When I left Ottawa 14 years ago, finishing off my first stint as an MP, I piled Dorothy into the car and did a victory lap of the Parliamentary circuit. Victory, I figured, was having survived six years in that place, during which time my colleagues and I had lived through the free trade debate, GST implementation, the Meech Lake constitutional crisis and the Charlottetown national referendum.
On our final lap, we circled around the Peacekeepers’ monument, newly constructed on Sussex Drive, just down from the stone building where Revenue Canada hangs out (I was in charge of it at the time). That gaunt structure has always impressed me – its jagged edges representing a torn-up urban landscape, with several Canadian soldiers perched on the top.
Of course, I could not have imagined in the autumn of 1993 that my country would have its soldiers on the front line of a war in Afghanistan more than a decade later – a conflict which would cost more than $4 billion a year, and require five times that amount in new equipment and weaponry. Nor could I have imagined that Canadian peackeepers at the same time would amount to only some four dozen soldiers worldwide.
Whether you support the Afghan mission or not, you must agree our role in the world has changed drastically because of it. The monument seems a tad quaint and idealistic today, with a prime minister in office who seems more concerned with the pointy end of battle than restoring the role of the diplomat-soldier.
Will it change back, I wonder? Will we once again assume global leadership in dispute resolution and maintaining the peace between warring factions? Or is Canada now viewed as part of a western military machine?
Those who worry about what’s happening in Darfur, and wish Canadians could have a role restoring peace and preventing mass murder there, also have these thoughts. MPtv had an opportunity in recent days to chat with some of these people.
To view the video, click here.
115 comments ↓
Garth,
Thtat is all fine, but you may have missed the fact that throughout our country, in every town/city/village of any size, there are monuments that recognize and acknowledge Canada’s true military history…that of having fought and sacrificed in 2 world wars (where by the way, Canada put its mark on and developed its reputation throughout the world), not to mention Korea (that UN mission) where again Canadian forces proved its mettle (where the PPCLI received the thanks from the US President for performing above and beyond).
Now you are questioning our role in a UN approved mission in Afghanistan because we are fighting and you and other lefties want to try and convince yourselves that Canada’s military history is one of peacekeeping?
You obviously weren’t paying attention when you came on your western tour or else you would have noticed all of those tributes to all of those Canadians who died in service to Canada.
In my opinion, the same thing that is happening now, in the UN-backed, Afghanistan mission.
Please don’t try and make this wishy-washy.
The questions are:
Should Canada provide support to a UN-backed military mission?
Does Canada believe in NATO (principled belief – regardless of what all other members are doing, will Canada do all it can?)
And for you Garth, are you suggesting that the people of Afghanistan are NOT worth the sacrifice that our Canadian soldiers are making?
Ed the Hun
Where, exactly, did I suggest any of those things? — Garth
Garth,
It will not change back under Harper because he sucks down the Bush Kool-Aide at every opportunity. ‘Monkey see! Monkey do!’
“The monument seems a tad quaint and idealistic today, with a prime minister in office who seems more concerned with the pointy end of battle than restoring the role of the diplomat-soldier.”
WHAT?
Sometimes you go too far, Garth. How dare you presume to know what Stephen Harper wishes was the role of the Canadian Military. This government inherited the war in Afghanistan and the years of neglect of the military from a Liberal government. Sadly, we are barely able to properly provide protection for our soldiers who are in harm’s way in Afghanistan, never mind worrying about others in Africa. Also keep in mind the reluctance to commit to Africa has something to do with what happened last time and the intractable vagueness of trying to protect others under the umbrella of the UN and its politics.
I too am disappointed with Mr. Harper and this government.. but issues of this magnitude and consequence demand more than cheap shots and partisan rhetoric.
Your comments were way more thoughtful and balanced when you were an independent.
As for your “digital democracy”… it’s starting to smell as bad as any given session of Question Period.
Keep it up and you just might convince me to help whoever will run against you in Halton… hopefully the Greens can recruit a candidate who is more interested in solving our problems and working with others.
I stick by my comments. The Green candidate is the same guy who ran in the last election. I’ll get his number for you, if you want. See what his stance is on the Afghan mission. — Garth
It is mind boggling that the Quebec voter treated Mr. Dion so shabbily in the byelection….shame on them. They overlooked an orchid while looking for a rose. That you get the politicians you deserve is obvious by the Quebec debacle. Blame it on Dion…sure…better to blame it on ignorance, self delusion and the perfidity of attack ads where the real blame lies and don’t forget the wagon loads of money. I believe Mr. Dion is going to be a much better leader and certainly a smarter polition because of this experience. This dark cloud has shone much needed light on the path ahead. He has the potential to be a great Prime Minister. So all you Liberals, throw your support behind him…he is the Man.
Having said that, I thought Gordon O’Connor was an excellent Minister of Defence with integrity, honesty and great ability. He was sabbotaged by the same war hawks who support the American trained general who now runs things in the Defence Dept. Peace keeping pays great dividends and gives value for the money spent. War, on the other hand is expensive in dollars and blood….usually someone else’s blood and taxpayer money. However, many soldiers prefer to play at war than be peacekeepers. In this regard the Conservatives are the party that endorse Bush and believe that the blunt end of the Military is where it’s at. We can forget about peace keeping while they hold power. There is no good War…there is no bad peace.(not my quote.)
Those who worry about what’s happening in Darfur, and wish Canadians could have a role restoring peace and preventing mass murder there, – Garth
My understanding of any peacekeeping mission sactioned by the UN. is that there has to be peace in place that needs to be kept. The UN does not, as those who wish us to go to Darfur would have us believe, send troops into a civil war torn nation to make the peace.
Where, exactly, did I suggest any of those things? — Garth
“The monument seems a tad quaint and idealistic today, with a prime minister in office who seems more concerned with the pointy end of battle than restoring the role of the diplomat-soldier.â€
And the words “Diplomat-Soldier” in the context of your blog could be read as “Peacekeeper.”
However, I will disagree with Ed the Hun: Does Canada believe in NATO (principled belief – regardless of what all other members are doing, will Canada do all it can?)
The belief in NATO is predicated on all nations within the alliance doing their fair share. Otherwise, NATO can chose to go where it wants, while the individual nations which vote for the action face no consequences. It is that risk, the risk of voting for action and having to face the consequences, that means sober thought has to be used in making the decision.
In the case of Afghanistan, NATO voted for the action, some countries are not partcipating, others are keeping clear of the hot spots, while the Canadian and British troops are doing more than their fair share and are suffering the consequences of the NATO action.
In this regard the Conservatives are the party that endorse Bush and believe that the blunt end of the Military is where it’s at. We can forget about peace keeping while they hold power.
By Michael on 09.21.07 10:09 am
Based on what? The only operation we are heavily involved in is Afghanistan. It is a UN sanctioned mission whereas the Invasion of Iraq was not. It isn’t the government’s fault that the Taliban is attacking our troops. As for making peace with them, it is unlikely since there primary demand is for foreign troops to leave (so they can just walk in). On the bright side, Pakistan is finally getting serious about getting rid of terrorists within their border and are preparing 30000 troops for that purpose.Bin Laden is now so worried he declared war on Pakistan.
Canadian troops must leave the middle east asap and redeploy in Africa, because thats where they are needed most.
I think of Stephen Lewis fighting AIDS in Africa while our soldiers are getting killed in Afganistan.
Maybe our troops should come back to Canada and protect our arctic north pole region too from the Russians and Americans.
Bloc useless? Eat CRAP.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070920/bq_cannon_070920/20070920?hub=Politics
ED THE HUN….””STOP THE CLOCK” you have just rattled my cage Sir! If you would get off you butt and get around this country and see just fallen down local monuments are let alone unkept grave markers you would sick to have even uttered such words. It appears your mind wants to attack Garths message. My brother living in Ontario has paid for his own web site to complete with pictures to bring attention to the fact Canadians do not care about vets, but his health and loss of support has forced him to sit back. As we speak there are many soldiers and cilvian supports staff that are fighting with every last breath they have over PMSH micky mouse settlement over “Agent Orange”. What is written by Gatth Turner was done in respect and his words are in a clear and concise language of respect. Many died in WW II so you can speak out but please Sir, try a little respect.
Perhaps if it were the CN tower that was hit but terrorists high jacking a plane of innocent Canadians Garth would feel differently about stopping the development and expansion of more terrorist. But because it was the US, Garth can easily jump on the liberal bandwagon of Bush bashing and Harper puppets.
My father was on the beaches of Normandy. It was his courage and those of his fallen comrades that give us the freedom today we enjoy. Even the freedom of the Garth Turners to criticize the very vehicle that brought it.
Where was the “Bush bashing’ in what I wrote, or any reference to “Harper puppets”? Where was any disrespect for our brave forces or the Herculean job they are performing? People like you who seek to quell any debate with a jingoistic statement about WW2 are the real threat to freedom. — Garth
Maybe our troops should come back to Canada and protect our arctic north pole region too from the Russians and Americans.
By Harry S on 09.21.07 10:31 am
How true! Anyone for little jaunt down south the turn that White House back into brown, like in 1812? LOL
We can airdrop several thousand beavers around the Potomac and flood ‘em right out in a few weeks? Call it the NOLA Plan! it’s an environmentally friendly plan too…no smoke, no GHG’s, just a cleansing that seems long over due. Nature works so well when we help it, eh?
Fall Election….a CRAP shoot!
http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/897902.html
It’s hard to believe that with -so much- public support for action in darfur and so little support for it in afghanistan, that the government is doing exactly the opposite of what people want.
Darfur is genocide and that alone should compell us to act immediately. That it hasn’t is a huge shame against the entire country.
It’s time to secure darfur.
Warning the following links are extremely graphic but are important that people see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUeMRYSYRCE
http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/alert/darfur/steidle/
Hi Garth, It’s worthwhile to rememeber that PMSH would have placed Canadian troops into Iraq had he been given half a chance alongside the US in the initial invasion. His stance at the time is something that Canadians should not forget much less forgive him for.
That being said, the cost of new equipment for our troops being so high is largely the fault of the liberals neglecting the Armed Forces for so many years. The Liberals did a huge disservice to Canada in their treatment of our Armed Forces for many, many years. Will past policies on the Armed Forces be brought back should the Liberal government get re-elected?
Arguments can be made either way on if we should stay in Afganistan or not. I do not believe that Canadians should continue to stay there indefinately. Enough time, energy, money, and most importantly lives, have been given for Canada to be able to say we have done our share in supporting this U.N. mission. Without more support for other countries, we shouldn’t continue to be expected to bear the brunt of this failing effort.
I would like to see a staged withdrawl from Afganistan, a regrouping of our Armed Forces and then reasonable deployments of troops to other problems areas thoughout the world for peacekeeping/rebuilding/humanitarian purposes.
oops, meant to do line breaks there.. .not bold. sorry.
Hey Garth, yer face is on the Conservative party website. Look fer yerself:
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2874/87712
Guess I’m not dead yet. — Garth
War doesn’t determine who is right, war determines who is left.
No one has greater respect for our Veterans of WW 1, WW 2 and Korea than me. Honourable mention to some who fought in Vietnam as well. But Garth is right on this one.
Yes, Gart, I’m going to defend you this one time.
I have equal respect for our Canadian Peace Keepers and believe their job was possibly the hardest of all, especially in the Balkans. To fire only when fired upon by the enemy has to be one of the most restrictive and difficult orders ever received by a Soldier or a Commander. (Excuse me Sir, were you shooting at me?)
I believe that our Veterans of past
Wars, would not advocate War. I believe they would advocate Peacekeeping and that this is the lesson we should maintain.
Edmonton’s Princess Patrica’s are among the finest Peacekeepers in the world and it would stead our Country, and the World well to utilize them in this capacity.
I have had personal experience and contact with immediate family members who were Veterans of Galipoli, Vimy, Normandy, Caen, Sicily and Korea. One became a career Officer and was a Veteran of two theatres of war.
None of them ever sang the praises of War. Perhaps because they were all front line Soldiers. Over the top boys! Panzer Panzer, left 90 degrees.
Many have never seen the outcome of armed conflict. Never watched a Man suffer and die. It is hard for them to understand.
Remember, wars are started by Old Men, and fought by boys.
The arm chair is an easy venue from which to wage war..
I’m fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.
- George McGovern
Naturally, the common people don’t want war … but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
- Hermann Goering
Draconian = Tories
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=67363a2b-d8d5-4c90-8b9c-b6a56c5b80d4&k=53048
By Kevin M on 09.21.07 11:28 am
The World Congress (UN), has been sitting on its hands … ditto for Rwanda when Gen. Dallaire was at the helm. The UN is dysfunctional because of the selective power of veto. In the case of Darfur, China. In the case of Rwanda, the US. Thanks for the pictures.
Graphic, yes … REALITY ALWAYS IS.
By Jim on 09.21.07 11:21 am
Perhaps Jim if Bushie would tear up his little treaty with the President of Pakistan, we could go get the alleged 911 terror planners, but right now, they have a safe sanctuary and our troops are sitting ducks, either get serious or come home.
Will it change back, I wonder? Will we once again assume global leadership in dispute resolution and maintaining the peace between warring factions? Or is Canada now viewed as part of a western military machine?
The CPC were not responsible for the reduced role of peacekeepers. If you remember, during the Chretien years, we were behind Morocco at one time. That speaks volumes as to which party was responsible for reducing that role. I don’t know if we passed them since then or not.
Where was any disrespect for our brave forces or the Herculean job they are performing? People like you who seek to quell any debate with a jingoistic statement about WW2 are the real threat to freedom. — Garth
Garth, you don’t offer any debate either in your topic here: The monument seems a tad quaint and idealistic today, with a prime minister in office who seems more concerned with the pointy end of battle than restoring the role of the diplomat-soldier.
As a matter of fact, you have proved Jim’s statement.
By Joe T. on 09.21.07 11:34 am
And don’t forget, there were a number of Liberal leadership candidates that would also have had our troops in Iraq.
With hindsight, they have admitted that the decision would hve been wrong. Something PMSH has not done. But had our troops been send there, hindsight would not have meant much.
Will Michelle Muntean go to the highest bidder?
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/258957
Mulcair the placebo the Dippers needed. CRAPPERS know it. Who will win a slim minority in the next election is the question. Might be a big surprize.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070921.wlayton0921/BNStory/National/home
JIMBONOMICS 101
http://www.metronews.ca/storyCP.aspx?pg=./n092118A.xml
Layton has always tooted his egotistical horn – always claimed to be effective in opposition.
The depletion of our forces has been going on for 60 years – Mulroney has his “white papers” with a promise to give the military a boost – it never happened. The blame game is shallow and tiresome – yawn.
If I recall correctly, Martin made a deal with Hillier (who wanted to go to Afghanistan) that troops would be alloted to Darfur as well.
In fact, the military share of overall program spending actually dropped from 8.4 per cent to 8.0 per cent last year because non-defence spending increased at a faster rate. This year it will be 8.5 per cent, which is only slightly higher than the percentage under the Liberals.
The rapid rise in spending has little to do with reinvigorating the armed forces after “years of neglect.†In reality, expenditure increases in Ottawa are not limited to a handful of priority areas, like the military. Rather spending is up across-the-board because the Conservative government neglected to cut spending in its non-priority areas, like corporate welfare, and overly-hyped “fiscal imbalances†with the provinces.
It is incorrect for government MPs and Conservatives to argue the large increase in military spending is driving Ottawa’s recent spending spree. It is simply not the case when you look at how much has actually been budgeted, rather than what has been committed in future years.
http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2547
Why are Canadian scientists hitching rides with a country 1/6th its size to map our boundaries? Could it be the mapping that is vital is less important than making noise?
—–
Harper broke his pre-election promise to build new icebreakers that are capable of getting through the ice-covered waters in the Arctic:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/05/14/ice-breaker.html
The six boats that he proposed have been dubbed: slushbabies by those in the know that live in the Arctic. What’s needed are powerful icebreakers. The last powerful icebreaker was build in 1969.
—–
Northern expert calls for action in place of rhetoric:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070725.warctik0725/BNStory/National/home/
To put things in perspective….. It was Mulroney who started to cut back funding to the military and left a humongous deficit that was eating up alot of tax $$$$. Besides during the ‘90 the cold war was coming to an end and countries all over the world were cutting back their military.
So to continuously state “years of neglect from a Liberal government” is dishonest and simple. Until Bush came along no country had need of a military fighting force spending oodles of tax dollars and buying excessive amounts of equipment. Bush will be gone next year and that equipment will be gathering rust while waiting for the next Republican war-mongering President.
By DavidW on 09.21.07 9:58 am
Sorry David, do not want to be too unkind here but, PMSH moved our ill prepiard troops to the pointy end without explanation to Canadains. No Debate and a Forced Vote to which he never even attended. This I can also tell you he is not well spoken of in most circles of the armed forces particular the Navy. The role of any armed force is obey orders and fight till death. nuff said.
I could not help but get even more upset with the first post. Soon it will be Nov 11th, and an organiztion I belong to gathers some cadets and we place small Canadain Flags on graves of WW I & WW II & Koren vets on the 10th we have only 100 to which our members paid for. Now hold on to you hats all who wear red on Friday and yell support our troops…(PMSH’s political show) we have to go back and collect them early the next morning because people steel them! Hello check your local cemetaries where vets are burried and look at the disgraceful mess they are in. In Europe our brave were burried with honour and each and ever child is taught to remember with respect. Hell stop a high school kid on the street and ask what year did WW II start and end. I do not support everything Garth Turner says and I am not a member of any party, but I have read his comments and found no lies as a matter of fact when corrected with the facts he has adimitted the mistake. PMSH and Co, are perfect in every way and they think they know better what is good for every Canadain…..just ask him! and he is so proud to be a Canadian he spent hours attending many Republic Nation Conventions finding out just how to become perfect in every way.
Afghanistan is a loosing battle is well predicted by many smarter people than you and I to be even worst than Iraq.
Think..dam it, we can not even clean up drugs up in local school yards and NATO is going to clean up Afghanistan. and do really expect Kaizar to say ” Hey bye things are going bad please quit spending all your money on us an policing my country, go home we can take it from here> Hello, give your head a shake trapper. War/Conflict is big business and PMSH has put us right smack dap in the middle. One last point for all who have called the 22nd down, just look how much smarter they appear to be with no bad news lately. lets hope and pray it keeps up.
Mix my Kool-Aid 50/50 please.
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/columnists/story.html?id=a25cdcb8-6acd-4051-8cbc-0fdf3913754b
Hey Garth, yer face is on the Conservative party website. Look fer yerself:
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2874/87712
Guess I’m not dead yet. — Garth
By Barth on 09.21.07 11:46 am
All of you who can think should read all of this.—-The spin is so intense that you will think you are in the eye of a force 10 hurricane.( force 5 is the best that nature can come up with.) LOL
I can put my vodka away. ( can you say Eye ball drunk???????)
Garth, Rwanda actually made me very upset. We still have soldiers who are deeply wounded mentally at having to stand by, unarmed and literally watch the heads being cut from children. Our soldiers were powerless to MAKE PEACE. If we were to go to Darfur with unarmed peace keepers, where’s the guarantee that it will not be a repeat of Rwanda? How can you make peace against armed terrorists if you are not at least their equal? L
By Greg on 09.21.07 11:58 am
Greg – totally agree with your comments. I’m sick to death of most cons who call anyone who doesn’t support the Afghan and Iraq wars non patriot and that you can’t be a supporter of the troops if you don’t support the wars. I’ve also had it up to my eyes with people who call everyone a hero because they did the job for which they were hired or signed up. It is such an overused word that it has trivialized those who were true heroes – those who fought in the 2 great wars. I couldn’t believe that the Ont. govt actually named part of the 401 (?) from Trenton ‘Heroes’ highway or some such name.
I particularly appreciate your comment: Remember, wars are started by Old Men, and fought by boys.
In addition, I’d like all those who are so pro-war and against our soldiers pulling out before ‘09 from the front lines to join up. How many senator’s or congressmen’s (women’s)sons or daughters are over in Iraq. Believe the last tally was 1 as in ONE. The Ruskies, Brits and countless other countries no doubt couldn’t beat the tribes in Afghanistan. What makes anyone believe that we (NATO) can. Just another Vietnam IMHO, but now the Haliburtons & Blackwaters and the military companies are making even bigger bucks.
Rant over – for now.:-)
Hey Garth, yer face is on the Conservative party website. Look fer yerself:
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2874/87712
Guess I’m not dead yet. — Garth
By Barth on 09.21.07 11:46 am
Sure the cons wish you were. May you live long and continue pointing out the deficits of the theocon policies.
And don’t forget, there were a number of Liberal leadership candidates that would also have had our troops in Iraq.
With hindsight, they have admitted that the decision would hve been wrong. Something PMSH has not done. But had our troops been send there, hindsight would not have meant much.
By James- Chathma on 09.21.07 1:11 pm
James – Besides Ignatieff – who else. Just curious as my memory is CRAP (Can’t remember a f@@@ing thing) as my BIL says – actually before CRAP got elected. I’ll leave it to others add to.
James – Besides Ignatieff – who else. Just curious as my memory is CRAP (Can’t remember a f@@@ing thing) as my BIL says – actually before CRAP got elected. I’ll leave it to others add to.
By KPN on 09.21.07 4:36 pm
OOPS – guess I’ve got CRAP (as in neocons) on my mind – no wonder. Should have read CRAFTS’ disease – Can’t Remember a F***ing Thing.
By A.R.Wainwright on 09.21.07 4:06 pm
Their web people have the talent needed to create the next generation of Looney Tune opening montages.
What a pathetic website. Do people actually vote for these kindergatner moron neo-cons, or is it just a special unit from the States that rigs the ballot boxes??
Oh, I forgot, most of their supporters are illiterate and Rednecks. That explains it all.
Harper has hindsight, that is a given. His head is right up his arse! Quick, someone give the man a glass belly button so he can see where he is going.
Mr. Garth TurnerMP,
Are we going to be proactive about peak-oil?
See 33min interveiw with David Huges, (Geologist with Natural Resources Canada), regarding Canada’s oil and natural gas supply.
link to Transcrip and get to vidio and audio.
http://globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/827
Pathetic. You voted to extend the mission Garth. Now you and your party are so desperate you’re going to try and use Afghanistan to save your political hide. What a grotesque strategy. People are dying over there thanks in part to your vote…and now it’s politically expedient for you to use those soldiers for political gain. Totally sleazy. If anyone should find themselves on the pointy end of anything it should be you Garth. I hope you’re enjoying the freedom that those troops are fighting for.
That is the kind of comment I’d expect from you and your leader: you’re with the troops, or with the enemy – a complete distortion of what a majority of Canadians are thinking. Parliament voted to extend the mission to February 2009, and that continues to be the position of the Liberals. A combat role after that will also have to be approved by the MPs who represent Canadians. BTW, we had freedom before we sent troops to Kandahar. — Garth
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has already said he could not support a Tory throne speech, even if that meant triggering a federal election.
“I’ve made a practice of always reading anything before I pronounce whether I’ll vote for it or vote against it,†Mr. Layton said on Friday morning.
Standing next to Dion, suddenly wacky Jack! looks like the rational one.
Wrong. Dion laid out four issues he wanted to see the Throne Speech address and, failing that, would not support it. At least be an accurate partisan. — Garth
James – Besides Ignatieff – who else. Just curious as my memory is CRAP.
By KPN on 09.21.07 4:42 pm
Well, zero is not a number, but a concept. You can’t have zero anything because that’s an oxymoron, if there’s none there, how can you count them.
Infinity, again a concept. Infinity plus 1 equals, infinity. Also anything divided by infinity, equals zero.
But one (1), that’s a number. So to say a number of Liberal Leadership candidates is correct. It also means a number (more than one) of Liberals since they supported the one.
But I understand your point.
Now, let me hear from all the atheists and agnostics there is no God. God just filed a response to a silly lawsuit. It even ,magickly appeared on the Court Clerk’s counter.
‘God’ responds to legislator’s lawsuit
God cites the following, and quite appropriately so.
Chambers, a self-proclaimed agnostic who often criticizes Christians, said his filing was triggered by a federal lawsuit he considers frivolous. He said he’s trying to make the point that anybody can sue anybody.
Not so, says “God.” His response argues that the defendant is immune from some earthly laws and the court lacks jurisdiction.
It adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an important point.
“I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you,” according to the response, as read by Friend.
There was no contact information on the filing, although St. Michael the Archangel is listed as a witness, Friend said.
I can’t decide if this will spawn a sequel to ‘Oh God!’, ‘Bruce Almighty’, or a new movie ‘Nebraska Burning’? Perhaps a sequel to ‘Wakeup Call’ would be the most appropo, eh?
Obviously, someone needs to call Morgan Freeman about his new role, because George Burns is bye, bye! oh, and ringup Jim Carey..he is employed again…maybe!
I particularly appreciate your comment: Remember, wars are started by Old Men, and fought by boys.
By KPN on 09.21.07 4:25 pm
And then the career boys become the old men, get appointed to the high ranking military positions, are asked their opinion by dim witted politicians,and, because they know nothing else, say lets go to war.
Oops, bad HTML. Here is the link corrected.
‘God’ responds to legislator’s lawsuit
Oops! Well I think Dubya has a little embarassment, but then that would require a functional brain. Are you listening Steven?
‘Greenspan and Cheny
and then Dubya really gets into it.
Bush Speak
By Bill-Muskoka on 09.21.07 5:25 pm
I wonder if the people who penned the responce from God will be charged with identity theft?
By KPN on 09.21.07 4:25 pm
It’s so obvious isn’t it? How could anyone possibly miss it. Maybe they’re just not looking eh?
Earlier today, I was speaking with an Elderly member of the Female Gender, (phew, wanted to make sure I got that politically correct) and as I approached her sitting in her garden, I asked if she was pondering life’s vicissitudes? She asked me if that was a word and if so, what did it mean? I told her, yes it is a word and the point of using such words is to make oneself appear to be intelligent. I then went on to explain that it was my intention to ask her if she was pondering life? Then we went on to discuss the merits of my home made Pickles that I was bringing to her.
The moral of the story is, so many in our society think themselves intelligent, and posture as such, even to the point of asking to be elected to represent the interests and views of our Nation. But they are not always worthy.
Our History as a Nation provides clear and irrefutable evidence that we have approached Military considerations via maintenance of a Militia, in the true sense. We have consciously rejected maintaining a true Standing Army. This is to our credit, as it speaks clearly that we are not an aggressive Nation.
Generally speaking, we reserve our aggression to bickering amongst ourselves. I believe the world as a whole respects us for our consistent position, and this instills a large measure of certainty that we mean no race, no country, no religion, no reasonable and human party physical harm.
It would seem we are a country of statesman, and perhaps the world could learn a little from us overtaxed and under respected Canadians.
Those who stray from reason, will always remember Vimy, Abbaye d’Ardenne,Caen and the Scheldt. The Battle of The Dikes. They will remember the Balkans and the Princess Pats. They do know that the old teddy bear is not without a tooth or two.
Vive Le Canada, Vive Le Canada Libre!
“Mulcair the placebo the Dippers needed. CRAPPERS know it. Who will win a slim minority in the next election is the question. Might be a big surprize.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070921.wlayton0921/BNStory/National/home”
By Captain George on 09.21.07 1:34 pm
April Fools!
Dell, as Garth pointed out we had freedom long before we sent troops to Afghanistan. We are probably more at risk to terrorism acts in Canada now because of Harper and the Conservative Governments policies over there in Kandahar now. Any acts of terror that may happen here in Canada in the future I will hold Harper and the Conservative Party accountable for it.
I wonder if the people who penned the responce from God will be charged with identity theft?
By Marc on 09.21.07 5:40 pm
No! The tapes were inadvertly erased per SOP! LOL
However, impersonating a Law Enforcement Officer may apply?
Let’s see them try to make that areest, eh?
Garth did it ever occur to that we may not have been in Afghanistan now if the friggin Liberal government had not sent our military there in the first place. Did it ever occur to you that we may not be in Southern Afghanistan if the Liberal government had not changed our mandate before they were defeated? Based upon Dion’s recent speech and you above comments you apparently have forgotten who got us in this mess in the first place. Unfortunately Harper had no alternative but to do what he has been doing. At least we now have a PM who truly shows his respect for the roops by his action in supplying much needed equipment. That is far more then can be said for successive Liberal Governments from Trudeau to Martin.
What I find very interesting is you position on Afghanistan has seem to have changed from support to maybe not just as Dion’s position has changed. Once again politicians (Dion and Turner) are playing politics with our military and to out it bluntly pisses me off to no end.
Garth you said diplomat-soldier. What poppy cock. For one thing diplomats don’t carry guns. Secondly we haven’t been in the peace keeping role since at least 1989. Finally we never did have so called diplomat soldiers that is not what they are trained for.
Of course many want us to be in Dafur we could very likely have gone there if the Liberal governments of the last 30 years didn’t decimate our military to such a state that the can not even maintain what we have now for any length of time.
For Grath and NPN.
Why don’t you talk to the soldiers on the sharp end and them what they think of the Afghanistan mission and if we should leave before the job is done?
After all they are the ones who are putting their lives on the line. Not you.
Finally our mission and the other Nato troops job has nothing to do with destroying the poppy crops and the drug trade.Never has been. Check out the UN and Nato sites for yourself to see what our mission is all about.
As for Bill’s comments about Harper. All I can say is that at least Harper can see far better than Dion or May even with his eyes up his arse.
It is not the soldiers who determined this mission should be pursued, but politicians. They made the decision, and must bear the consequences. Right now it will be MPs who decide if it is extended or not, and they will reflect the will of their constituents – at least those MPs who are not Conservatives, and still have free will in Parliament. This is not about supporting our troops. It is a NATO-led assault, and many Canadians believe our brave soldiers are deserving of a rotation to other duties. Surely that opinion is as valid as yours. — Garth
By James- Chathma on 09.21.07 5:29 pm
Iggy thought the war in Iraq was a good idea.
George never went to Vietnam.
Darfur is the Boer War personified.
Message for Mr. George;
Man who fishes in other man’s well often catches crabs
Everything in the report but BLACKED OUT documents. An improvement to say the least.
http://othernews.ca.myway.com/article//20070921/40090020.html
Garth,
Well in response to your response to my comment: “Where, exactly, did I suggest any of those things?” — Garth
I suggest that you suggested it here:
“Whether you support the Afghan mission or not, you must agree our role in the world has changed drastically because of it. The monument seems a tad quaint and idealistic today, with a prime minister in office who seems more concerned with the pointy end of battle than restoring the role of the diplomat-soldier.”
Our military history is replete with examples of us being at the pointy-end. Afghanistan is just another example following a long list.
And as well, understand that Canadian soldiers are being soldier-diplomats already in Afghanistan. While only the ‘battles and deaths’ are discussed in our media, every day the soldiers interact with locals, showing them through their own actions the efforts to convince the Afghans that they should look to their own government and the NATO troops who are there to support that government. Shots are almost always only fired in defence. So I suggest that for every hostile action that occurs, dozens more actions involving interactions between our soldiers and Afghan citizens occur.
To be a good peacekeeper, you have to be an even better soldier.
Ed the Hun
Message for Mr. George;
Man who fishes in other man’s well often catches crabs
By Greg on 09.21.07 6:23 pm
Yes but Man who dumps in other’s outhouse, often smells like CRAP
“What is written by Gatth Turner was done in respect and his words are in a clear and concise language of respect. Many died in WW II so you can speak out but please Sir, try a little respect.
By David Bakody on 09.21.07 11:16 am”
David, I have more respect than you will ever know for those who served (whether they died or not) in both wars, Korea, every peace mission (by the way, Bosnia only became such near the end of the 15 years that Canadian soldiers served there) and Afghanistan.
My point, which I guess you missed, is that Canada’s military history as peacekeepers is dwarfed by its history as being at the end of the pointy stick. My concern with Garth’s comments was that he was somehow trying to represent that Canada’s military history is one of peacekeeping. It is my belief that that history is first one of fighting, with peacekeeping being a more minor one.
Ed the Hun
By Randy on 09.21.07 5:56 pm
There will be no significant terrorist acts in Canada, against Canadians, I predict. I do not believe that Al Qaeda see’s our Military efforts for anything other than what it is.
Regardless of whether you disagree with their religious beliefs or their ideologies, you must come to understand that these people bleed red just like you and me, and they are not the ultimate fools.
Quite frankly, I am not sure who is.
Feel free to engage in a philosophical discussion Gart, if you are up to it?
It’s what Liberals do right?
Charlie could live on a cup of rice a day. The true Mujadheen can live on a cup of rock.
Garth, you’ve responded to Van:
“It is not the soldiers who determined this mission should be pursued, but politicians. They made the decision, and must bear the consequences. Right now it will be MPs who decide if it is extended or not, and they will reflect the will of their constituents – at least those MPs who are not Conservatives, and still have free will in Parliament. This is not about supporting our troops. It is a NATO-led assault, and many Canadians believe our brave soldiers are deserving of a rotation to other duties. Surely that opinion is as valid as yours. — Garth”
I don’t think Van meant to suggest that soldiers will make the decision to stay or go, but was implying that you should speak to soldiers who will tell you that they (the soldiers), with the help of NGO’s, Afghan officials, CIDA, et al, are making progress and a difference. And because of that progress and difference, the public and the politicians should support the mission, since the mission in time will lead to the establishment of a truly national Afghan government, with the tools (i.e. Afghan military, security and police forces) to deal with the Taliban on their own feet.
Regarding the ‘rotation out’, I again believe if you ask those soldiers again, they’d say they don’t want a rotation out, but want to stay and finish the job, even if other countries involved in the UN-sanctionned, NATO-led aren’t willing to put their own forces more into harm’s way.
Ed the Hun
Any acts of terror that may happen here in Canada in the future I will hold Harper and the Conservative Party accountable for it.
By Randy on 09.21.07 5:56 pm
Hey Randy, you go girl! So, okay, any acts of terrorism and yes, of course Mr. Harper and the whole Conservative party are responsible for it…how? Um, Randy, I know you have your partisan blinders on once again, but does any of that responsibility hold true for the Liberal party also? I mean, they up until 2009 and in total support of the mission, it was a Liberal government that sent us there and it was the former Liberal government that changed it to a combative mission which it remains today. Uh, and Randy…if we had just let the nest of training camps in Afghanistan fester and did nothing, who would you blame then if we suffered a horrible attack in Canada as they did in the U.S.? Either we stand with the United Nations or we don’t. Which is it that you want? L
No death so horrible, as that at the hands of an Afghan woman.
Quote, British Soldier. Unknown name, unknown place.
Just another soul lost in obscurity.
Joke of the day, other than politicians;
Support bacteria — it’s the only culture some people have!
No respect eh Gart?
I spent some time with a survivor of Dresden. We had an interesting discussion. He was 12 when the firebombs destroyed his world, and he told me about how he dodged the falling timbers in the cellar where they hid.
I asked if he understood Mr. Hitler. I was silent while I listened to his answer.
For the most part, humanity simply pays lip service to the Ten Commandments, but once that “lip service” is done then it’s back to ‘dem good ol’ killing fields. An interesting perspective.
http://desertpeace.blogspot.com/2007/09/begging-for-forgiveness.html
Garth did it ever occur to that we may not have been in Afghanistan now if the friggin Liberal government had not sent our military there in the first place. Did it ever occur to you that we may not be in Southern Afghanistan if the Liberal government had not changed our mandate before they were defeated?
By Van on 09.21.07 6:01 pm
Very true, but I don’t remember PMSH opposing the moves, because he didn’t. He supported them.
The mission has been extended to Feb 2009. At that time its mission over for the Canadian troops unless parliament votes to extend the mission. PMSH has been explicit in saying he won’t call for a vote unless there is a consensus, or in plain English, until he knows he can win a vote to extend the mission.
Only now is Minister of Defence McKay trying to get the rest of the NATO countries to provide replacements.
So, we have the NDP who want the troops home now. The Libs and Bloc (I Believe) who say Feb 2009, and the CPC who say our troops can’t come home for a long time.
Bottom line, Afghanistan is a NATO mission. It is time to rotate our troops out and for another NATO country to rotate their troops in. Maybe, after our guys have had a rest, and the boot is on the other foot, our troops could be rotated back in, living up to our NATO committment.
But for now Feb 2009, bring them home.
Most bloggers will have already read this, but for those who haven’t then read on.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c977352e-d402-4f16-9f47-9bd487596021&k=8472
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BwrxPXvvaCs
More good, but graphic, video on the state of darfur.
By Ed the Hun on 09.21.07 6:55 pm
You are truely the epitome of idiocy. If you were with us, you would have had the same life expectancy as a 1st Lieutenant.
Me thinks this cover will be a topic!
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070920_100442_7900&source=srch&page=1
Randy, I know you have your partisan blinders on once again, but does any of that responsibility hold true for the Liberal party also? I mean, they up until 2009 and in total support of the mission, it was a Liberal government that sent us there and it was the former Liberal government that changed it to a combative mission which it remains today. – By Angry Canadian on 09.21.07 6:58 pm
First, as part of the NATO constitution, an attack on one nation is seen as an attack all NATO countries. So to live up to our NATO committment, our troops had to go to Afghanistan. Liberal or Conservative government, the troops would have been there. So the argument that the Liberals sent them is mute.
Secondly, who changed the mission? The NATO commanders decided to change the mission, not the Liberals.
Admittedly, we agreed with no objection from the opposition conservatives.
Finally, (sorry if I keep repeating myself), all NATO countries should be involved at the pointy end. Our troops should be rotated out. Feb 2009 is the date. So Mr. Karzai needs to badger NATO as a whole not just Canada if he wishes NATO to continue the mission Canadian troops are doing.
Keep in mind that much of the many billions being spent on weapons and equipment is being spent to replace equipment that should have been replaced years ago. Whether Afghanistan, Darfur or anywhere else Canada chooses to send our military we have a considerable obligation to give our soldiers every advantage. The Liberals shouldn’t fuss too much on re-equiping the military; it was mostly during the Chretien era that the rustout occurred
So Greg. Another American. (a little secret – there are no 1st Lieutenants in the Canadian Army).
Ed the Hun
Greg,
Glad to see that you have reasons for whatever position you are trying to formulate.
And who is “us”. Having been to Afghanistan and Bosnia, I’m curious when you were there and with who.
Ed the Hun
Wrong. Dion laid out four issues he wanted to see the Throne Speech address and, failing that, would not support it. At least be an accurate partisan. — Garth
sorry, Garth, this isn’t partisan. It came from TENILLE BONOGUORE of the Globe and Mail.
Still wrong. — Garth
Garth wrote,
>It is not the soldiers who determined >this mission should be pursued, but >politicians. They made the decision, and >must bear the consequences.
You are right Garth. Hold the politicians accountable but lets hold all politicians and I mean all Conservatives and Liberals accountable for their decisions.
The soldiers may not have made the decision but they are the ones and no one else who are putting their lives on the line and that is why they should be consulted before the politicians start playing politics.
Where I think you go off the rails is when you seem to imply that the soldiers opinions don’t count. You and other Mps are quick to quote the public but I have yet to see an MP quote what the military think. Why is that Garth?
Are the MP’s afraid what they will say. I suspect it would be along the lines that if we pull out now or 2009 before the job is complete would be saying that all those who died would have had died for nothing. You have to have had to served in the military to truly understand that and it wouldn’t surprise me if you or anyone else who have not served would not understand that line of thinking.
In any event, I happen to feel that their opinion is far more important then all the others including you and all the other politicians put together for the reasons stated previously.
So Garth my challenge to you and and any other MPs who has the guts to go to the front lines and ask the soldiers themselves what they think about ending this mission without finishing it before deciding to extend or not to extend the mission beyond Feb 2009. The front line troops opinion on this matter should be far more important then any others. But unfortunately I don’t think their opinion is ever considered and likely never has been.
It is not the soldiers’ decision. This is a democracy. The Canadian people will decide. — Garth
Tory pushes his law-and-order agenda on the hustings–Ottawa Citizen – 2 hours ago
TORONTO – **A Conservative government would offer cash rewards for information leading to the arrest of hard-to-catch criminals, party leader John Tory said on Friday, as he brushed off suggestions he was playing on people’s fears in his bid to win power** …
**HAH! I just reported John Tory to the POLICE TIPS LINE
By Captain George on 09.21.07 7:41 pm
Right on, Cap’n — sadaam = dubya; both one and the same!
Now we’re truly into the silly season!
http://adereview.com/blog/?p=51
First, as part of the NATO constitution, an attack on one nation is seen as an attack all NATO countries. So to live up to our NATO committment, our troops had to go to Afghanistan.
By James- Chathma on 09.21.07 7:26 pm
This seems to be extremely simplistic and inaccurate. Did Afghanistan attack the United States? Were the individuals who flew the planes Afghans?
The answer to both these questions is no. The original purpose in going to Afghanistan was to destroy the faction that were responsible. The distruction of those facilites went so well that the U.S. decided to participate in regime change and then headed for Iraq to enforce regime change there. NATO was supposed to clean up their mess without any concept of what needed to be done.
Once governments start using utopian rhetoric to justify taking sides in a civil war you know they have no idea how to deal with the mess.
Chretien’s decision to send troops to Afghanistan was poorly thought out and a gut reaction to show support for the U.S. following 9/11. I am not sure why Martin decided to assume a major combat role but it also seemed to have been a knee jerk decision. Harper made the war his own “crusade” because of his belief in the use of hard power to promote capitalist values.
About time this came to light — call the Israelis’ bluff, and see how they react. Should have happened years ago.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906132.html
So Mr. Karzai needs to badger NATO as a whole not just Canada if he wishes NATO to continue the mission Canadian troops are doing.
By James- Chathma on 09.21.07 7:42 pm
Actually, I agree with everything you have said. However, here’s the hard part, if your NATO allies do not live up to their responsibility how does Canada get out? Without success against the Taliban, if we do not defeat them and put the Afghanistan government on solid footing, how we as Canadians feel when we see on the evening news the slaughter that will follow our departure? It would make Rwanda look like a trip to Disney World. What a massively hard spot to be in, isn’t it? L
Ed the Hun, not sure I got your point, but I am pleased to hear your speak of respect for Vets. I re-read what Garth posted and he is most correct (please re-read at your liesure) What he said was: we change roles to peacekeeping and PMSH changed our rules of engagement to offesive (pointy end). Mr. Turner is 100% correct, history will show that after Lester B Pearson, Canada decided it was the route to go, for two reasons, first we had world approval for a job well done, and rightly so, (hey it was a Canadian ex-general who helped out in Northern Ireland) and Rawanda has proved another general correct, so Canadians are respected and rightly so. now number two and it’s a big one…..money, money, money. Peacekeeping is a cheaper way to go and gains respect world wide coupled with accepted support from the voters. Sounds like Canada to me, now what happened our Amred Forces went through some major set backs, Mr Tredeau (Green Uniforms and tri-service) Fired Admiral Landymore (Still alive here in Camp Hill Hospital) we have never recovered from that. There was no control on our peacekeeping missions and both goverments played peacekeeping to 9’s to point until we dropped to 33 on the World’s List. Jean Cretien knew this as did Paul Martin and we entered into Afghanistan via NATO at the same level of many other countries in a peacekeeping role. PMSH did not understand this and he had much to do about the CAF and lack of funding over the years and beat the drums for votes (still doing it) all of course promises that can never be met (Billions now let alone future maintenence of many billions). The run down of the CAF really took hold after the fall of Berlin Wall, all countries cut back thinking the world was safe. Unfortunetly Canada had hidden it’s previous cut backs from the public and so no need to change course. Many of our keen superior officers did all they could but their demands fell on deaf political ears via the M of D of the day. The sad part is Ed, is that the public saw no need to support the CAF, and they held the votes and wanted many things first. The Liberals, did understand Ed, and they supported the CAF and it’s members and senior officers knew how to play them. They worked for highier wages and more officers in a complex plan (also adopted by NATO) to become smarter and leaner with well educated trained people. The consrvatives knew about equpment and tried to replace much of the older stuff, but agian it was hard to get it by you the dam public who now complian and dump on G.T. because we now can buy tanks and aircraft and have them sit around in a warehouse or hangar or talk about the Artic (for votes) because Canadians can not stand to see body bags. The Blame game pure and simple, the point is to-days armed forces cost a bundle millions turn into billions almost over night and health care and developing our children falls to the waste land. But I now Digess! what went wrong, all our educated war people dropped the ball, 9/11 proved that 18 fools could bring the world’s most powerful nation to it’s knees in less than 4 hours! The bad guys sucked nations into using all their logistical capital to fight on their terms in their back yard, and have held them off with a bunch or low paid if any rag torn soldiers (insurgents American invented term) for over four years with no end in sight. All the fancy equipment and over a trillion dollars with the support NATO and other countries have proved fruitless. To-day we have a President in the US and here a PM hopping to hang on the ball of wax telling one lie after another that what we are doing is going to save the world. Save the world from what, hell Dubai is now the home of billionares and their are more of them than ever while we the working class send our children to fight and work harder and longer hours every day and watch are homes be devalued because our goverment can control spending feeding the War Machine. At 3 billion plus dollars a week we could give the dam Iraqi and Afghanistan goverment the cash to buy some mercenaries of their own to police their country and save billions, not to mention our brave young soldies. If were not for that dam oil! Sorry ED THE HUN, I am only a ode country boy who reads too much, by the way this is just for openners, if you really knew just how we the working class are being played you would rent a barrel and float down the Niagara River.
to be continued some day.
C.B. Innes,
Actually ‘hard combat’ was required to kill the enemy. A military requirement, not a capitalist one. The decision to move Canada from Kabul into Kandahar was taken well before the end of 2005. Why? The US was gradually handing off responsibilities for Afghanistan to its NATO partners. The German, French and others had already been established in the north (as was Canada in Kabul). So as the US withdrew (they still are operating in the south-western province) other countries had to step in. Canada did (left Kabul). The British did (Helmand). The Dutch did (Uruzgon). So, is it time for Canada to ‘hand-off’ to another country? Possibly. But to one that can do the job (while Canada is by no means the best equipped country operating in Afghanistan, it certainly isn’t the worst either – ie. the Romanians – who by the way are also operating in the south). And if there is none, then I suggest that Canada has an international responsibility to stay and help the Afghans, who want a future not encumbered by the Taliban.
Ed the Hun
Karzai was told by the Canadian government to go on T.V. and plead for Canada to remain in Afghanistan. He was more than willing to do this for if Canada leaves so does Canadian money and there goes Mr. Karzai’s rapidly growing fortune. It is financially beneficial to Mr. Karzai and his corrupt government to continue to fleece Canada.
Van: Asking soldiers if they want to keep on soldiering is like asking teachers if they want to keep teaching, or doctors if they want to keep doctoring.
If you asked any professional if they wanted their place of business closed down they would all say no.
Do you actually think soldiers are going to say that their jobs are unnecessary? Do you actually think any active soldier will give an honest accounting of what is actually happening.?
That is why our Parliament decides on what international missions we participate in.
The problem of Afghan mission is when someone(most likely George Bush) decided ’search and kill Talibans”. Talibans are Afghan citizens who ruled the country, but was driven out of power by U.S. bombing. A U.S. friendly Karzai was installed, and Talibans had disappeared among the population. Why not educate Talibans to become U.S. friendly, if that’s what Bush wants, instead of ’searching and killing them.’ It would be much cheaper and safer for our troops. Killing them, since they are Afghan citizens, create hatred of us, and create terrorists to attack us. Suppose U.S. decide to serch out all the Liberals among our population and killing them off, since Harper Conservative is more U.S. friendly? Families of the murdered Liberals will try to revenge, and U.S. friendly Harper Conservatives are not any safer. F. Heinig
Judy,
If you had asked soldiers about if they really wanted to shovel snow in toronto, I’m pretty sure you would have been told no.
Ask them if they think their efforts in Afghanistan are worth it, and I know you will get a resounding yes. And not because of the pay cheque (although everyone of them is happy to collect that too).
Why do you think that:
“Do you actually think any active soldier will give an honest accounting of what is actually happening”
Do you think that soldiers are liars? Or don’t understand what is going on? Having been there, I can tell you there is one person who I KNOW doesn’t know what is going on over there…You!
This isn’t about a soldier having a job. What are you thinking?
Do you know something Judy? I don’t know where you live, but why don’t you look in the phone book (or google it) and find the nearest military base to where you live. Then go there (they will let you on) and meet some real military people. It is obvious from your comments that you know absolutely nothing about the military or the people who serve.
Ed the Hun
February ‘09
Canadian Soldier in Afghanistan
Don’t you know the time has come?
Can’t you hear that distant drum?
The peoples’ thrum?
Don’t you know the time has come?
Shadows fall across the land
Movement slows upon the sands
Time ends for some and then
Don’t you know your time has come?
Earth-shattering din, eerie silence and then
Hearts racing, fear screaming, then stillness again,
Warm radiance encloses young soldier now gone
from that bleak land, as bagpipes swirl on.
Don’t you know your time has come?
Can’t you hear that distant drum?
Let it end let it end let it end
Bring them home.
Ed the Hun,
You are quite the contortionist to be able to spin things in the manner that you do, and to selectively ignore the big picture.
Soliders do the job they are told on behalf of the government and by representation, the Canadian public. To put it bluntly, they are not the ones to decide whether a mission is just or not.
In case you have missed it, the installed Afghan government is full of ex-taliban and ex-warlords. Continuing our presence there, we are propping up a government that has zero popular support and entirely corrupt. Karzai begging us to stay reflects his instincts for self-preservation, as his head would be first on the block for being a puppet of the US, and his utility among his “government” would soon vanish when he can no longer front for financial largesse in the name of “reconstruction”.
You are welcome to continue to try to couch the argument for staying in terms of “women’s and children’s” rights, but the fact of the matter is that Karzai’s government couldn’t give a crap. And if you were truly concerned about the welfare of children, you would favour minimal military involvement, as most children die because they are “collateral damage”, not because they grow up in a society that you may not necessarily regard as “civil”.
Why don’t you give concrete examples of the aid that we have given Afghanis? Why don’t you give concrete examples where our military efforts have actually succeeded in achieving the goal of “wiping out the Taliban” (as if such thing were possible), and more importantly, evidence that support for them is waning?
The ultimate travesty that we can inflict on our soldiers is not reassessing our goals and the missions we send them to on our behalf. We do not do them justice when we bury our heads in the sand thinking that war is a game of Risk with plastic soldiers whose losses are just part of the game because we can simply start a new game when we don’t like the outcome.
If we want to truly honour our soldiers, we recognize that their lives are precious and that we will not send them out to die in vain for a poorly thought out mission with poorly thought out goals.
They put their lives on the line on our behalf.
This is the very least we can do for them.
Austin
P.S. Clearly, your understanding of history only progresses to the sound-bites you are spoon fed. Maybe you should read up on the rise of the Taliban in post-Sovet era Afghanistan. And then try to objectively read accounts leading up to the invasion of Afghanistan. Maybe then you will understand how completely out of depth you are.
I’m reading and I’m reading and it’s all so serious and then…
Harper has hindsight, that is a given. His head is right up his arse! Quick, someone give the man a glass belly button so he can see where he is going.
By Bill-Muskoka on 09.21.07 4:46 pm
ROTFLMAO!!
OHHHH Funny!
Geo
All this boo-rah! And going on about what it means to be at war. All very interesting. Try this link. Warning, it’s graphic:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold/latest.htm
As I spent this evening, it’s now past 1am, I would search out different things based on what different people said and I came up with many thought provoking ideas. I’m not sure that I accept everything that I read as 100% but so much does carry the ring of truth that for now until my explorations lead me to other conclusions, I’m going with these.
First off, over and over I hear “Our NATO commitment” or “Our obligations to NATO” or some variation to that theme. Just what is NATO and what are our commitments etc. etc. I had heard somewhere along the line that while this was a NATO gig, it was still under US command. So that’s what I went looking for and this is what I found.
NATO as it currently stands has a dual command structure, SACT and SACEUR.
SACT is the acronym for the Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, the transformation being that of making NATO forces into a U.S. styled rapid deployment force anywhere in the world. SACT will be dual-hatted (meaning the same guy has both positions) as Commander, US Joint Forces Command. This one person is U.S. Air Force Gen. Lance L. Smith, who is headquartered in Norfolk Virginia. SACEUR is the acronym for Supreme Allied Command Europe and is be dual-hatted as Commander, US European Command, General John Craddock, (whom many think is a war criminal) United States Army who is appointed by the US President. His headquarters are in Mons, Belgium.
It should be obvious that NATO is led by the U.S. military. With its current role involved with the powers of the American empire in unilateral pre-emptive actions that generally work against international law, yes, NATO is nothing but an extension of that empire, a tool of the corporate-military structure that is part and parcel of the American government.
[...]
As the UN Charter “prevails over all other treaties…countries cannot exempt themselves from the provisions of the UN Charter, which include…the international rules governing recourse to military force.â€[3] These international rules have developed over time through various treaties, charters, agreements, and conventions or through customary law involving the wide acceptance of a rule by a clear global majority. International humanitarian intervention in the form of military force is not an accepted concept of international law, and even if it was, cannot over-ride article 2(4) of the Charter that says “Members shall refrain…from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.†It would seem that NATO’s “recommendations on the use of military force†and “its development of appropriate rules of engagement†would be completely over-ridden by the UN Charter.
[...]
Canada’s own elected representatives and military leadership promote Canada’s military action in Afghanistan to support the U.S. under the pretext of humanitarian intervention. However, “the significance of humanitarian concerns to the international law on the recourse to force remains at the level of political will†and can not “be considered to have acquired legal force.â€[6] Also, the Canadian government advocates its pro-democratic intervention role, but use of force for that is prohibited under the UN Charter as well.
Canada’s role, as an occupying force under international law, contains other concerns along with the above: the treatment of prisoners of war; the destruction of civilian structures (they’ve built some roads, but what about the farms and houses that have been destroyed?); the ‘rendition’ or transfer of prisoners to the Afghan forces (this issue came to light recently but was quickly dropped by the media once they were reassured that Canada had access to “its†prisoners); and the care and safety of the occupied population.
NATO’s role in Afghanistan, while ostensibly under UN approval, is in reality under U.S. command. Canada and NATO have accepted U.S. command, and are faithfully performing their empirical duties in Afghanistan. While Canadian government rhetoric has been about rebuilding Afghanistan, the reality on the ground is about battling an insurgency, that good or bad, is a native insurgency. Again, while the rhetoric is about rebuilding a democratic Afghanistan, the ultimate purpose of American geopolitical strategy in the region is to control the oil and gas supplies and routes from the Caspian Basin and guard against Russian and Chinese control of the same.
[........]
A true democracy, actually asking the people of the country what they desire and then abiding by their wishes – and not using a contrived idealism of morality and democracy – will go a long way to create a safer, more culturally diverse and healthy and equal world.
Canada should get out of Afghanistan. Canada should get out of NATO. If the countries involved wished to truly be independent actors and thinkers, then NATO itself should be disbanded – it has long outlived its original purpose and is now being used as another force for American empire.
for the rest including links and footnotes:
http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=297#more-297
He needs to speak with the women of Rawa but other than that I believe he makes a lot of sense.
Rawa, The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (est.1977) They have been through a lot!
http://www.rawa.org/
ok, bed now, it’s late.
Geo
For me, the question is obvious:
Are the Afghanis worth our Canadian time, effort, and resources?
Time: it will take time (probably a decade or more) to restore stability, rebuild infrastructure, train the people, and rebuild civil rights.
Effort: our military sacrifices (life, limb, and mental fatigue), our diplomatic people, and our volunteers (teachers, doctors, etc.)
Resources: money for building and infrastructure supplies, for micro loans, for food, for military supplies, for policing supplies, etc.
From my family’s personal experience from the WWII, I believe the Afghanis are worth it.
By Ed the Hun on 09.21.07 10:30 pm
The first thing I would like to say to you Ed is thank you for serving our country. I am not one of those who really supports the mission as it now stands but I do support what men and women of our armed services do for us each and every day. As I have said many times in the past, this NATO mission is flawed when the enemy has been provided sanctuary from the NATO forces by the agreement between Pakistan and the U.S. If Bin Laden and company are responsible for 911, and I say if, because I still believe in the rule of law and the presumption of innocence, then we should be able to enter Pakistan and root them out, not sit across a porous border where they can strike our troops and run back to a safe haven. Further, if NATO allies are not willing to share the burden after 2009, then I do not see why we should shoulder the full resposibility.
We made a commitment until 2009 and we should live up to that commitment. Going further than that, I support the idea of Canada being a peace keeping force and not buliding to become a military power. (ala U.S.) I believe we need to stand in this world for something bigger than war, that doesn’t mean we don’t defend our own borders but the idea that the U.S. appears to have that one can bomb democracy on others (ala Iraq) is not one we should emulate. I realize you are not necessarily supporting the position that we do so but I wanted to make my position clear.
I want Canada to stand strong among the nations of the world as a peace keeping country and be known as a protector of peace not an advocate of war. Thanks for listening.
Actually, I agree with everything you have said. However, here’s the hard part, if your NATO allies do not live up to their responsibility how does Canada get out? Without success against the Taliban, if we do not defeat them and put the Afghanistan government on solid footing, how we as Canadians feel when we see on the evening news the slaughter that will follow our departure? It would make Rwanda look like a trip to Disney World. What a massively hard spot to be in, isn’t it? L
By Angry Canadian on 09.21.07 9:26 pm
And therein lies the political problem.
But if we stay past Feb 2009, either because our front line troops want to finish the mission, or because the rest of NATO won’t help implement their own decision, are we essentially extending our role in this mission indefinitely?
You know as well as I, that come the next time our mission comes up for review, the same arguments will be used.
Some words of wisdom for which I take no credit…
Last, but not least, whether or not you become a member of the
>military, support our troops and their families. Every Thanksgiving and
>religious holiday that you enjoy with family and friends, please
>remember
>that there are literally thousands of troops far from home wishing they
>could be with their families. Thank God for our military and the
>sacrifices they make every day. Without them, our country would get its
>arse kicked.
>
>It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the
>press.
>
>It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech.
>
>It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to
>demonstrate.
>
>It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and
>whose coffin is draped by the flag, who has given the protester the
>right to burn the flag.
Enough said.
This seems to be extremely simplistic and inaccurate. Did Afghanistan attack the United States? Were the individuals who flew the planes Afghans?
By C. B. Innes on 09.21.07 9:00 pm
Simplistic but fact.
Secondly, after 9/11, the Talibhan were asked if they would assist in caputuring the terrorists responsible.
History is fickle, in the mind of the beholder, but I remember the Talibhan resisted every diplomatic effort, even actively hiding the terrorists. The US. went in to get both the terrorists and the Talibhan from the get go as they could see no difference. (With us or against us).
I do agree with you concerning Iraq though. The “War on Terror” became an excuse for anything, including the overthrow of a sabre ratlling (that was about the extent of his WMDs) dictator.
Bush and Rumsfeld were just looking for the opportunity to implement their right wingnut think tank plans.
Do you know something Judy? I don’t know where you live, but why don’t you look in the phone book (or google it) and find the nearest military base to where you live. Then go there (they will let you on) and meet some real military people. It is obvious from your comments that you know absolutely nothing about the military or the people who serve.
Ed the Hun
By Ed the Hun on 09.21.07 10:30 pm
You are bang on Ed the Hun. You know what you are talking about. Excellent post. I know of what you speak. It is useless trying to argue with these type of people. They have a fixed mind not knowing what is going on in Afghanistan and like Judy probably have never even spoken to a military person. Because of their hatred for the Prime Minister it clouds their minds. They don’t realize it is not about any Prime Minister but our troops and the wonderful job they are doing in Afghanistan. The blinders are firmly locked in place and nothing you enlighten them on will change their minds. A good example is the post by F. Heinig on 09.21.07 10:25 pm. This is why you very seldom see any posts from me lately. Some of these people are just silly.
Ed the Hun,
Well I believe I do have insight into the military mind because my stepfather joined the royal marines at the age of 18, fought in WWII and was decorated. Immigrated to Canada, immediately sent to Korea where he was in the provost corps. Came back and decided to try civilian life, couldn’t adapt and rejoined. He was a career soldier and spent a year in peacekeeping in Egypt during the Suez crisis. He retired and became a meat inspector.
His philosophy was, I’ll serve wherever I’m sent. The least political person I’ve ever known. When he disagree with where he was sent, he kept quiet. No he didn’t agree with lots of decisions that were made, but his motto was, “I’ll do my duty wherever it is I’m sent.”
So whatever decisions parliament makes, soldiers have the obligation to serve the wishes of parliamentary decisions.
By the way, my father didn’t come back from WWII, he’s buried in Sicily in a commonwealth grave. The medal I was given never did make up for the hugs and affection I missed during my childhood.
Comments by Ed the Hun on 09.21.07 10:02 pm
The Taliban did not represent a threat to Canada or the United States. Al-Qaeda, a radical Sunni Muslim organization was the real threat because its objective was to rid the Muslim world of western influence. It is not clear whether the Taliban had any control over Al-Qaeda but they did not kick them out of the country but neither has Pakistan.
The Taliban became the enemy when the Bush Administration decided to overthrow them and change the government. Prior to this U.S. oil companies had negotiated with the Taliban for a corridor to build a pipeline through the western part of the country and sources in the Asian media are saying that an oil consortium is currently in negotiations with the Taliban and the other parties for the corridor. The Karsai government has wanted to negotiate with the Taliban and has argued that there were only about 200 hard line Taliban who supported Al-Qaeda and most of them are dead.
If that is the case then we are not fighting hardline Taliban. Why then are we creating an enemy in order to kill it?
I know that from time to time others here others here have raised concern with the poppy eradication program in Afghanistan, and I wish to add my voice to theirs. If the Prime Minister really wants to support our troops, not by just seeing that they are well-armed for deadly offensives, but to engage in another kind of “offensive”, a way that will reduce their need to use those arms and hence be in keeping with the more traditional peacekeeping role that many Canadians take pride in, then I think its time he began seriously protesting to our Nato partners against the poppy eradication program. He could start this through back channels, but if that proves unproductive, threaten – and if necessary follow through – to publicly admonish those partners whose poppy-eradication policies are directly endangering our troops. Yes, I speaking of the parochial Americans and also the British, who seem to be protecting their pharmaceutical interests.
I listened to an interview last week with Canadian Noreen MacDonald of the Senlis Council who has been living and working in Afghanistan for the past 6 years (sorry no audio link). She indicated that the contractors the US government has hired to destroy poppies are doing so with no regard with what that destruction takes with it. Apparently Afghani farmers also intersperse small plots of wheat within those fields, so not only are the contractors destroying the farmer’s means of commerce, but they are also destroying the very food they rely upon for survival. Not a way to gain grass root support.
When informed that Canadian troops are not part of the process, the Afghanis make no distinction, unable to clearly discern one Westerner from another (not surprising, I’m sure many here would have difficulty doing the same with other sets of ethnic groups, say Africans or Asians). Ms. MacDonald has recommended a good solution: licence and regulate Afghani poppy growers to supply morphine to third-world countries for whom such medicine is in poor supply and acute demand. Not only provide a livelihood for farmers, but create local processing industries to turn those crops into finished product and thereby provide jobs for those angry aimless young men attracted to the Taliban by offers of cash, revenge and something to do. Any farmer who continues to grow poppies, unlicensed, would likely be doing so for the illicit drug market: eradication programs would be directed at such farmers.
I know the British have argued that Afghan poppies cannot be converted into morphine, to which I say bull (can listen to this August 23, 2007 rebuttal given by India’s former Narcotics Commissioner, Romesh Bhattacharjii here, timeframe 19:10 to 28:45). During the 60’s, Turkey and India were major sources of heroin to the western world. But these countries were democracies and couldn’t as easily be attacked by the west via military means. As a consequence, their crops were diverted to the morphine market, and today supply most of that used by the US.
So, come on Mr. Harper, really support our troops. . .
Austin,
Good luck in life (I think you will need it!). I had the pleasure of hearing Karzai speak in Kabul. I’d disagree that he doesn’t give a crap about women/children rights. I think he cares a whole lot (enough by the way to put his life on the line – there are many trying to kill him). But as they say Austin, believe what you will. That is certainly your right.
C.B. Innes – I disagree. The Afghanistan action was, in my opinion, based entirely upon the follow on action from 9-11. I suspect that for yourself (and others like you), everything that the US does is because of oil, but that is your decision to believe.
Canuck – sorry to hear about your father. But as the saying goes, war is hell. EVERY soldier UNDERSTANDS that the decision about whether to stay and fight in Afghanistan or leave will be a POLITICAL decision (not a populist one – if that had been so, then the Liberals would NOT have sent us into Afghanistan in the first place). The point that I’m trying to make (as was Van and The Shadow knows, et al) is that IF you ask those people who would know (i.e. soldiers, aide workers, NGO, RCMP, etc) is our efforts in Afghanistan making any difference, they would almost always say yes. And I believe (because I haven’t asked everyone of them) they would also say that the sacrifices (of even dying – I know easy to say) are worth it BECAUSE they see the improvements that are occurring to an entire country and culture and believe that success (measured by the Afghan Gov’t being able to govern the entire country with the support of its own military/police/officials/etc) is possible.
These people would ask the politicians (and the public – but again because politicians do NOT always listen to the will of their constitutents (politics overrides all – this being an example if you asked me) to support the mission so that we could continue to effect change and improvements in their country.
Ed the Hun
The Shadow Knows…
Ack.
I read Garth’s blog regularly (get a chuckle from it once and awhile). But while I read it regularly, I seldom post since as you pointed out many on this site are locked on and because of ideology can’t possibly consider that there might be other issues that might alter thier opinion/perspective. And you are right, many just don’t like/hate conservatives/harper/their mothers (or whomever) to even consider that something that he/they propose might be a good idea (I have one similar bias – Turdeau, but I am aware of it). So for many here, if the mother ship says the mission is bad, then it MUST be.
Anyway, I don’t respond to some who post because it is apparent that it would be a waste of my time or since many actually just have little to say except insults, childish comments, or bordering ‘on the looney’ rants.
I try to post only when I think I can add something to the discussion, have information (facts) to add or wish to point out any flaws/information that maybe mission.
Enjoy your day,
Ed the Hun
PJW,
Believe me when I say there is ABSOLUTELY no chance that Canada would ever be able to be compared to the US regarding military power (or the British or Germans or French or Russians, Chinese, etc). Don’t you worry about that. We play in the bantam division and many of those others are in the juniors or professional divisions. Here is something to consider:
Canada has about 60,000 FULL time soldiers/sailors/airmen in total. The US as 130,000 troops in Iraq alone.
Ed the Hun
Yup as mentioned G&M headlines lost 50 suspects in Afghanistan, couple this with Blackwater shooting the innocent in the back and are now back on the job making 600 bucks a day……just another normal day in Nation Building beit NATO or the US. Spin away and buy your Red T-Shirt, bumper sticker and prasie the lord and pass the amunition.
Iraq = Vietnam II for the US
Afghanistan = Vietnam III for NATO
Harper Majority see’s Canada in Afghanistan until the cows come home.
Am I wrong? If so please tell the world here on this site. When will the surrender take place, 2010-20-30-50. Take a pick? then we can project both the humanitarian and monetary costs to the taxpayers. Foget drugs hell the War on Drugs started at least 25 years ago and it should soon be over, or will it?
Respectfully, I disagree. Soldiers do not choose where they serve, they do their duty where they are sent and have no voice in where that is.
The military is responsible to civilian authority and for very good reason. Countries who put authority in militaries go through a succession of military juntas and become banana republics who lose all traces of being democracies.
—–
On a lighter note:
“Real women don’t no stickin’ handguns, they have purses”
http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/sylley2000/?action=view¤t=laugh-in_ruth_buzzi.jpg
Here we go again!
Canada can’t find 50 Afghan detainees
GRAEME SMITH
From Saturday’s Globe and Mail
September 22, 2007 at 10:18 AM EDT
By Ed the Hun on 09.22.07 9:06 am
Real happy to hear that Ed, hope we don’t ever get the idea to follow along in their footsteps…but you already know my bias on that issue…have a good day!
By THE SHADOW KNOWS on 09.22.07 7:34 am
Difficult always being right and perfect!
The only sound I hear now is Bush’s idiotic voice saying ‘This will NOT be another Viet Nam!’
It simply will not go away, because the reality is far louder than his empty words.
Praise to all the troops. A Geis on all the lieing politicians!
Garth, some late, independent advice for a virtual MP from a virtual constituent.
Your MPtv Darfur segment stresses the humanitarian aspects of an issue that actually is determined by political and military factors. Tugs at the heartstrings of the general public are great, but better be irrelevant in the hard-nosed calculation of where we send our troops, what we expect them to do, and the cost in lives and treasure we are prepared to pay. Political support for action should be the product of rational conviction, not manipulated emotions.
Do not let the Liberal Party raise Darfur vice Afghanistan as an election issue. It would be a disservice to Darfur, Afghanistan, NATO and the UN, as well as the CF. Politics lives by expediency and downright lies, the military by hard fact and the inevitable contact with reality – or rather it should.
The primary reason for our presence in Afghanistan is our government of the day choosing a lesser evil in the face of the “You are with us or against us; with us or the terrorists†mentality of the Bush Administration. Forget who was PM – any Government of Canada would have made the same decision under the circumstances. That is the irreducible fact of our Afghan involvement.
Without 9/11 and the particular reaction of the USA – whether this reaction was right or wrong – we would not be concerned with the women, education, economy, poppy crop or national government of Afghanistan. The fact that 24 Canadians died as collateral damage in the Twin Towers was not raised as a reason until years after the event. All of these are rationales trooped out after the event to beef-up a faltering reason. They had nothing to do with our assuming a role in Afghanistan, and should have nothing to do with our staying there.
After the shock of 9/11, the USA had no problem positing the “attack-on-one-attack-on-all†common defence case at NATO. What no one knew at the time of the NATO declaration (or dared to ask at the risk of US displeasure) was the nature of the attack, the nature of the enemy, and the capability of the USA to defend itself. Given global sympathies, UN approval for action against the Taliban/Government of Afghanistan was a matter of motherhood. But now there are two further rationales to provide the veneer of legitimacy. And we have a western-style government elected in Afghanistan asking for help in sustaining itself in a distinctly non-western political and economic environment.
We do not know the circumstances of our role change from Kabul to Kandahar, but do know that the military was surprised and that the major-general responsible for international planning resigned over the issue. No doubt there was US pressure to take on a greater role, and willingness by part of the CF leadership to increase the CF posture, resources and visibility by embarking on the chase of “scumbagsâ€. We will have to wait decades for the declassification of cabinet documents to find out why, but the Martin Government decided that it was in our national interest to double the commitment and change the mission. And for reasons best known to Harper (with domestic political expediency playing a part) that mission was extended to 2009.
We are not in Darfur because the Sudanese government has not asked for our assistance, has resisted UN offers of intervention, is perceived to be a Chinese client state, and may be quite content with developments. And the CF are fully engaged in Afghanistan. So Third-World civilians are slaughtered, starved and displaced. There may be a far greater humanitarian crisis in Darfur than in the Afghanistan we are so dedicated to, but for legalistic reasons it cannot be of concern to us. “Regime change†being a possibility only when there are concrete super-power interests involved, we’ll just have to sit it out and compensate by doing good in Afghanistan.
My advice:
1. Work to end the current Afghanistan commitment in Feb 2009 and withdraw our military forces. If the sustainment of the Kabul Government and development of Afghanistan are more than international window-dressing, others will take the place of the Canada that has done its bit.
2. Suggest an objective review of our international relationship with the USA. Good neighbourliness does not presuppose subservience. If we cannot speak truth to power at this level, we should govern ourselves accordingly.
3. Demand an objective review of the real threat(s) facing Canada and the defence policy and posture required. Recommend that the CF be structured and equipped according to this.
4. Remind the leadership of the CF that they are concerned only with the preparation and application of military force as selected, directed and controlled by the Government. They serve the state, not the CF, branches, or environments.
5. Don’t bother seeking guidance by asking members of the CF what they think of the mission, although the question will make them feel good. Soldiers are susceptible to propaganda too, and don’t like the possibility of wasting time, effort or casualties. Think Legion and War Museum.
6. Ignore false dichotomies, such as peace-keeping vs. war-fighting roles of the CF. Except for unarmed observers on specifically unarmed missions, peacekeepers had weapons, knew how to use them, had access to live ammunition, and were prepared to fight if required. The deleterious “peace-keeping mentality†is an excuse for professional failures.
Herb. Here! Here!
Cheers
“After the painful events of September 11, I wish that America would have built a school in Afghanistan in the name of every victim,” said Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian judge and 2003 Nobel Peace Prize recipient. “When someone claims he has a vision from God to bring war to Iraq, this is a kind of terrorism.”
Does anyone have a number on how many schools have been built and that are open and running full classes for boys and girls?
Geo
Geo,
I recently heard a radio report of 3 million kids in Afghan schools, of which a third were girls.
I als remember the depressing thought I had on hearing it: What do they do after they have graduated, especially the girls?
The job we seem to want to do appears to be turning a number of agricultural tribal cultures into one modern state. Does anyone know what this entails, how it could be done, and how long it would take?
In addition, I’d like all those who are so pro-war and against our soldiers pulling out before ‘09 from the front lines to join up. How many senator’s or congressmen’s (women’s)sons or daughters are over in Iraq. Believe the last tally was 1 as in ONE. The Ruskies, Brits and countless other countries no doubt couldn’t beat the tribes in Afghanistan. What makes anyone believe that we (NATO) can. Just another Vietnam IMHO, but now the Haliburtons & Blackwaters and the military companies are making even bigger bucks.
Rant over – for now.:-)
By KPN on 09.21.07 4:25 pm
And I’d like all those anti-war people to go to Iran and speak to their president face-to-face, especially the female anti-war activists and see how long you last without a veil, without your freedom. Next.