am assuming that you mean that the lights are the NATO troops and that they are going to somehow 'bait in' more of the Taliban?

Not unlike Ed Deak I agree that the solution needs 1/2 a million men or more to make it come about. I disagree that it needs to be NATO soldiers doing that fighting. I say that NATO could very easily hold Kahbul and use the northern alliance territory along the northern 'stans' to build-up a force that the Pashtun tribal forces could not withstand, however this would smack of a genocide again once the norther alliance forces got moving...

Sadly all that is happening now is we, in Canada, are that 'bait' and there are no moth zappers to be seen anywhere on the horizon, so not unlike Dieppe, the Canadian soldiers will be sacrificed to 'learn' about the nature of this new conflict.

Once again 100% casualties are looking more and more probable over the length of this 'creeping' mission. Because once the pull-out of Iraq starts, and I believe that the pull-out will be very fast once the whitewash kool-aid stops flowing in washington, there will be absolutely no heavy airlift capability to use in order to get the Canadian boys out of harms way.

wishful thinking

War is so over? The U.S. economy is so dependent on war - they would be in deep shit if the "industrial military complex" was not functioning to the hilt. Almost every state has a "war industry" employing thousands. Without war, the unemployment statistics would soar. In a nutshell, WAR = KILLING = $$$$.

Just as well...

I didn't ask for more bafflegab.

Yes, when I respond to bpither's question the answer is unquestionable, contemporary Canada is wealthy with a lavish social services infrastructure and universal free healthcare. Poverty, along the lines of places mentioned throughout this article and thread, has long disappeared from Canada. We are all rich!

As for squandering any peace bonus at the close of the cold war, that's evasive. Reminds me of Paul Martin. If only Chamberlain had insisted. If only the Archduke Ferdinand had walked instead of ridden. Question is; is any intervention accompanied by munitions acceptable? Idi? Darfur? Mugabe (coming soon to screen very near you)? Or, should we relax in our luxury and merely pontificate?

contradictions...argument.

tessa wrote:

I argue that the 'rate of return' for military action is decreasing, not that there are no returns to be had, far from it.

The simple kidnapping/extortion method takes very little efforts and can reap great rewards.

What will not have benefit is the large-scale operations such as we have seen since 1911, those actions are not cost-effective any more. Indeed the infrastructure to keep large armies in the field uses up any material benefits gained by their conquest faster than it can be accumulated.

The small-scale operations that are going on in Afghanistan being conducted by tribal Pashtuns and Mujehedin have been done in very similar ways for close to 3000 years, the only differences from then and now are the weapons, the tactics are the same - hit and fade and setting of traps. Back then it took more manpower than it does today, so for these operations the cost has actually decreased. The difficulty is in getting 'value' out from the operations, this is where the actions of NATO forces and specifically the US and CANADA have aided the opposition in accomplishing the task of 'getting value' since every time we blow up a house with a tank they (the taliban) get another 6 more free recruits, their families and all of thier economic output to put towards their 'war efforts'.

Until and unless we, of the west, are willing to recognize that our best interest in this region is to pull-back, allow the locals to determine whom is to be 'in-charge' their own way then deal with that leadership, we of the west, had better be prepared for large and continuing daily casualty numbers.

This is exactly the argument that the Soviet polit bureau had to make with itself until finally realizing in 1987 that there was NO WAY TO WIN. It took two years to get the boots on the ground and re-structure the commands so as to be ready to march out. This was done with armored escourt and giant HIND helicopters along with an extra 100,000 men.

Do we in Canada even dream that we could muster this large and escourt and with that kind of firepower to supress the masses that will come from every direction in order to take one last shot at the retreating foreigners?

wishes...dreams...nightmares

greengreen wrote:

yes and this is why the current administration may have used a false-flag event (9-11) to get that needed war!

since the cold war was over and 'peace dividends' suck compared to war profits!

this has the same parallel to the Roman Republic transforming into the Roman Empire, only this time we have light-speed communications and a 'collective memory' of the last one.

The murder of archduke

The murder of archduke Ferdinand, who was the most hated of all princes and everybody gave a great sigh when he was knocked off, was only the flimsy excuse for Austria declaring war on Serbia.

The real reason was the Austrian government wanting to go to war, as they thought they had all the military ready and will never be in better position to expand.

The Hungarian government resigned in protest, but being tied to them, Hungary has lost 750,000 men, between the ages of 18 to 45, from and a population of 21 million. Something like over 47% killed from that age group, then came the Treaty of Trianon, where the country, established for over 1000 years, was cut up and lost 2/3 of its territory, for nothing.

In 1941 the fascist Hungarian government jumped on the nazi bandwagon and declared war on the Soviets, for absolutely no reason, except "we must stand by our friends and trading partners" resulting in the loss of about half million from about 10 million population and the devastation of the country, followed by a 45 year Soviet occupation and thousands kiled in the gulags.

War is the excuse for madmen and nothing else. Anybody who wants to make any excuse for any war should do what I have done after I recovered from my legwound, after the war, and volunteered as an orderly, carrying bedpans, wiping the bottoms of handless kids, standing by an operating table, holding the legs of about 100 guys as they were being amputated and reamputated, because their wounds didn't heal on account of starvation.

Ed Deak.

We are all rich - NOT!

Realisticman:
Come join me on a little tour of Indian Reservations in northern Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario. Just for a start - we'll also spend some time in Regina and Saskatoon - before we come back to British Columbia. Join me for a visit to a couple of our federal prisons: No bafflegab.

Out of 10 provinces BC rates ninth in terms of child poverty and several other measures of misery.

BTW, WE didn't do anything about Id Amin did we? And WE'RE not doing much about Robert Mugabe either - surprise. And before 3 years are out we'll likely have deserted Afghanistan too.

We didn't do a thing about Rwanda, or the Congo...or Ethiopia, or Eritrea...and our contribution to Somalia...? Would you care for a longer list - or would that qualify as bafflegab?

Nothing evasive about that at all.

If you don't know what I mean about the misspent peace bonus you haven't actually been reading those copies of "Foreign Affairs" you told me you'd subscribed to. And you clearly still haven’t read Singer’s article – give me an email address and I’ll send it along posthaste.

Other than that, it's not up to me to educate you - I simply point out your numerous errors and omissions.

Cheers.

realistically speaking, yes action was called for.

realisticman wrote:

The ORIGINAL MISSION was defined as one to "fight the threat of terrorism", and that

"Prime Minister Jean Chretien has said that fewer than 1,000 Canadian peacekeepers will be sent in."

Since then a sicking amount of mission creep has overtaken us and instead of bugging out with JTF-2 and the 1000 or so original contingent after the training camps were gone and the Taliban leaders in Kabul had been strung up by our northern alliance 'allies' we decided to stick around and stir-up some more trouble for the next generation or two of Canadian citizens.

The action was done, as agreed upon by Cretien and Eggleton in 2002, it was the insane decision to stay made in Feb 2003 that started us down the road to stupidsville.

Naysaying is not an answer

West, without continually assuming my answers (we all know full well which peace bonus you were referring to), how about one from you. I've asked it twice, is any intervention using munitions acceptable?

I question statments such as

I question statments such as "we have the Taliban on the run" "If we don't fight them there, they will follows us here" The list of BS goes on." Canada doesn't cut and run", Bunch of scumbags says our top General.

Saw the news a few minutes ago and now it seems the Taliban is getting stronger by the day. The war is not fought by locals in tanks, with aircraft and big guns, but people with cheap AK47's, some bombs picked up at the side of the road. They don't wear uniforms either. They are fighting to get rid of occupiers so they can go back to growing bigger poppy crops.It's called Guerrila warfare and nobody wins, just ask the Brits or the Russians who used a lot more troops than we will ever have. Eventually we will leave and somehow will get back to trading with those"scumbags" that is if they have something we want.

RM - No

The principles that evolved from WWII and which the Nuremburg trials were based, decreed that agressive war is a crime. They concluded that only an act warfare in self-defense was not an act of agressive war.

Fundamentally then, any act of war not involving self defense 'against an act of war' is a crime against peace.

Personally, I beleive that crimes against peace are worse than crimes against humanity. Using WWII as an example, which was worse, starting a war which killed 40-60 million, or slaughtering 6 million?

That some many nations like the US, Israel, Russia, China, etc. continue to disregard this conclusion is sad testimony to the fact that War is NOT so Over.

War is an instrument of many nations foreign policy. Watch the coming election coverage in the US - when talking about Iran, every candidate will state "all options are on the table".

It is perhaps a weakness in this Charter that it fails itself define a war of aggression... ...this case, I suggest that an "aggressor" is generally held to be that state which is the first to commit any of the following actions:

(1) Declaration of war upon another state;
(2) Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another state;

(3) Attack by its land, naval, or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another state; and

(4) Provision of support to armed bands formed in the territory of another state, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded state, to take in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.

And I further suggest that it is the general view that no political military, economic, or other considerations shall serve as an excuse or justification for such actions; but exercise of the right of legitimate self-defense, that is to say, resistance to an act of aggression, or action to assist a state which has been subjected to aggression, shall not constitute a war of aggression." - Robert Jackson, US Supreme Court (@Nuremburg)

War, what is it good for?

Actually a lot of things. Nations wouldn't exist if we hadn't had wars to define the borders instead of remaining a bunch of nomads clubbing each other over the head for animal carcasses.

Wars are pretty bloody at the friction point but that's better than the alternative of no defended border and being thrust once more into the life that Hobbes called, "nasty, brutish and short".

If we all wish to attack the idea that wars for imperial goals are wrong I doubt there would be much of an argument. However, the article goes much further and seems to venture the opinion that all war is bad. Well sure, perhaps if you're at the pointy end. But otherwise, all war is not bad. The Vietnamese certainly though it worth their while to fight many wars over a few decades against the Japanese, the French, the Americans, the Chinese and the Cambodians. Were they wrong? Not in my opinion. I even agree with their aggressive war against Cambodia to topple the Khmer Rouge.

The Islamics from Pakistan and across the Middle East that have gone to Afghanistan to fight the West and the Afghans seem to think that making war to return the land to the totalitarian government of the Taleban is worth it I doubt they'd believe that war is useless. In fact quite the opposite. Warrior societies don't become that way because they see war as useless.

As Working Man points out, the Iraqi war could have turned out much differently if the US had done the same there that they had done in Germany post-1945. They chose not to and instead to invoke classic Imperialism, making the conquered state support their economy. It failed. But that was because of the goal, not because of war itself. The goal of removed Saddam went off without a hitch. Quite successful in fact. If the US had immediately left the country and ignored the ensuing civil war no one would have complained.

In the coming decades war will increase, not lessen. Our growing population and the stress on the food supply and the environment (especially fresh water and energy) will see to that. I doubt anyone believes we should refuse to fight when the rest of the world, including our neighbour, is looking fondly at our natural wealth.

In the end it comes down to the fact that war is good policy if the goals of the war are good policy. War is bad policy if the goals are bad. War good, imperialism bad. Its pretty much that simple.

What a very interesting

What a very interesting exchange. West, Murdock you can see how powerful your arguments are when Realistic is left muttering about not having his general and impossible question answered. IAMC and Flattax did a driveby and then abandoned the field. It's not easy to be a warmonger.

The profits from wars will unfortunately (criminally, actually) ensure that armed conflict is not obsolete. When I was younger and watched as the helicopters left Saigon, I foolishly believed that was the direction of the world. After all, a "super power" had been defeated by the people of a third world country. I was wrong as history has demonstrated. Finish with one enemy and imperialism will always find another, to the extent that even little old Grenada was not spared.

I fear we are becoming far too desensitized to the cost. In the last two months alone, nearly 300 Afghani citizens and scores of "Taliban" have died (I italisize "Taliban" as the the enemy has been made into faceless marauders, when there appears to be a number who are fighting for reasons other than religious fervour). There are now 66 Canadians and nearly 200 Brits dead. Even more Americans.

Then there is Iraq. Four million displaced; 2.2 million of these forced from their country. Hundreds of thousands killed. Although the numbers pale in comparison, there is the loss of nearly 4000 American troops with many times that seriously injured both physically and emotionally.

It is insane and always has been insane. But it isn't over and won't be. The main reason? The perpetrators (the criminals) are not among the displaced, the wounded or the dead.

Give it up

Aggression creates resistance. Who aggresses? In Iraq it is the invasion/occupation force led by the USA, in Lebanon it is Isreal.

Why make war? For power and private wealth.
War is wastefull.To who? The CommonWealth and the majority of people.
War is profitable. For who? A powerful and wealthy minority.
Who gives them the power to war? The stupid majority.

Afghanland

And in Afghanistan its the Taleban

Which certainly describes the Taleban's motives to a "T".

Afghanland?

Frank muses that it was the Taleban that were 'invading' Afghanistan for their power and wealth.

Hmm, until the norther alliance convinced the Soviets to invade in 1979, there had not been such deprivation in Afghanland.

It was that Soviet INVASION that sparked off the need for the Mujehedin and the 'holy war' calls that connected to it. After a decade of devastation, the invaders left, leaving behind a wrecked economy and missing generation of young men from the entire populace. Not surprisingly since the survivors were well armed and used to a 'nasty, brutish and short' life they continued on fighting in a civil war. That ended in 1999 with the Taliban taking power, I know you do not like them, I know that their ways and means of power are brutal and viscious and that, given time the Afghanlanders themselves would have dealt with the fanatics that had managed to be standing on the pile of bodies after the end of the civil war. Sadly even the Taliban had little or no real control over the vast hinterlands that the Pashtun tribes control and since the CIA had done such a good job of making Osama into a folk hero, he had lots of friends ready to help him.

Enter the USofA and their insane requirment to 'hand over' someone that they, the Taliban, had no way to knowing where he was, let alone taking him into custody. Then, rather than wait for Osama to be found, they THE USofA invaded, along with JTF-2 (you know those good Canadian boys ready to kill at the drop of some oil) and butchered the leaders of the civil war winners, the Taliban. They did this with the help of...the northern alliance, the opposition side during the civil war. Therefore the Afghan civil war has not really ended, just gone into a new phase, with the northern alliance getting help, this time from the NATO empire and not the Soviet one.

The Taliban ARE Afghanlanders! Your statement is like saying the Quebec Catholics cannot serve in Parliament since they are somehow outsiders!?!? You know like Stephane Dion, holder of a French Passport and legally a dual-national, should he be treated the same way you are saying the Taliban should be?

Since the Taliban leaders are all dead, whom will be reaping that 'power and wealth'?

murdock

Much of the Taleban "army" is made up of foreigners and they fight in opposition to the Afghan gov't.

And the reason the Taleban fights is for political power and the perks that go with that.

Some are. But the size of the foreign presence on the Taleban side cannot be ignored.

Sure, in bizarro world, its more like saying just because you're a white Christian it doesn't mean you're free to come to Canada and take up arms against the government and call yourself a Canadian.

Ah, you believe that just because someone is a Muslim and was born in Arabia or Algeria or Indonesia that that gives him citizenship in Afghanistan and the right to kill Afghan civilians?

Nice try.

war, afghanistan, iraq and pulling the strings

Of course war is wrong--always has been and always will be. But who will ultimately benefit from the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan--the country that is bankrolling the United States--namely, China. Without China's overwhelming financial support for the US and its military spending the Yanks would have been financially bankrupt yonks ago--at about the same time they became morally bankrupt. Who is seeing an increase in middle east oil imports? China. Who will benefit from the vast mineral reserves of Afghanistan? Likely China. Who is doing the dirty work? Not China. And our Prime Minister is too stupid or too arrogant not to get caught up in this whole mess.

Where to Draw the Line

Perhaps nowhere.

Should we, or anyone, send troops to stop a genocide? In our desire to end all war coloured by our criticism of the US 'blunder' in Iraq we should not confuse our moral limits. Would we want to fight if invaded?

This, here below, is another tragic and developing story that asks the same question:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/dailymail.html?in_article_id=469402&in_page_id=1790&in_author_id=244

Where to Draw the Line

Perhaps nowhere.

Should we, or anyone, send troops to stop a genocide? In our desire to end all war coloured by our criticism of the US 'blunder' in Iraq we should not confuse our moral limits. Would we want to fight if invaded?

This, here below, is another tragic and developing story that asks the same question:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/dailymail.html?in_article_id=469402&in_page_id=1790&in_author_id=244

frank

foreign to whom?

not to their fellow pashtun tribesmen.

this entire region has never respected the 'border' placed on it from outsiders! never!

You cannot speak in nationalistic terms here, the concept just does not work!

most of the 'elders' were fighting against the northern alliance during the Soviet invasion.

The new recruits are fighting to eradicate a new crop of invaders supporting that same group of northern alliance criminals.

nothing has changed, when we leave, and we will either willingly or feet first, then they will fight another civil war...something that was easily avoidable IF we had left after wrecking the terrorist camps in 2002.

foreigners...you keep thinking in terms of nationality, not moral and spiritual connection.

Not unlike the battle for northern england starting in 1068 the Welsh connected to their Frankish bretheren on the continent and faught the Normans tooth and nail at times...for a generation or two. Just as now the Pashtun tribes turn to their cousins in Pakistan, Iran, and across the muslim world since they will get a chance to 'kill a westerner'. This means you cannot apply any sort of nationalistic elements into this conflict...the battle will go on so long as we are there!

The longer we stay then the more enemies we are making for the longer term.

"What's Mine is Mine....

....And what's yours is open to negotiation." in one way or another, and regardless of ideology, at their roots all wars are about who gets to control what resource(s), and are nearly always the result of miscalculated political strategies. The ideological reasons for going to war usually mask this, and exist only as the official rationale. Most animals have evolved various ways to establish claims (territory and the resources within it) without resort to in-species genocide, We're different in that we've developed technologies which allow us this option (think the Sheriff in Blazing Saddles). With resources, especially fresh water, about to become scarcer at the same time world populations burgeon, and I'd say the prospect for war can only become higher, not less. The alternative, multilateral resource-allocation, is a non-starter given the intensity with which nation-states---and most do this, not just the bad old US---worship the fetish of territorial sovereignty, just like any other social animal in nature.

frank cont.

the FLQ did just that, we dealt with them, harsh enough.

However the influx from elsewhere has continued unabated and they are using Canada as a peaceful place to raise cash, check out the record of the Tamil Tigers and who attended their very expensive fund-raisers!

Does not our acceptance of these groups to get their backing from a safe harbour not present a military threat just as dangerous as the supposed 'terrorist training camps were'?

welcome to the 21st century frank.

Citizenship is obsolete.

I know that this idea is an anathema to you and that you cannot concieve of such a thing, but it existed in europe for 100's of years before any place was ever called a nation.

I am certain you are aware of the 'holy roman empire'? At one time ruled from Vienna and managed by Emperors and Empresses of the Habsburg family compact?

There were no border police then and only acceptance of the cathoic faith was needed to be a 'subject' of the nobility.

Such a time is coming back...the notion of 'nations' is very new and cannot survive the sort of price that the welfare states are going to be exacting from their populace in order to maintain their existence.

not to mention the countless enemies the 'leader' nation is making right now....

murdock

not to their fellow pashtun tribesmen.

"foreign" in the sense that they weren't born in Afghanistan. I don't believe the Pashtun tribe stretches across the entire Islamic world.

So Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and Algeria et al are all one big happy country then? Cool.

Fine, I won't call them Afghans, I'll call them "Narzuls" from here on. And by Narzul I mean people born somewhere in the world that doesn't include any country except the one other countries call Afghanistan.

Then they should turn the guns on each other because there's often more foreigners on their side than there is on the other.

Okay, I've got you down as someone who supports civil war in Narzul-land. Votes will be tallied later.

How silly of me, I didn't count the "spiritual" connection between everyone of Islamic faith. Its just spiritual right? Not telepathic or anything? I'd hate to think we're fighting the Borg.

The funny thing is the battle was going on even before we got there. Perhaps they were expecting us to show up in a few years and started early in order to get some practice?

This argument has always struck me as being akin to the line "you're only making it worse for yourself". Are you up on your Life of Brian?

murdock, the sequel

And the Afghan gov't should deal with their foreign terrorists in the same manner. Send them all into exile in France.

Agreed, we should not be allowing militants we disagree with to raise cash.

Its all a threat, just to different degrees.

Citizenship is obsolete.

Thank you, glad to be here finally. You work at a Canadian Passport office don't you?

Yes, we call that time the "Dark Ages". Refer to my previous Hobbesian quote. Thomas, not the stuffed tiger.

Perhaps we are on the cusp of a new Dark Ages, but I would rather fight for the bit of freedom I still have than stand next to Stonehenge singing songs and awaiting my certain death at the hands of those that appointed themselves to execute me.

The Problem

The problem in Afghanistan is a consequence of the fact that the Americans did not honour their agreement to grant favoured-nation trading status after the Taliban were overthrown; Congress did not vote the funds for development, schools, and infrastructure that were promised and, did not really work to establish a free and open government.

Our Afghan allies in Karzai’s government threaten to rape and/or murder the female members of their parliament whenever they criticize something that the male power structure promotes; that same parliament has voted to pardon the crimes of the warlords who sit in that house. We are not creating a western democracy in this country, on the contrary, we are creating a fundamentalist gangster state.

We are partners with these characters in a Pollyanna exercise. Billed as a UN mandate under NATO auspices our involvement there is nothing of the kind. Without the Americans we can't move around, have no air support, no logistics, no food, little practical medical care for our troops. In short, we are peons for an America tied up in an even-worse debacle in Iraq.

Bring home our soldiers now. Stop wasting any more lives and money on another failed American mission. Bring the women and children to whom we've made false promises of a new and better life here to Canada - otherwise they'll be massacred when we leave anyway.

And no, we shouldn’t invade Zimbabwe either Realisticman. Any more than we should have invaded South Africa…there are other, better, ways to help.

If the Americans invade Canada – and they’re the only ones likely to – we should fight them with everything we have and, if they should prevail, we should poison our rivers and destroy our cities as we retreat to the north – making them pay with blood for every inch of land they’ve stolen.

G

The problems in Afghanistan pre-date the American invasion. The Taleban had a totalitarian government going without the West.

That state already existed before the US invasion. And women were being threatened long before Sept 11th and the US invasion.

Just because we're losing doesn't make us wrong to be there. Might does not make right. Its possible to be on the right side and still lose.

Every day they stay alive then is worth something. There's always a chance the Taleban could fail in their war to take over Afghanistan again. If it costs some Canadian soldier's lives so that the women and children of Afghanistan can live for at least a few more years and have a chance at avoiding the massacre that will happen when we leave I think that's worth our involvement.

There isn't. Not one. Sending aid after an Afghan takeover is simply sending aid to the Taleban. It won't help the Afghan people at all.

Agreed.

fight...please...

...just go fight under a different banner than the Canadian Flag, or the NATO star, since I believe that they stand for better things than random acts of violence.

and if you still think that NATO is working for a 'duly elected government' in the Karzei-led gang in Kabul, then please get on the next plane to Kandehar.

Make sure you bring a good rad counter with you, as A-10 warthogs blasted away at that place for days with their DU ammo, and now we are using it for a bedroom.

As always, and in the best of spirit

On this one we disagree.

Canada cannot remake the world - especially in a situation where we are nothing more than bridesmaids to a failed American project.

There are at least a dozen places in the world where the funds and personnel we're squandering in Afghanistan could be put to better use - including that wasted $189 million for tanks w/out air-conditioning.

Every independent Afghani voice I've heard says we should get out and find other ways to help.

This will not end well and that's why I'm more than willing to bring the people we've deceived with our naïveté here to Canada.

It's the least we can do for creating false hopes.

frank!

That state already existed before the US invasion. And women were being threatened long before Sept 11th and the US invasion.

So what are we doing supporting the current incarnation of that sort of bully state!

If we are to do this in the manner you have supported here then we must arrest Karzei and very nearly every member of the current Afghan government!

This is part of the denationalization of the individual that is going on in this part of the world. Gangsters that see an opportunity to 'get on-side' with the CIA and steal something from their fellows are doing whatever they can to appease the American puppeteers! Your idea that only Afghan born can serve the interest of the Afghan people is nuts! I say that fully 2/3rds of the current governance in Afghanistan has not been born there and probably will not live there given any opportunity at a better life elsewhere!

Your very argument falls to pieces when you make this sort of statement, I can only think that you are writing with your 'tounge in cheek' in trying to bait others into arguing with you.

So in keeping with your 'pythonisms' from earilier.

--------------DING-------------
Your Five minutes are up!

One more small offering

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/18/opinion/ednivat.php

From which the following excerpt is taken - please note the third para:

"The only sure thing here is that we have lost our trust. Can you believe that we are terrorized in our own homes?" Ali, 32, chose to remain in Baghdad while the majority of his friends and relatives joined the hoards of refugees in Syria and Jordan (for the less fortunate) or Sweden (for the others).

"I am Shiite," Ali said. "My uncles and cousins were murdered by Saddam's regime. I wanted desperately to get rid of him. But today, if Saddam's feet appeared in front of me, I would fall to my knees and kiss them!"

The temperature outside is nearly 130 degrees, but the capital has no electricity most of the time. Those who own private generators have become the most powerful people in every district. They sell the precious energy eight hours a day.

On the eastern bank of the Tigris River, where I stayed, the government could provide electricity only between 6 and 7 a.m. All the appliances would burst into action, waking up the household. For those who can afford it, a small generator fills in the gaps in power. But a generator consumes up to 20 gallons of gasoline a day, an enormous amount in a time of shortages.

Under Saddam Hussein, 40 gallons of gasoline cost half a dollar. Today, you'd have to pay $75 for the same quantity on the black market - or you could stand in line for four to five days at a gas station and pay about $35.

"You spend all your time preoccupied with either getting gasoline or getting electricity - not to mention worrying about violence," says Ali. "If they go out, my sisters could be kidnapped or killed by a bomb.I travel by car only if it is absolutely necessary."

G

I think we should try or get rid of the ministry for foreign affairs.

And I would support operations in those places too.

Who? Afghanis not in Afghanistan? Why would anyone in Afghanistan want the massacre you agree will happen to happen sooner?

I'd be happy to do that but there's about 27 million of them isn't there?

Quote:If we are to do this

Good plan, but currently we're outnumbered even by the Taleban not actually born in Afghanistan or even Pakistan. When we send enough troops that we actually outnumber the other foreigners maybe we can do a better job.

I thought you were always telling me that this is an ancient people and this all goes back a thousand years etc. Now you're saying they're on the cutting edge of some new world.

Considering the state of the place I think it would be a great start.

And yet most of the time you avoid me when I try to get you to argue with me. Caught you on a good night did I?

As for my argument, I don't think you addressed it except to declare that non-Afghans should probably rule in Afghanistan.

--------------DING-------------
Your Five minutes are up!

Not at all, I can argue this for another week at least. Stick around this time.

Realisticman - No and Yes

The responsibility to protect peoples from genocide is an ongoing development, which is a multinational responsibility and should be a collective endeavour, not a unilateral one.

Unfortunately many nations, most notably those that consider war as an instrument of foreign policy, also consider it anathema to allow another international body to decide when they should use force of arms. Therefore they are opposed to such an agreements.

No need to get rid of external affairs

No need to ged rid of external affairs: Just start writing our own policy and doing what we can as a weak middle power independent of the United States. But I'd be happy to see the back of Minister McKay...along with O'Connor. And for gosh sakes stop the Prime Minister from using foreign policy as a political wedge issue - that is, and has always been for this country - a complete disaster.

I might even be persuaded to stay on in country and take up your project if it was a real UN effort - it's not.

I'm fine with 27 million coming here but I suspect the numbers who are actually interested would be less than a million. The ones with a western education and some sense of our culture would chose to come...the others, I doubt it - they'd really like to be left alone to build their own future the way THEY want to. Our efforts to force western values on them are as reprehensible (perhaps more so) as the fundamentalist program of the extreme branch of the Taliban - in my view.

Just don't ask me to be sanguine about this project. I supported it when it was a real effort but the plan and my support went down the drain by the end of 2002 when the Americans' real objectives and motives became clear - we should have pulled out then in disgust when the only troops we'd lost were to friendly fire.

The Afghans don't see us as any different from the Yanks - sadly, and with good reason.

We need to get off this gravy train for defence contractors - much of the violence will actually stop once the westerners leave anyway. Oh, by the way, the female member of the Afghan parliament I mentioned yesterday WAS in Afghanistan when she made her comments.

G

So if Canada sent 300,000 soldiers into Afghanistan in 1999 to topple the Taleban and the US wasn't involved you'd have been for it?

Or if we now sent 300,000 soldiers into North Korea or Burma or wherever?

Or do Canadians prefer not to actually get their hands dirty?

That's why we're there, to give them the chance of building their own society the way they want to without external forces and internal thugs running their lives.

We're not forcing any western values on them. We don't have even a smidgeon of the numbers of people required to do any such thing.

So, murdock feels the same way about everyone in the Middle East. That they're all the same.

In the same way that the violence in Europe would have stopped a lot sooner and with a lot less bloodshed if the British Empire had simply listened to Hitler's peace feelers after the fall of France.

Peace under a murderous regime is not a worthy goal.

Nope

My support of Canada's involvement with the initial effort to topple the Taliban and capture or kill Bin Laden (among other things mentioned below) was entirely contingent upon a massive commitment of the US treasury to:
a. Establish a viable economy based upon most-favoured nation trading status;

b. a long-term commitment to real support for actual democratic institutions and not ones that are supported and populated by thuggish warlords;

c. a continued and sustained rebuilding of Afghan institutions and not just a lot of additional military spending.

The American commitment to those objectives didn't last through 2002 as you well know and the moment that commitment vanished we should have vanished too. In fact, had more nations taken my advice and told the Americans to put up or shut up at that time, the current misadventure in Iraq might have been avoided and real progress in Afghanistan might have been achieved instead.

I don't think there are any viable and demonstrable parallels between Afghanistan and 1930s Europe so let’s not go there.

My remarks are restricted to Afghanistan...the Soviets actually had better results for female equality, educational objectives and opium interdiction than anything we've achieved since...and all those efforts, just like ours, have been achieved at the point of a gun.

Everything I read indicates that we're actually making things worse rather than batter for virtually everyone outside of Kabul.

As to us trying to put western values in place on Afghan institutions, I suggest you read and listen to the military spokespeople I've been following - that is precisely what we're trying to do - not very different from what we've been party to in Haiti - against the wishes of the Haitian people.

I am a great supporter of Canadian involvement in international affairs - just not as the bin boy for American failures of will.

G

But why? Why should the US be involved? Why can't Canada ever do something without the US? Right now the US forces in Afghanistan are heavily outnumbered. We could take over that operation lock, stock and barrel and run it in tandem with the Afghan gov't if we wanted to.

That requires far more troops than all the western powers combined have there. But I support doing just that. The majority of Canadians would prefer to leave.

Military spending comes first. You can't rebuild France till you drive out the Germans. You can't rebuild Afghanistan until you win the war and deliver security. Which is why war is not "over". Armies provide the security required for a peaceful, functioning society and economy. Once the war is won it will not be a problem rebuilding the country. It will require lots of money and we should provide that to the Afghans, not do any of the actual rebuilding ourselves. That will give them a functioning economy.

Meaning that you don't think Canada should act without the US?

And I'm asking Canada now to put up or shut up. Either start paying for what we would like to see done or stop complaining about others.

G2

Just as all the Taleban results were achieved at the point of a gun. That's what I was saying all along, all civilization is built starting with the use of force.

If that's the case and they ask us to leave we should.

The western forces there are about as consequential as the base in Edmonton is to us here in BC. The numbers of western soldiers are simply too small. Rest assured that 25 soldiers assigned to a valley here and there are not changing Afghan society in any way. As Ed Deak has said, we would need to put at least a half million soldiers into Afghanistan to make any real difference. A few thousand can help out at the friction point with the Taleban but that's it. Their effect overall is minimal.

Actually you seem far more tied to what the US does or doesn't do there than I am. I don't care what the US has or has not done wrong, I only care about what Canada can do and I think we can do a lot more.

Very briefly

Why were we involved at the start of this misadventure and why did I support it?

Either I was deceived by the American commitment to 'real' change - which I'll admit was foolish - or I really felt that it was possible to achieve something positive in Afghanistan at the time - which I soon realized wasn't the case. Guilty. I no longer have any expectations for positive results where the Americans ARE involved. Sorry.

I left that attitude behind in 2002, remember.

We should combine with other like-minded and non-aligned countries to do what we can in Africa - that's where the need is greatest and the likelihood of success highest - again in my view.

I think we've been through that bit about civilization being built at the point of a gun and I still disagree. It may be possible to bomb and starve the people to the point where the few remaining women and children can be helped ... I don't think the consequences are worth the result, on balance.

The west would have been far better off to deal with Hitler in the mid-thirties when he marched back into the Ruhr - the subsequent successes of the Marshall Plan and the re-birth of Europe only look good because of the devastation that made them possible. My view - guns cause death and misery - that's all.

If Ed's right and it will take a half-million troops to 'pacify' Afghanistan, how many will it take to 'pacify' the whole of radical Islam - because that's the project we'll have to take on next.

Imposing that kind of order in foreign lands puts us in the same category of every other megalomaniac in history. Democracy won't sustain it. Therefore, we do the best we can under the circumstances.

Since you agree the positive consequences of our involvement today are minimal, I think it's time to stop asking young soldiers to die for yet another lie.

That about covers it, I think. I agree with your last remark - if you can get the rest of our allies (largely half-hearted) and the Americans to withdraw from Afghanistan and bring in the draft here to provide the kind of resources we'll need there over the next 25 years, I'll support your efforts.

But first you have to show me how you do it without martial law here at home.

You got stamina

Can't say Frank's a quitter and quite cogent too. Well done mate!

Nobody, we hope, wants to send soldiers off to fight but there are parameters when engagement is called for.

Would be better if there were more Rory Stewarts. Good but brief interview on NPR;
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5626639

Stewart

The Places in Between is interesting; unlike Paul Bremer, Stewart realized - going forward - that he doesn't have all the answers. Unlike the Americans, and sadly many Canadians, he understood - I think - what was actually necessary to understand the religion (vital), the culture and the politics (pretty hopeless) in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And that these problems aren't unique to this region.

Just get that draft set up, start spending some real money on the military and we'll straighten it all out.

The problem is, we don't live in the same world they do - and we don't understand the dynamics of the problem. Therefore, all we can do is help - and instead of helping we've allied ourselves with the bad guys - both in country and south of the 49th.

Harper's busy doing exactly the same thing in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Sad, but sadly true. As Stewart concludes we have to stop micro-managing & killing and allow the people there to solve their own problems – get out before we do more harm!!!

Success and stability are closer where we’ve done less and where the locals have done more – we should have paid up, kept our promises and gotten out – and it’s not too late to do so now.

Perhaps we could get Ricky Hillier to take a trek across the country too. Worth a try don't you think?

G

As you and I have been arguing this for something like 6 months now I think we can safely agree that neither of us are ever going to agree with the other on the key points.

So, after reading realisticman's statement

It occurred to me that perhaps the problem is that we have different parameters as to when to engage?

Its clear that I believe Canada does not have to be part of any coalition of other countries in order to have a positive influence on the world.

Its also clear that I believe security is vital, without it you can't get an economy to function and without a functioning economy you can't get societal peace.

I also see sending troops to help people as being no different than helping a neighbour in trouble.

So therefore I think the use of force to help those people in the world that we agree with is legitimate and good policy.

When I see operations that meet the parameters I agree with then I agree with the operation. Domestic politics and US involvement are beside the point.

I also believe that for Canada to criticize the efforts of the US, Britain or Tanzania we first have to have a good track record of our own. At the moment we don't because we never do anything without allies and we're always disappointed with the result.

Frank

Have you read the excerpt from: Canada's Young Activists: A Generation Stands Up for Change that's up under the Tyee 'reference letter' story?

I think the idealism of our soldiers is admirable but misplaced. My recollection, no one in Afghanistan asked to be invaded - and, even so, against my better judgment I went along with our initial involvement. Nevertheless, I have limits and I think we should too - when the Americans reneged on their undertaking (as they usually do) we should have gotten out then.

First because the game was lost at that point and everything we've done since will have made things worse and, second, because we as a nation are not prepared to do what's actually required for military driven nation-building.

In the long run, history tells me that's a not a bad thing, necessarily. Democracies almost never are capable of that kind of behavior unless they are being attacked...we weren't and our riding with the Americans is a bad idea - they are terrible leaders.

Invaded or Deployed? Semantics

West.

Well, actually they did make specific requests which are found in the Bonn Agreement of 2001 which was formulated entirely by Afghans. (http://www.afghangovernment.com/AfghanAgreementBonn.htm)
Under Anex 1 we read of requests that seem to confirm precisely the present mandate of Canadian Forces under their UN umbrella;

3. Conscious that some time may be required for the new Afghan security and armed forces to be fully constituted and functioning, the participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan request the United Nations Security Council to consider authorizing the early deployment to Afghanistan of a United Nations mandated force. This force will assist in the maintenance of security for Kabul and its surrounding areas. Such a force could, as appropriate, be progressively expanded to other urban centres and other areas.

4. The participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan pledge to withdraw all military units from Kabul and other urban centers or other areas in which the UN mandated force is deployed. It would also be desirable if such a force were to assist in the rehabilitation of Afghanistan's infrastructure.

Sorry R/man

The document is post-invasion. No one asked to be invaded. Check the dates

The protocols, had they been followed, however, would have led to a far better result than we have today.

G

Yep. I suppose we could read the same thing and each have our own beliefs reinforced however. I read that kind of thing and think, no kidding, stop sending bags of money to dictators and stop feeding the people living under criminal governments. Overthrow them instead so the people there can help themselves.

Quote:War is total

One could and should respect the Geneva Conventions though, don't you think, or is that too PC and liberal, of course the First Fool and his pet AG think the Geneva Conventions are quaint and dated. So much for the moral high ground, and no reason to complain if our guys get tortured etc.

learned what in Vietnam? Not much from what I can see....Or are you one of those, like fugitive war criminal Henry Kissinger, who feels they should have gone total war and unleashed the nukes if necessary

If anyone had learned anything from Vietnam, they wouldn't be in the present situation, but then how could the Bu$h Administration learn anything from Vietnam, they avoided participating.

(which side should we fight on? kc)

Are you suggesting we shoot any card carrying registered Democratic Party members at the border?

I'm pretty certain they could find something for you to do in Iraq or Afghanistan to insure victory..........

I've quoted the entire comment from above by IAMC. I've highlighted or bolded some of the LOWlights, altho the whole confused statement is one big low light. But notice that this has been selected as a

"BEST COMMENT"

I could go into more detail about what is wrong with this comment, but why bother? It just reminds me of why I rarely come to the Tyee anymore, and why I generally dont' stay very long when and if I do drop by.

When gibberish qualifies as a "best comment" I start thinking I must be at Little Green Footballs or reading Mann Coulter.

My parameters for international force

Are pretty strict. As I said earlier, the Bush program fooled me in Afghanistan but by the time Colin Powell delivered his address to the UN the scales had dropped from my eyes and I've been unsurprised at what has happened since, sadly.

I think there are times when an aggressive war can be moral and necessary but they are few and far between. Moreover, usually, the good we can and probably should do is not enhanced by blowing things up and encouraging others to do the same.

As I wrote to someone else just this afternoon, every time I get antsy and feel inclined to support aggression as a means of doing good I remember what my Dad always said about his reasons for enlisting and going overseas...he needed a job, a uniform, 3 square meals a day and some new clothes. He wasn't out to save the world - all that crap is grafted on after the fact.

Thank heaven I’d say, or we’d have heroes like Harper and Bush invading everyone from Cuba to Caracas because they don’t believe in the American way of life.

A force for good

I don't support aggressive war for imperial purposes. I don't think I said it here but I have in the past told you in email that the key point for me is that the people in the country we're sending troops to actually want us there. I have no qualms about being the force for a "good" group of people that would otherwise be defenceless.

And I could put together a list of wars I consider to be just, even ones that seem aggressive. I've already mentioned that I think Vietnam was justified in its invasion of Cambodia for example because sometimes the ends really do justify the means. And getting rid of the Khmer Rouge was a good thing. WW2 goes without saying, and as you know from our 3 way discussion with skookum1 I consider the war against Imperial Germany in 1914 also to be justified. (Nor do I buy the revisionist argument put forward by one of my otherwise favourite thinkers, J.M. Keynes, that Versailles was too harsh but that's a different topic)

As a what-if since you mention Cuba and Venezuela, I would support Canadian involvement in both those places if the legitimate voices of those countries asked us for help. I may not be happy about some of the ex-paratrooper's actions but in general I still consider him to be a force for good in Latin America for now so I'd support a large Cdn force helping to defend that country from the oligarchy in spite of who would be supporting that oligarchy.

And for what its worth, even if murdock's "100% casualties" came to be in Afghanistan I would still support the war against the Taleban because its the right thing to do.

Supporting the use of force does not preclude me from also supporting sending aid to East Timor or doctors to Africa. Its simply a tool made for certain problems and one of those problems should be the removal of dictators with no regard for human rights.

As long as Canada is part of the world we have 3 options concerning the abuse of human rights, ignore it, condemn it but stand by and let it happen or try and stop it in spite of the cost of money and lives.

Well

Then, according to those parameters we're on both sides of the equation in Afghanistan. That is, we were involved in an aggressive war (without being invited - we'll leave the 'imperial' aspects of that action to discuss another day but suffice to say that it can't be ignored) then, when a puppet government is created under Karzai (the election was clearly controverted) that 'asks' us to stay on...we're somehow justified to do so. Sounds like having your cake and eating it too to me.

I just don't think it qualifies under your own principles.

There are lots of other ways to defend human rights without going to war - I'd say South Africa is a pretty good example of that and it's one of the few things I give Mulroney much credit for...

I can think of several other examples. In short, I don't think the situation is as open and shut as that.

Sorry West

When do you think the invasion of Afghanistan was?

There had been aerial bombing in October 2001. Canadian Forces went in February 2002. The US forces (1,000) landed and first engaged the Taliban on November 26, 2001.

Nine days later the invitation was made in the Bonn Agreement which was signed on Dec.5.2001.

An invitation was never in the cards from the Taliban. As has been written; "...the Taliban ruled with an iron fist from 1996-2001. Their extreme interpretation of Islamic law prompted them to ban music, television, sports, and dancing, oppress women and children, and enforce harsh judicial penalties. Amputation was an accepted form of punishment for stealing, and public executions could often be seen at the Kabul football stadium. Women's rights groups around the world cried often and loudly as the Taliban banned women from appearing in public or holding many jobs outside the home. They drew further criticism when they destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan, historical statues nearly 2,000 years old, because the buddhas were considered idols."

Canada waited until Kabul requested involvement. The present government may not be perfect (which one is?) but they're still there and they're a big improvement on the one they succeeded.

Methinks too many people take a kneejerk position; ergo, the US is in so it must be wrong 'cause the US is bad. No, this is a tough action but it is morally right.

age of war has come & gone

When did wars work?
Or resolve disputes?
You can PACIFY a population by killing those who don't agree?
Do you really believe suicide missions are new?
Why not include the United States debt of over $3 trillion in your meditation? [http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=3393]

US wars should have been outlawed long ago if only because of the harm done globally...

But...
if the US was not loosing the struggle, would their war be acceptable?
Why do only Israeli citizens need protection?

"...the stepfordized American public needs to be kept in the dark about the true nature of the Israeli state, lest they begin, ever so meekly, to complain about the billions of dollars in “assistance” the government ships over the Israel every year, not to mention the incredibly expensive “war” in Iraq, launched at Israel’s behest, as admitted by Bush crime family insider and adviser, Philip Zelikow."
[http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=3400]

I lost respect for Remembrance Day years ago because wars and propaganda simply... continued. It was never about an end to war.
Taboo? Ask Ahenakew.

Battles everywhere...the age of war has come & gone? Not.

That's the whole point realisticman

The invitation didn't come from the 'government of Afghanistan' as you well know. And it didn't come before the invasion - as I clearly pointed out. Your remark is entirely superfluous redundant and erroneous on that point.

The “invitation” was made after, not before the invasion began. That's the point - in factm I can't imagine why you even mentioned it the first time - let alone try to bring it up again.

I thought you might at least be able to understand the distinction. Furthermore, you should go back and read what I actually wrote - I said that I supported the US action under the original terms, which we're not, repeat not, adhered to. Once the invaders failed to keep their promises and did not vote the required funds and changes to trade law in the budget their legitimacy was immediately called into question and Canada should have walked out - as did several other countries. We have been involved in a lie ever since.

We stayed on, as we usually do, as a pander to the Americans - relying upon a trumped up deal at the UN and subsequently NATO for legitimacy. Exactly the same thing Pee Wee is now doing in his little trip to Latin America and the Caribbean: Entirely pathetic in my view.
This is, as it has always been, a Yankee show and a Yankee screw up - without the Yanks we wouldn't be there a day and every honest person knows it.

Bring the Afghan women and children who want to come to Canada back here with the troops and leave the military junk to rust and rot in the sand. We’ve made promises to them that deserve to be honoured.

Moreover, remember why the Americans invaded in the first place my friend, it had nothing to do with the Taliban and everything to do with a bearded fellow called Osama they were meant to be hiding and protecting, n'est-ce pas?

Does no one actually tell the truth any more?

Cut and Run, eh?

I prefer that the Afghanis get their country back. Surrender to Taleban extremists, or any others, is not right.

This is the correct approach:
http://www.turquoisemountain.org/

As usual

To suggest this is a question of 'cut and run' is offensive and has nothing to do with what we've actually been discussing here. If you want to arrange to give the country back to the Afghanis you should start talking to Karzai and his warlord allies right now. Those same people have been busy working out an amnesty agreement for themselves and threatening uppity women in ways that would make the Taliban blush.

If you support a 25 year nation-building project in Afghanistan then have the courage to come out and say so. Ask all the other NATO countries who are there for little more than pro forma appearance to leave let the Americans go home too, institute a draft in Canada to create a standing army of one million so we can keep at least 100,000 soldiers rotating in country for that period and be willing to devote about $4 billion a year minimum to the project. Then we'll talk.

You and everyone else, including Stephen Harper and Ricky Hillyer, know that's what is going to be required and you also know that kind of commitment isn't on in a capitalistic democracy. Therefore, let's have the start of a real debate, which recognizes there is no practical military solution to this thing, and try to find a way in which the Afghans actually CAN figure out what they want and how to get it for themselves.

The Americans had a chance and blew it because of their neo-liberal fascist megalomania. Let's let them wear that and try for something better ourselves.

CUT AND RUN = Sooner the better!

CUT out trying to run Afghanistan in the way we want to run in, for our benefit.

CUT our losses within the military running an operation in the South of Afghanistan in an area where foreign armies from London to Moscow have bled into the sand.

CUT out garbage talk like “fighting terrorism” and “liberating Afghans” which are slogans used by the Soviets; they had 150,000 soldiers, massive main battle tanks, armored Hind helicopters, and they were forced to RUN; and these slogans were as much lies then as they are now!

By remaining we are helping the 'Northern Alliance' and I see them as another extremist group, so therefore just like the Taleban - meaning to act on your statement above, realisticman, the Canadaian troops need to be in Khabul, not in Kandehar. The troops need to be arresting the current government of Afghanistan, then handing them over to the prison authorities.

But then would not those self-same, happy-go-lucky, tim horton's-sipping, Canadian boys and girls become yet another group to take away Afghanistan from Afgani's?

as Nikolai Lanine puts in Canada in Afghanistan:

As I have said before,

WE ARE DOING EXACTLY THE SAME THING THE SOVIETS DID IN THE 1980's.
TO EXPECT ANY DIFFERENT RESULTS IS INSANE!

100% Casualties, mark my words.

This is a very silly article.

War will continue to accomplish exactly what it has always accomplished--great wealth for the cabal of money changers and profiteers who INVEST in it and its armaments, and the theft and tribalization of land for those who are militarily stronger than the indigenous inhabitants--exactly as Canada was stolen from the original inhabitants.

Business Trumps Human Rights

.

Isn't the new Harper position a fourth option, just do business, encourage free trade, it will go away - except, of course in the case of China. I know what the difference is between Columbia and China. Colombia doesn't have an electoral voice of Chinese-Canadians that Mr. "Human Rights" Harper (except for women) feels the need to appease.

If enough Columbians immigrate to Canada and gain the right to vote, human rights in Columbia will become important. Until then Business Trumps Human Rights (and generally does behind the scenes and impressive talk anyway.)

murdock

I didn't realize our thousand soldiers and their Tim Horton's were changing a country of almost 30 million. At this rate we'll be able to change a smaller country like Haiti society by sending 2 RCMP and a bag of Timbits.

I don't understand. The Soviets being forced to RUN means phrases like "liberating Afghans" are wrong? How so? If the Soviets hadn't been forced to RUN would it mean the phrases were true? Again, winning is what makes an operation right or wrong? If you fight an aggressor and lose you're in the wrong but if you win you're in the right?

So if the Cdn forces attacked both sides you'd support the operation or would we still be wrong because then our chances of losing would be doubled?

But didn't you say Afghanistan should be home to whoever has the power to control it? Such as the dominated-by-foreigners-Taliban?

The Soviet people did not vote to send troops to Afghanistan. Neither did we in Canada. It was “unpatriotic” to criticize the Soviet role in Afghanistan. Questioning Canada’s mission now means being unsupportive of our soldiers. The Soviet slogan “Support our troops!” that I heard in the 1980s has become a Canadian one.

Canadians also did not get to vote on sending our troops to Europe to fight Hitler. If we wanted to support Hitler we were called "unpatriotic".

Canadians don't even get to vote on whether to sell BC Rail.

If it was exactly the same wouldn't we have about 150,000 more troops there?

A new anthem

From now on the words of Oh Canada will be changed from

"We stand on guard for thee"

to

"A few of us will stand on guard till it gets too expensive and then we'll surrender to thee"

Timbits

Most of the comment from Haitians I'm familiar with leads me to believe we're not up to much in Haiti either - another example of us playing 'Apres tu' to the American Alphonse I'm afraid.

Canada is great at starting things and we talk a good shop - results? I think we did more that was real and effective in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro than we have elsewhere and that job is far from done too.

The problem still is:
1. it’s an American show;
2. We're really just there to make things easier for the US in Iraq;
3. We weren't asked to help by the Afghans until after the Americans started another war, a war and a program begun on the basis of promises they certainly haven't kept;
4. Much as I'd like Canada to be creative and helpful in all kinds of desperate situations this is neither the best, nor the most effective way to do so;
5. I think we're still trying to forget the role JTF 2 played in throwing our the duly elected government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti; so
6. Lets put our dedication, resources and personnel into something real and positive and long term for a change something that costs a lot of money and really hurts people back here at home;
7. I'm all for committing 100,000 Canadian draftees and support services for the next 20 years to remake a country - I'd prefer it were in Africa but I'm willing to make it Afghanistan if you'll get the Americans out first.
8. Let's set up a political party with that as our platform - among other things - and see how much support we attract.

Deal?

still lost and trying to bait & switch, frank?

not changing the country - you do not read very well do you?

Run things for our benefit, was what I said. (or at least in Tim Hortons' case the benefit of the corporation that is recieving huge subsidy for loads of free publicity).

Not wrong, LIES, exactly what Nikolai Lanine muses about when he asks:

"It was only later that I began to wonder: did that aid justify our aggression? "

HAVE YOUR READ THIS ARTICLE FRANK?

If you have not please do so.

If you have and cannot understand his point of view then do not bother continuing your diatribe since we cannot communicate effectively with each other.

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE MISSION CREEP THAT HAS OVERTAKEN THE ENTIRE AFGHANISTAN MISSION SINCE FEBRUARY 2003.

WE SHOULD HAVE LEFT THEN.

I would never support further stupidity and military non-sense in this 'country' as it is being done today.

The RULES OF ENGAGEMENT of our NATO allies should be used to point the way forward, as we are there now and there is little I can to do change that.

Guess what frank? The ENTIRE WORLD operates this way, might makes right, and it has since we came out from the trees, stopped hunter-gathering and started farming.

I say that Afghanistan should get to chose and make its own destiny, without our influence. Should that destiny involve future 'training camps' and refuge for known world terrorists, then the persons and nations whom harbour them should be punished.

This means I DO support actions against Pakistan and their failures in the pashtun regions, but I argue that actions do not mean running out right away and pointing a gun at them.

---cont---

final for frank

---cont---

This is silly, frank, I am speaking about what we are doing as being exactly the same, the only 'difference' to make you happy is to say that the scale is smaller. The net effect over time will be exactly the same. We will leave (maybe it will take 10 years also), when we do there will be another civil war. After that civil war is over we will have to deal with whomever is left standing in this part of the world. One way or the other the net effect will be the same, the difference we can make is to do the 'supporting' of the side we want to come out as the 'victors' in that future civil war, better that we accept this reality now than have it forced upon us as the Soviets did and end up with far, far more enemies across the globe to have to 'deal' with = especially if we follow your pattern and demand that continued military force be the ONLY response.

Nikolai Lanine foretells this also:

I say that we accomplish far more by working to become a conciliatory diplomat and letting 'jaw-jaw' replace 'war-war'.

Frank and Murdoch's debate

More of it -- much more of it -- can be found in the ALL COMMENTS thread. You can see that thread by going to the top of this comments thread and clicking ALL COMMENTS.