The unwinnable war

Since the Bush-Haliburton gang's objective in the area is only about oil and nothing else, perhaps if Obama comes on the scene, a negotiated settlement which doesn't appear as a "defeat" for the US might be possible.

I recognise that's a faint hope, but one never knows, since more and more Americans are seeing the conflict as another face-losing Vietnam.

But there is one thing that's for sure - with Canada now an aggressor linked to Bush, our traditional role as a broker for Peace has now flown out the window.

Correction: Oil and Wood

This war will eventually be Harper's downfall. ME2 is correct about the oil part. The US has been trying to build a pipeline through Afghanistan for years. It even courted the Taliban. However, to build sand pipeline and keep it running, a measure of security is needed and that ain't never gonna happen in Afghanistan.

I could go on at length but the people of Afghanistan want to be left alone to do what they want to do for whatever reason. They have no unity at all except to fight the infidel until he is gone. Unless the infidel want to kill every last Afghani, the war will never end, which is great for the arms complex in the USA.

Canada's involvement is twofold. First was softwood lumber. The tariff was punishment for Canada's refusal to get into Iraq. But the Canadian military loves it too because it gives them a chance to get combat experience and that leads to promotions and decorations. They are also getting lots of new toys.

Eventually, enough Canadians will get killed that voters will call for an end. When the Bushites get the boot in Washington, Harper will have a hard time justifying the Afghan mission or even his own government.

Spin

This article is just spin. Dobbin comes from the Karl Rove school. He also seems to have spent time at the Ghandi school. Meanwhile Taliban hope to stop girls from going to any schools and they're going to chop up any who disagree. What Dobbin seems to want is for Canadians to help set up union shops in Kabul making burkas.

NATO, including France and Germany have also committed to help restore normalcy in the lives of all in Afghanistan. As a perspective, Canada's cost as citied by Dobbin is equivalent to about 0.014% of what the US has spent in its war in Iraq. Would Dobbin want our fellow Canadians going with outdated equipment and supplies? Flimsy jeeps, ill suited uniforms, little trucks instead of helicopters, etc.? I say give our men and women decent equipment and that's what the Stephen Harper government is doing, at last!

Here's a list of countries with troops there as part of NATO:

Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Albania
Austria
Croatia
Finland
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Ireland
Sweden
Switzerland
New Zealand

Normalcy?

restore normalcy in the lives of all in Afghanistan

Have a look at the history of the place and please tell me what "normalcy" is/

Allies

One thing that is missing here is any discussion of the meaning of an alliance. We are a member of NATO. A fundamental aspect of military alliances is that if one member is attacked, all members contribute to their defence. Afghanistan, under the Taliban regime, provided safe haven for terrorist training camps, who then exported their "product" around the world. Of the 3000 people killed in the twin towers, approximately two dozen were Canadian. Fighting the enemy on their own turf is much preferably to fighting them here. That is why we have an army--to protect ourselves and to support our allies. A marine battalion will soon be bolstering our position in Kandahar. Perhaps if the CN Tower crashed into downtown Toronto, people might have a better appreciation of our mission in Afghanistan.

NATO does nothing in

NATO does nothing in Afghanistan to bring "democracy", free women, or educating girls. The whole effort is nothing more than an irresponsible propaganda warfare to mislead people

The 60,000 mobilized troops are like a fart in a pair of pants, do nothing good, occupying a few, football field sized areas, patrolling a few short distance roads, getting blown up even there.

The Taliban may be a bunch of religion soaked hothead, nutcase criminals, but they're in their own home, rule the country and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

When the present NATO occupiers are gone, the Taliban will take over and kill all who have cooperated with the "enemy".

Harper is another religion soaked hothead, miseducated with fraudulent economic theories, a disciple of some jerk by the name of Leo Strauss, totally hooked on some way out, out of this world kind of faiths and dogmas.

What can one expect from the former head of the screwball outfit called National Citizens Coalition?

If he ever gets a majority it is goodbye Canada and welcome the dictatorship by the multinational corporate mafia, within 2 years.

Ed Deak.

The real reason.

The only reason Canada and a few other countries are in Afghanistan is so that the U.S. is free to engage in its adventure for oil in Iraq. We are covering the Yankee's back side so Cheney can get access to Iraq's oil reserves. There is the meaning of bringing democracy to the middle east. That taints ever noble intention in Afghanistan. It matters not that countries like Ireland have a dozen people in Afghanistan. Few of them are engaged in combat and they are just there for a little practical experience. Harper graciously risks Canadian lives while he plots an schemes how to make his friends richer all the time playing on the loyalty and bravery of soldiers. When they allow soldiers to think, maybe war will end.

amen

skywalker you said it all:

It would be a beginning if voters would start to think, of course!

Opposite actually

so Cheney can get access to Iraq's oil reserves

The US is not in Iraq to get access to Iraq's oil reserves; it is there to prevent the Iraqi people from selling their oil on the open market.

When the US leaves Iraq, the government there, rightly or wrongly, will restore order, ahem, rather quickly. It won't be a pretty sight. At that point, Iraq will start pumping oil like mad to pay for what the Americans did to their country. The crude in Iraq is high quality and sweet. It is very easy to crack. Before 1990 Iraq was pumping in excess of 4m bbl a day. When the US military cease operations in Iraq, another 2m bbl a day will be conserved.

The upshot is the price if oil will plummet when an extra 6m bbl of the present 38m bbl a day consumption is freed up. Exxon-Mobil will not be making record profits again for a while.

Where does one begin to

Where does one begin to point out that the arguements about us being in Afghanistan are just plain stupid. NATO troops, just by being there, are keeping a corrupt government and system in power. The reason the Taliban are so popular by some of the citizens is because the warlords or so brutal. Those same warlords also serve in the Afghan government. The police are hated by their people because every time that the police show up, it's shake-down-time. If you don't play ball with the local authorities you could be hauled off to jail and we all know what that means. The Afghan attorney-general has made the international airport in Kabul the main departing station for the export of heroin. If anybody trys to stop him, (and people have)they disappear. It goes on and on about the corruption and the more you read about it, you know that the whole reason that we're there has nothing to do with the spin that our politians are trying to put one over on us. The BS that is spun about Afgahistan is the same as I heard 40 plus years ago with Vietnam. One last point; the stupidist arguement is that we're there and spending billions of dollars so a few more girls can go to school. Even President Karsi admitted a couple of years ago, in an interview with Peter Mansbridge, that there are less girls in school now than when the Taliban were in government.

City Person is right on

City Person is right on about the US being in Iraq, and it has to do with the 'control of oil'. Here's something else to ponder; 20 to 25% of the worlds oil is consumed by th USA. Half of the US consumption is by their military. So if the US gets out of Irag there's going to be a whole lot of surplus oil kicking around and you don't have to be a brain surgeon to know whats going to happen then.

Small Correction

Van Isle, the US military is the third largest consumer of oil in the world at 320,000 bbl a day low ball, 2,000,000 high ball. Total consumption of oil in the USA is just over 20m bbl a day. The military is actually about 10% of US consumption but it is still a huge figure.

As you correctly state, of the 80m bbl a day used in the world, the USA consumers a quarter. What we are not told is how the USA is actually increasing its Strategic Oil Reserve by paying US produces not to pump oil while building inventories. These stocks do not exist on any inventory roster because in the interest of "national security" they are secret.

As a fun tidbit, one hour's flight time of an F-16 consumes more petroleum than driving a V-8 powered SUV. Said hour now cost approximately $150,000, again depending on how you calculate it.

There's a difference City Person?

"The US is not in Iraq to get access to Iraq's oil reserves; it is there to prevent the Iraqi people from selling their oil on the open market."

So Cheney and Haliburton don't want Iraqi oil on the open market. That means control. That means taking control away from the Iraqi people and putting it in the hands of oil companies. This is the opposite?

Some straight talk and unspin:

writes ME2,
I say do not count on the Obama Hillary Kool Aid. Neither of them are really interested in actually leaving Iraq.

For a more 'on the ground' view see:
The Real News Journalist Jeremy Scahill

realisticman then writes:

Hmm, France and Germany? Take a closer look and you will see that these 'soldiers' are mercenaries using passports of convenience. They are collecting pay from their mercenary multi-national, then 'bonus' pay for using French or German national colors. It is the French Foreign Legion a la moderne.

realisticman, you are first going to have to define "normal" in Afghan life...try starting to look what it was like in the 1960's, because anything after that has been superpower cluster-f^c&$ causing nothing but death, privation and fear. Something that the current NATO actions have been only adding to, not subtracting from.

Spending, rather than compare % amounts to the military behemoth empire building nutcase to the south via amounts on a 'war' why not compare via something more tangible, like blood? Our tiny military has lost far more of its strength bleeding away into the Afghan plains than the whole of the US military machine has lost in the last 10 years combined. That is REAL cost, not imaginary $$$.

I cannot speak for Dobbin, but I can for myself. I did not want them, the line troops going into Afghanistan at all. I was unhappy to see that JTF2 had already been deployed before the announcement by the (then) Liberal Government. I served for 13 years with crappy kit, worn out materiel and questionable aircraft, rusty ships (Restigouche had a different nickname), and obsolete tanks. The difference between then and now is that when the blue helmets went on and the white paint got slapped on the planes and jeeps we really were making a difference. What kit you had made not one bit of importance, since you were there for the people, so in the end all you needed were personal small arms, soft caps, your wits and a positive mental attitude.

This garbage that is being fed to the public as 'peacemaking' is very Orwellian in context and Dobbin has at least that right.

to be continued...

Facts about Canada, ISAF and the UN

Murray Dobbin writes that

Not so. This page from ISAF itself (and would it lie about its own composition?) shows a Canadian contribution to ISAF of 2,500 personnel; moreover it shows a Canadian flag at Kandahar on the map, representing the Canadian Provincial Reconstruction team. The page also notes that the command of ISAF Regional Command South (HQ Kandahar) rotates among Canada, the UK and The Netherlands.

Then there's this from a Canwest News story April 7:

"I never use the term winning because it too simplistic and does not relate to what we are doing here," Maj.-Gen. Marc Lessard said in his first formal interview since assuming command of NATO's Regional Command South in January.

So it sure looks like our troops indeed are under ISAF--not US Operation Enduring Freedom--and at this point with a Canadian commanding NATO forces in the south.

As for the UN: the UN Security Council has several times authorized the ISAF mission and hence the mission is indeed a UN one; it is simply not run (thank goodness) by the UN itself. The most recent resolution was passed Sept. 19, 2007. I suggest people read it. Its operative part begins:

“2. Authorizes the Member States participating in ISAF to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate;

“3. Recognizes the need to further strengthen ISAF to meet all its operational requirements, and in this regard calls upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to ISAF, and to make contributions to the Trust Fund established pursuant to resolution 1386 (2001);

Mark
Ottawa

More on UN and ISAF

It's also worth noting that UN Secretary General Ban-Ki moon strongly supports ISAF's mission, including combat (the text is no longer free online at the Globe and Mail):

The United Nations, alongside national and international counterparts, non-governmental organizations and Afghan civil society, will continue to provide the Afghan government whatever assistance it needs to build on these achievements. Our collective success depends on the continuing presence of the International Security Assistance Force, commanded by NATO and helping local governments in nearly every province to maintain security and carry out reconstruction projects.

In December, the Afghan National Army, supported by ISAF forces, reclaimed the town of Musa Qala in the southern province of Helmand, occupied by insurgents since February of 2007, and a major poppy-growing area. Significantly, it was led by the Afghan army and carried out at the request of the local population. At long last, development work can begin anew in Musa Qala...

That last para refers to combat, folks.

Mark
Ottawa

realisticman: Finland,

realisticman:

Finland, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, and New Zealand are not part of NATO.

Anybody with the slightest

Anybody with the slightest knowledge of the military and military history knows, unless they're lying about it, that 60,000 mobilized troops in a roadless country are a cruel lie and a prolonged waste of time and life.

I've been saying it for years, that to occupy Afgh. it would take 500,000 troops on foot, located in every village, for 50 years. Now, a few weeks ago I've read somewhere, that a Brit, general claims it would take 600,000.

The present occupation with 10% is a bad joke on the troops and the countries that send them.

Even after 50 years, the Taliban would come back and take over. Hundreds of historical precedents and examples. The Soviets occupied Eastern Europe for 45 years, so what?

In any case, the Taliban were put into power, financed and feted by the USA, until they balked on the pipeline. They even offered to deliver Bin Laden to an international court, but were refused.

Now the country is bleeding away and so are the troops, one by one, occupying it.

Ed Deak.

Devolution is right

Dobbin writes,"We seem to be devolving at a nation." ... and at ugly, breakneck speed, I might add.

Murdock wrote,
"Therefore every Canadian whom does not speak out, act against this mounting war crime is equally culpable for the pain, suffering, privation, loss and death that is inflicted in their name."

Yes, and if Canadians don't boot out the politicians who are running this frozen Pina Colada Republic of the North in the next election, we can all say hello to Orwell's vision faster than you can lick your lips. To think Orwell could see it coming, what - 70ish years ago? By God, he was one smart scribbler.

Yeh Mark

If Canada wants to make a difference in Afghanistan we need to institute a draft; devote billions more to the cause and put 100,000 troops in country for the next 15-30 years.

Do you have the stomach for that?

If you don't, then we should stop kidding ourselves and get the hell out. Playing soldier is for children.

Bring the Afghan women and children who want to come to Canada here and stop wasting lives and millions on a failed US project.

When the American government failed to keep its promises after the initial invasion and instead got into bed with a clique of warlords we should have had enough sense to get out then when the only casualties were from friendly fire.

Sadly, neither the Liberals nor pee wee's current bunch had the moral fibre to do so.

We need to put up or get out. Above all, we should shut up and stop trying to sell the nonsense story that we're making a difference.

Listen to what the Afghan people are saying for once and ignore the spin out of CanWest and the CBC.

It's like all wars; don't

It's like all wars; don't want a winner or a loser, just keep it going as long as possible and we know who'll benefit (profit)from that scenerio.

Frightening News

The Canada-Israel "Public Security" Agreement
Ottawa & Tel Aviv collaborate in counter-terrorism & Homeland security

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8530

“The Declaration of Intent is an opportunity for Canada and Israel to strengthen their commitment to safeguarding their citizens and respective national interests from common threats,” said Minister Dicter." ( http://www.ps-sp.gc.ca/app_support/xml/ps_news_e.xml)

Israel is making very warlike noises and is
in the midst of war exercises aimed at Syria and Iran. http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/war/bushs_iran_war/news.php?q=1207594365

What are we going to be dragged into in light of that agreement.

jimmy_laroux

Quite right Jimmy they're not in NATO but they have troops in there too:

ISAF currently numbers around 8,000 troops from 36 NATO, nine partner and two non-NATO / non-partner countries. ISAF tracks individual contributions by each country but those numbers change on a regular basis due to the rotation of troops.

NATO’s engagement is three-fold:

* through leadership of the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), an international force of some 47,000 troops (including National Support Elements) that assists the Afghan authorities in extending and exercising its authority and influence across the country, creating the conditions for stabilisation and reconstruction;
* a Senior Civilian Representative, responsible for advancing the political-military aspects of the Alliance’s commitment to the country, who works closely with ISAF, liaises with the Afghan government and other international organisations, and maintains contacts with neighbouring countries.
* a substantial programme of cooperation with Afghanistan, concentrating on defence reform, defence institution-building and the military aspects of security sector reform.

Look it up yourself and you will see.

Maybe we're going at it the wrong way?

I thought that the one big thing we were supposed to have learned from Vietnam was that trying to win a guerrilla war against determined locals fighting on their own turf is a fruitless task.

Surely that is why so many wars in past times have simply been exercises in unrestricted mass extermination. This makes obvious sense (if killing ever does) when the guerrilla combatants mix with the local population, becoming indistinguishable from them.

Sure sounds like Afghanistan to me.

uh, dolphin....

Uh, that makes about as much sense as invading Iraq because of the WTC; and in fact Afghanistan didn't make much sense either, other than the Taliban were harbouring Osama bin Laden. It's not Afghanistan or Afghans who perpetrated 9-11, it was Saudis. And it's Saudi-created and funded Sunni Islam that's been the most assiduous in spreading Islamism and anti-Westernism in Islamic culture. Going after Afghan peasant farmers for what radical wahabbists have done makes very little sense, and falls in teh same category as the Shock & Awe campaign to humble Baghdad for 9-11 even though Baghdad had nothing to do with it.

I don't suppose an attack on, and occupation, of Mecca, Medina and Riyadh would prove very productive, or conclusive. Mind you, neither have invading Afghanistan or Iraq....

Afghanistan

Although I understand the anti-Afghan venture sentiments I still support the overall mission. I don't pretend to understand all the ins and outs and I wish it was being handled better and more progress was being made but in the end I support the Cdn involvement because the Afghans themselves appear to want us to be there in order to keep the Taliban from taking over again.

I wouldn't support our involvement in places that don't want us, such as what we did in Haiti, but places that are in trouble and want us should be helped.

Our and other NATO troops

Our and other NATO troops are not in Afghanistan, but in a very small, fractional part of Afghanistan, therefore, their presence there is useless.

The same goes for the so called Afghan governemnt.

The vast majority of the country is ruled by the Taliban and the warlords.

It is nothing more than a propaganda, photo-op exercise, to please the faithful, propping up corrupt politicians on all sides.

In any case, while we talk about the WTC towers, I would like to know how an inner cage, comprising of 47 huge vertical girders, welded, bolted in every possible way, can collapse vertically, at freefall speed and break into small pieces?

And how another tower, not hit, or damaged, can collapse, neatly, toward its centre in classic demolition fashion.

But then, as faithful will claim, miracles always happen.

Ed Deak.

Real death toll...

in Afghanistan will never be known, as there is little chance that every little hamlet and village in every valley will be accounted for.

writes Frank.

For the rose-tinted glasses crowd, here it is again.

5000 years of recorded human in this part of the world has confirmed that NO ONE will ever really 'take over'. Not the Alexandrian elites, not the Mongols, not the British not the Soviets, not the Taliban and not the US-led NATO force.

This area of the planet is the ultimate 'march region'.

The 'appearance' of wanting us there is the same as the 'appearance' of those Afghanis that 'appeared' to want the Soviet troops there.

WE HAVE GUNS, TANKS, AIRCRAFT and SUPERIOR FIREPOWER!

If a SWAT team came into your house and started setting up a hit or surveillance or whatever they wanted, what could/would you really do about it at the time it was happening?

You would say something like, "Sure boys come on in. Do what you need to." Because if you tried to stop them they would just use their C4 on your door and roll over you anyway. Better to be pleasant at least while they have you at a disadvantage.

Remember that this is also a CIVIL WAR, one that was sparked during the Soviet era invasion, then supported by both of the "superpowers" for three decades! The Soviets were in the same ground with 5 times as many forces, and 10 times as much heavy equipment; and got their butts handed to them...do we really think that the pittance of forces there are doing anything more than keeping a few roads open?

So the whole argument that the Afghan people want us there is a total non-starter!

The pain to come once Pakistan decides not to 'play-ball' with the steadily weakening US Empire will bring about a total cut-off of real supplies to the NATO forces in Afghanistan. The Russians are starting to flex again on the big stage, its starting to look more and more like the trap doors will be shut and 'our boys' may have to negotiate their own way out.

Unfortunately we CAN see the future

The boneheads running our country and our allies are simply too busy to pay attention to the facts. These facts include:
1)Historical records of total failure in the above described endeavor
2)Peak oil/food and likely severe climate change make nonsense of any planning based on recent statistics
3) all current planning is based on recent statistics (with little regard for historical records)
Are these real facts?
Could it be that Harper has his own Crystal Ball all polished up?
I attempt to hope that but
H'ae me doubts

ME2

Perhaps I can help. Since WW II, most wars that have occured have been over resources. With the U.S. in particular, the U.S. along with the CIA has carried out corporate will internationally since WWII.

U.S. foreign policy has not changed in 60 years. If a government doesn't follow the will of the U.S. concerning trade and exploitation of resources, the U.S. tries to bribe government officials. If that doesn't work, the threats and smears turn to coup's. If the coups don't work, the U.S. takes the nation to question to war.

The Vietnam war for an example, was a war built on a lie. The lie was that the Vietlamese attacked U.S. ships in the region. This information has since been declassified and is a matter of record. How many people would have been told to shut up about it? Whoever knew and if there was resistance, muzzles would have been enforced through smears or the muzzle of a gun. Either way, the warmongerers/profiteers/defense corps got their way and 58,000 U.S. soldiers and 1.5 million vietlamese lost their lives... all on a lie that 100's if not thousands would have known. And why did the war occur? Oil off the coast of Vietnam.

Northwood was another "false flag" example. Like Hitler's SS scapegoating a polish immigrant for the attempted burning of German parliment buildings as an excuse to invade Poland, the U.S. sent a highly decorated ship 14 miles off the coast of Israel to be attacked by Israeli fighter/bombers and torpedo boats when Johnson was in power. An air craft carrier spotted the attack with flybye recon and asked to defend the ship. Johnson directly ordered the admiral of the aircraft carrier to stand down. The reason? So the U.S. could invade Egypt and start a middle east war for resources. What prevented this from happening? A Russian ship witnessed the event and blew the mission.

As to Murray Dobbins story...

How many manufactured “crisis” by these New Cons will it take before Canadians catch on? Just about every war the U.S. ever fought was a manufactured crisis and now we have to see these Nazi tactics here?

The senate must go, its disfunctional so Harper says. We need to spend 25 billion on our military, its disfunctional according to Harper. AECL and chalk river is disfunctional, lets privatize says Harper. The CBC is disfunctional, lets sell it off echo’s Harper. The farmer elected wheatboard is disfunctional, lets destroy it says Harper. Wait times are too long for ops, medicare must go, says Harper and his beloved NCC. Civil servants are disfunctional, the ministers should run everything and decide it all case by case. (its much easier for a politician to get greased that way, Harpers version of smaller government). Ontario’s corporate taxes are way too high (at 12% manufacturers corporate taxation), the provincial government is disfunctional says Harpers Flarehty. The medicare system is disfunctional, people are waiting too long for ops so it should go, declares Harper and his beloved NCC full of U.S. HMO’s. The long gun registry is disfunctional says Harpers NCC/NRA. The RCMP is disfunctional and should be decentralized and locally run (like the U.S. model) according to Cons. EI is disfunctional, we just had no choice but to start a crown corp to run it, (even though deficit/surplus numbers from its conception show otherwise). Immigration is disfunctional, Harper declares (I dare just one of you to show me the breakdown of the 800,000 plus applicants for citizenship of which the majority are for work visa’s and explain to me why this is so. Its a manufactured crisis, pure and simple.). Unarmed border guards are suddenly disfunctional. Grants to the Canadian film industry are suddenly disfunctional. Forcing 30% Canadian content to be provided by broadcasters and cable companies is suddenly disfunctional.

And with every single example, the one underlying theme with each manufactured crisis or “disfunctional” government entity, is that the U.S. benefits heavily from the change to Harpers definition of functional, from weakened Canadian governmental powers to exclusive U.S. corporate profit, to outright U.S. ownership and control.

Cont.

Meanwhile, erasing surplus’s in the face of a U.S. recession is considered functional. Isotope shortages created by ministerial incompetance to create the need to consider “privatization” of our nuclear industry is suddenly functional. Joining wars with whitehouse war criminals for resources from Afghanistan to Iraq is suddenly deemed functional over keeping the peace. Declaring the U.S. and Israel as nations that don’t practice torture is amazingly functional according to Bernier and Harper. Offering financial consdierations/million dollar bribes to MPs for votes to bring a government down is considered functional. False accusations against other MP’s with doctored tapes are functional. Overspending during an election is functional. Misuse of public funds for 10%er propaganda is functional. Keeping MP’s that like gay bashing hatespeak is functional. Reversing 3rd party campaign election laws or gag laws is functional. Appointing unelected cabinet ministers is functional. Appointing defense lobbyests as ministers of defense is functional. Giving a billion dollars of softwood lumber tarriffs to the U.S. is functional. Axing the RESP and the Kelowna accord, using dangerous Tasers that kill one out of every 200 people its used on, this is apparently all functional. Lying to the public with the taxation of income trusts is functional. Doing nothing about climate change and superbugs other than muzzling scientists that bring the sheer size and scope of these disasters to light is functional.

And now the all house committee’s New Conservative manufactured crisis’s are supposed to be disfunctional, so the only functional thing to do is “force an election”.

When will the Canadian electorate catch onto the fact that the most powerful lobbyist on behalf U.S. multinationals in Canada, a 5 year NCC president in Harper, is not someone we want sitting in the highest office of the land? We have seen nothing but self interests shown by a government that is supposed to be interested in the functionality of the nation at large, not doing everything in its power to weaken, destory or sell it off.

And Liberals, please, bring this sad sorry excuse for a government down and be done with it. NAU, SPP, Amero, military integration, I’m tired of having to read, day after day, the propagandist “false flag” operations being pulled off in our nation by Bush/Cheney and the Rethuglican gang down south instead of the truths they hide concerning empirical takeover.

phrase in NewSpeak

It's not to do with Harper's war agenda, but the Orwellian theme of black reversed with white.....the other day on CBC Radio there was some Tory politician, cabinet I think, who said about the Mulroney-Schreiber affair:

"We feel that a confidential inquiry will be more efficient than an open public hearing".

Indeed. He said it with a straight face, and the media reported it with a straight face...the things the people of this country put up with, huh?

The brain nails it

The brain nails it:

The brain, I especially like your emphasis on the intentional creation of dysfunctionality in Canada - how our once healthy country is being made purposely dysfunctional - how it is being thoroughly disabled in its ability to serve the interests and values of Canadians.

We see this happening here in BC and across this country. Harper's every intention is to make the country we know and love unrecognizable - ineffectual, incompetent, and incapable of serving and standing up for Canadian interests... but one that fits perfectly in sync with the American Corporate Machine.

One day Canada will look in the mirror and it will be the US that stares glowing and triumphant back at her. You can hardly recognize Canada these days as it is.... made to primp and parade round in her newly donned military duds.

Some great stuff on 9/11 as well.

ME2, I don't think you took a drubbing, not at all.... you just inspired a really interesting discussion. ;-)

There is one other problem,Ed

Money!
Best Buddy was here last night: Native Haida drives trucks for oil rigs around Norman Wells in winter. He is seriously imagining making $1600 per day driving supply trucks in Iraq. I gave him my best advice: "Don't touch that stuff, it is B.S. and there is a very good chance you will not survive to collect all the dollars."
But what I thought was: "My friend is a native of Canada. He is interested in contributing to imperialism on the opposite side of this globe for the money."
Then I asked if they hired swampers.......

By the way

I first found the link posted above in the comments section of thetyee at least two years ago.
I too was shocked and awed.
This war is obviously not confined to Afghanistan and Iraq: it is worldwide.
On one side there are young people with all manner of shocking awful weapons in their hands and a scrambled litany of patriotic and religious nonsense in their heads led by cruel, greedy, ignorant bullies.
On the other side are the quivering bulk of the poor and some wannabe intellectuals (like me) who marmble about running from danger and hoping fervently for some better future.
Which side are you on?

War Games

One of the hardest things for any generation to understand is the reasoning which drove the previous generation's actions/beliefs and/or those of another culture. But without that understanding, it's difficult to recgnise what's going down today.

For example we tend to believe that the inherent rights of the individual are so obvious that surely this must have been realised by previous generations and/or other cultures, but even the most casual student of history should be forced to realise that this is a purely modern concept which has evolved to our level of understanding only in very recent years, is still evolving, and in many cultures still remains poorly understood.

Similarly, in tandem with that understanding, the right of other cultures to exist, and of other peoples to enjoy higher standards of living has been commonly accepted only within the last 75 years at the very most.

Even in the 50s it was commonly believed that people of colour had inferior mental capabilites, and that proof of this was to be seen in the material advantages the white cultures enjoyed. Today this is held to be a "racist" belief, but that argument is easily destroyed by the knowledge that aboriginal cultures (being the most "primitive") held precisely the same beliefs viv-a-vis other cultures, even toward their racial brethren.

Clearly, such attitudes find their origins in racial and cultural beliefs common to all peoples, and are handed down trough the ages. This is despite that if still held today in the light of todays knowledge, they are unquestionably racist and intolerant.

Getting back to the days of my youth and early adulthood, by far the utmost measure of any nation was it's "power", perhaps a the residuum of WW2 propaganda, but far more likely, IMO, the American concept of "Manifest Destiny", the idea that the US' destiny is to bring everything good to the rest of the world. Wiki says this about it:

"....some commentators believe that aspects of Manifest Destiny, particularly the belief in an American "mission" to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, continues to have an influence on American political ideology."

Reading Dr Trkla's comments on another thread "Kosovo & Quebec", prompted me to find the following site, which brought today's situation into perspective.

www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm

700 to 1,000 US Military bases scattered throughout the world? All positioned simply to enforce The New World Order under US supervision of The Market?

I too was "shocked and awed" Doggone, and even though it means little, I know which "side" I'm on.

In the future people will continue to be killed as the US alternately stabilizes and destabilizes nations which in turn will lose or gain control over their destinies according how it benefits the US.

And all the while, most Americans will continue to believe in Manifest Destiny, secure in the knowledge that War is Peace.