Skyscraper City Forum banner

Should the Canadian Forces stay in Afghanistan?

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Ex-mod
Joined
·
7,931 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Troops won't stay unless all parties agree, PM says

GLORIA GALLOWAY AND INGRID PERITZ
From Saturday's Globe and Mail

June 23, 2007 at 1:04 AM EDT

OTTAWA, QUEBEC CITY — Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who once insisted that Canadian troops will stay in Afghanistan until the job is done, now says the military mission will end in February, 2009, unless the opposition agrees it should be extended.

The acceptance that the mission's lifespan may be limited comes as the Prime Minister faces growing opposition to Canada's combat role in the Afghan south – a decline in support that has been particularly pronounced in Quebec.

“This mission will end in February, 2009,” Mr. Harper said Friday at a rare House of Commons news conference held to mark the end of the spring sitting.

“Should Canada be involved militarily after that date, we have been clear that would have to be approved by the Canadian Parliament. From my personal perspective, I would want to see some degree of consensus around that. I don't want to send people into a mission if the opposition at home is going to undercut the dangerous work that they're doing in the field.”

Mr. Harper made the comment on the day Quebec-based troops gathered for a public send off in Quebec City amid planned protests and high levels of public opposition to the mission.

Some soldiers from Canadian Forces Base Valcartier near Quebec City said they regularly have to explain the purpose of their mission to friends and loved ones, who often confuse the Afghan mission with U.S.-led military operations in Iraq.

“Not many people are quite sure what we're doing there; it's far away, and I always have to explain it to them,” said Private Jonathan Poirier, 22, one of hundreds of troops in sand-coloured fatigues at the Quebec City Convention Centre. “But I'm living my dream, and I believe in what we're doing.”

Mr. Harper said he believes the opposition leaders, particularly Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, are open to some form of development role being played by Canada when the soldiers return home.

“I don't think they are suggesting, based on recent comments, that we would simply abandon Afghanistan in 2009,” he said, “so I hope that some time in the next few months we will be able to get a meeting of the minds on what the appropriate next steps are.”

A month ago in Afghanistan, Mr. Harper told members of the Canadian Forces that Canada “can't set arbitrary deadlines and hope for the best. … We can't just put down our weapons and hope for peace.”

And in September of last year, he said the only exit strategy from Afghanistan would be success. “There will be no other conditions under which this government leaves Afghanistan,” he said. “We will succeed in our security mission and we will see that country moving in irreversible progress to being an economically prosperous and peaceful society. That is the only way this government will leave.”

But, with the Canadian military death toll now at 60, support for the effort is waning. A poll conducted this month by Decima research suggested that two-thirds of Canadians wanted the troops to come home when the current mandate expires in February, 2009.

Opposition to the war is highest in Quebec. Anti-war groups threatened to mar a night-time parade of the 2,000 soldiers from the Royal 22nd Regiment, or Vandoos, who are shipping out to Kandahar beginning next month.

The war opponents say they aren't targeting soldiers personally, but insist the Afghan mission is being imposed on the province against Quebeckers' will.

“We respect the soldiers but we don't support them,” said Mathilde Forest-Rivière of the War on War coalition. “We don't support the deployment of troops to Afghanistan, and these soldiers aren't innocent.”

A ceremony at the convention centre to mark the troops' imminent departure brought together officials such as Mr. Dion, Roméo Dallaire, General Rick Hillier and Quebec Premier Jean Charest.

Afterward, in an apparent bid to thwart protesters, the army set off from the convention centre for the parade in the opposite direction of their announced route. Outside, they were greeted by cheers, not jeers, from hundreds of onlookers.

Thousands of well-wishers lined the parade route, applauding the troops as they marched past under police guard. But the soldiers were greeted at the end of the route around the convention centre by a swarm of protesters, some wearing masks, shouting anti-war slogans and urging the troops to desert.

Against this uneasy backdrop, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's top official travelled to Quebec City Friday and exhorted Quebec-based soldiers to recall the tradition and reputation of the fabled Vandoos as they head off to combat.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, standing before the Vandoos's red-coated honour guard in Quebec City's historic Citadel, told the soldiers they were fighting to preserve universal values.

“I can tell you it's a good cause, it's an essential cause,” he said in French. Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said he wanted to travel to Quebec and address Quebeckers “in their mother tongue” to drive home the importance of the mission.

“I think the participation of Canadians is essential,” he told a press conference, explaining that rebuilding the country without combat is impossible.

“Development and reconstruction in Afghanistan is not possible without the creation of a climate of security and stability,” he said. “So, unfortunately, we are fighting … we have to fight.”

Senior military staff in Quebec said the controversial night-time march through the streets of Quebec City, depicted by some as a public-relations manoeuvre, was intended to rally public support for the troops.

“It's important as they leave [for Afghanistan] that they know they have the city and the province of Quebec behind them,” said Brigadier-General Christian Barabé, commander of Land Force Quebec Area. “That way, when they suffer a tough blow, they'll know that people will be there with them and supporting the sacrifice they're making.”

Last night, Mr. Charest urged Quebeckers, as they celebrate their identity and pride this weekend for the St. Jean Baptiste national holiday, to recall how previous generations fought for freedom. The Premier noted it was the largest deployment of Quebec troops since the Korean War.

The Conservatives must pick up seats in Quebec if they are to win a majority government. And the negative feelings being expressed about the mission in that province could well intensify if members of the Royal 22nd Regiment sustain heavy casualties.

There is talk in Ottawa – in both Liberal and Conservative circles – that the mission's importance has not been adequately articulated. That would suggest that Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has not been doing an adequate job of communications and there is much speculation that he will be the victim of a cabinet shuffle, perhaps as early as next week.

Mr. Harper refused to answer questions about a possible shuffle Friday – but neither did he jump to the defence of Mr. O'Connor.

Mr. Dion, who held his own press conference after that of Mr. Harper, said the Prime Minister must be very clear to Canada's allies that the Canadians are leaving Afghanistan in February, 2009.

“After that, Canada has a role to play around the world,” Mr. Dion said. “You have many programs where we help other countries for their training – for the training for the police, for the military, for the justice. We may do that also in Afghanistan. But the combat mission in Kandahar, where the fights are at the south of Afghanistan, ends in February, 2009. It must be said now.”
 

·
Ex-mod
Joined
·
7,931 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
We should definintely stay.....it's a NATO collective security commitment and we're actually doing something good here. This isn't the uncalled for War in Iraq....we were sent there to fight off Al Qaeda when they attacked the United States on 9/11 and the Taliban, which has suppressed its citizens for too long, is on the run. We need to stay in Afghanistan or else the Taliban will win, at least in Kandahar.....the sixty soldiers that lost their lives would have died in vain.

I'd also think this also has to do with the 2010 Winter Olympics. The military has already been told that thousands of soldiers will be needed to secure the Games.....perfect timing, 2009.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
it should be out asap,
the war is just between usa and iraq, afghanstan,
canada is said to be peace keepers,
but then many canadians have lost their lives,
its no point of peace keeping if bush hasnt even considered about ending the war
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,365 Posts
There is no point to peace keeping is there is no peace to keep, and Canada isn't one to make peace to keep.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,467 Posts
The role changed in Afghanistan when we took on more of a combat role instead of peacekeeping.
So unless we go back to just peacekeeping, then we should be out ASAP. Damn you Harper!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
its just like,
canada has nothing better to do,
but just to push the military to afghanastan
and just like
maybe someday, we might some how become on one of the terrorists' black list?
then its gona be somethign taht could be prevented~
bush has cared-less about his own nation already
instead, he used the money on war
even when theres natural disasters happening in USA
bush could barely support it~
 

·
Ex-mod
Joined
·
7,931 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
^ we are on Al Qaeda's black list.....it includes America (of course), Britain, Australia, Spain, Canada, and Italy. Only two countries on this list have yet to be attacked.....Canada and Italy. Last summer, home grown terrorists were planning to bomb targets in Ontario including a CSIS office in Toronto, CN Tower, Canadian Broadcasting Centre, Parliament Hill, and were also planning to behead the Prime Minister.

Just remember that if Canada goes, Kandahar will fall to the Taliban. Also remember that this is a NATO mission.

A little bit of Taliban history:


Taliban Treatment of Women

Women in particular were targets of the Taliban's notorious restrictions, prohibited from working, wearing "Iranian burqa" (which was not sufficiently complete in its covering) or "stimulating and attractive" clothing, from taking a taxi without a "close male relative," washing clothes in streams, or having their measurements taken by tailors.[41]

Employment for women was restricted to the medical sector, since male medical personnel were not allowed to examine women. One result of the banning of employment of women by the Taliban was the closing down in places like Kabul of primary schools not only for girls but for boys, because almost all the teachers there were women.[42]

Women were made to wear the burqa, a traditional dress covering the entire body except for a small screen to see out of. Taliban restrictions became more severe after they took control of the capital. In February 1998, religious police forced all women off the streets of Kabul and issued new regulations ordering "householders to blacken their windows, so women would not be visible from the outside." [43] Home schools for girls, which had been allowed to continue, were forbidden.[44] In June the Taliban stopped all women from attending general hospitals. (Kabul had one all-women hospital.)[45] There were many reports of Muslim women being beaten by the Taliban for violating the Sharia.


Ban on culture

A sample Taliban edict issued after their capture of Kabul is one decreed in December 1996 by the "General Presidency of Amr Bil Maruf and Nahi Anil Munkar" (or Religious Police) banning a variety of things and activities: music, shaving of beards, keeping of pigeons, flying kites, displaying of pictures or portraits, western hairstyles, music and dancing at weddings, gambling, "sorcery," and not praying at prayer times.[46]

Non-Western festivities were not exempt from bannings. The Taliban banned the traditional Afghan New Year's celebration of Nowruz as anti-Islamic, and "for a time they also banned Ashura, the Shia Islamic month of mourning and even restricted any show of festivity at Eid." [47] The Afghan people were not allowed to have any cultural celebrations if the women were there. If it was only men at the celebration it would be allowed to go forth, so long as it did not go over the curfew time of 9:00 pm.

Taliban official Mullah Mohammed Hassan explained that "Of course we realize that people need some entertainment but they can go to the parks and see the flowers, and from this they will learn about Islam," The Education Minister Mullahs Abdul Hanifi told questioners that the Taliban "oppose music because it creates a strain in the mind and hampers study of Islam." [48]


Ethnic and religious massacres and oppression

The worst attack on civilians came in summer of 1998 when the Taliban swept north from Herat to the predominantly Hazara and Uzbek city of Mazar-i-Sharif, the largest city in the north. Entering at 10 am on 8 August 1998, for the next two days the Taliban drove their pickup trucks "up and down the narrow streets of Mazar-i-Sharif shooting to the left and right and killing everything that moved -- shop owners, cart pullers, women and children shoppers and even goats and donkeys."[49] More than 8000 noncombatants were reported killed in Mazar-i-Sharif and later in Bamiyan. [50] Contrary to the injunctions of Islam, which demands immediate burial, the Taliban forbade anyone to bury the corpses for the first six days while they rotted in the summer heat and were eaten by dogs. [51] In addition to this indiscriminate slaughter, the Taliban sought out and massacred members of the Hazara, a mostly Shia ethnic group, while in control of Mazar.

While the slaughter can be attributed to several factors -- ethnic difference, suspicions of Hazaras loyalty to their co-religionists in Iran, fury at the loss of life suffered in an earlier unsuccessful Taliban takeover of Mazar -- takfir by the puritanical Sunni Taliban toward the Shia Hazaras was instrumental. It was expressed by Mullah Niazi, the commander of the attack and governor of Mazar after the attack, in his declaration from Mazar's central mosque:

Last year you rebelled against us and killed us. From all your homes you shot at us. Now we are here to deal with you. The Hazaras are not Muslims and now have to kill Hazaras. You either accept to be Muslims or leave Afghanistan. Wherever you go we will catch you. If you go up we will pull you down by your feet; if you hide below, we will pull you up by your hair. [52]

Hazara also suffered from a siege by the Taliban of their Hazarajat homeland in central Afghanistan and the refusal of the Taliban to allow the UN to supply food to Hazara to the provinces of Bamiyan, Ghor, Wardak and Ghazni. [53] A month after the Mazar slaughter, Taliban broke through Hazar lines and took over Hazarajat. Killing of civilians was much less severe here than in Mazar, but occurred also.[54]

During the years that followed, rapes and massacres of Hazara by Taliban forces were documented by groups such as Human Rights Watch.[55]
 

·
Canadian eh!
Joined
·
3,523 Posts
The sooner the better for pulling out. This will drag on for years costing lives and money until someone finally pulls the plug. Might as well do it now and save a lot of grief.
 

·
Mr. Haney(Cruz) for Pres.
Joined
·
2,644 Posts
I say Canada should leave Afghanistan gracefully ASAP...

Fact: Per capita, Canada has the highest casualty rate of all the NATO countries occupying Afghanistan (including the US)... we are making the biggest sacrifice in NATO, and we weren't even attacked by the Taliban or Al Queda.... clearly, something is very wrong with this picture.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)
 

·
Mr. Haney(Cruz) for Pres.
Joined
·
2,644 Posts
We need to stay in Afghanistan or else the Taliban will win, at least in Kandahar.....the sixty soldiers that lost their lives would have died in vain.
It's likely that I'm quite a bit older than you are. Old enough to remember what went on during the Vietnam War as it occurred. The argument that all the "soldiers that lost their lives would have died in vain" was used for many years by the US Government to convince Americans that they must continue the mission.... all that happened was that tens of thousands of soldiers died before they finally left Vietnam. You can use the same flawed logic at any casino until you are broke, just replace "dead soldiers" with "lost money".

We've been in Afghanistan for nearly 6 years now, that's long enough. We have done more than our fair share for the US and NATO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Saw this on another board

A Canadian soldier's personal observations on the political realities of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan.

Forwarded to me yesterday from a mate in the biscuit. Apparently it was posted from the Canadian Firearm Digest, V10 #589.

"The "Taliban" are not an Afghan culture to begin with. They are a culture of religious extremism, and more to the point they aren't Afghan to begin with because many of the "Taliban" are not Afghans, but nationals from Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. They are a product of the madrassas, not Afghanistan. They can't pull off a nation based on religious extremism back home (think of their aims as The Free State Project in reverse), but up until now Afghanistan has been ripe for the picking.

In short, those who complain about our interfering with "their culture" are in fact complaining about Canada interdicting a brutal invading culture made up of many people just as foreign to Afghanistan as Canadians. The difference is Canadians hope to give native Afghans a foundation for survival and growth and then leave; the Taliban intend to build nothing other than a base for religious extremism without government interference, and they have no intention of ever leaving unless driven out. Nor do they intend to allow Afghanis the right to live based on their prior culture - it will be culture as dictated by the Taliban or a brutal death.

Various "pundits" keep commenting on how the Taliban are gathering strength, particularly when they mention the Northern Alliance. They sell this as evidence of Afghans increasingly supporting the Taliban.

This is nonsense. The difference is, of course, that the Northern Alliance is almost entirely Afghanis. The Taliban don't draw only from Afghanis after they get their asses kicked time and time again and get slaughtered by the score. They send out the call to every wannabe Muslim extremist in the world to come fight for them in their attempt to win Afghan back as a base for their Muslim extremism (and the actual Afghan Muslim population be damn3d). And so, the madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere send more fighters brainwashed from childhood to fight and die in the name of their twisted version of Allah (and once again, the Afghan Muslims be damn3d). Claiming that the products of madrassas in foreign countries coming to fight with the Taliban in Afghanistan is evidence of Afghanis turning to support the Taliban is ridiculous.

On the one hand, this constant influx of brutal Muslim fanatics makes progress in Afghanistan much slower than it could be. On the other hand, if all those happy to murder and slaughter in the name of the Taliban's version of Allah want to travel to Afghanistan to concentrate themselves in an environment like Afghanistan, it certainly makes the Three "F"s Of Land Combat much easier to attain. A better situation for us, although hard on Afghanis. On the other hand, they're going to come anyways, especially if the Taliban win in the end, and they'll slaughter and enslave Afghan Muslims anyways, so they aren't any worse off and foreign assistance is only the real hope of a decent future they have.

In the end, it comes down to the Genovese syndrome, I suppose. At what point do people start feeling there is a basic human obligation to defend others against evil? Many people felt it wasn't our problem when the Nazi Party was slaughtering Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc. That attitude hasn't stopped since: witness Yugo, Rwanda, the Congo, etc. If they or their family ain't bleedin' then it ain't their problem. For different people there's a different boundary: not a few people would see your wife being rap3d or beaten and go "Not my wife; not my problem". Others of course would be outraged and wonder by someone should be so callous and feel they had no business interfering.

I guess it just depends on what your moral tolerance for slaughter is. And perhaps for some, a belief that one should not interfere unless one can do it absolutely perfectly with a guarantee of not a single slip or mishap while doing so. No accidental deaths, no friendly fire incidents, nothing:
everything perfect and beyond criticism from beginning to end.

Canadian troops are heavily behind this because many of them or their fireteam partners have had the educational opportunity of uncovering mass graves in Yugo and Rwanda - that tends to be a life altering experience that many who blithely claim we should just let them go at it haven't had. Guys don't go over there for the love of war and because they enjoy being away from their wives and family for a year, living in an environment that kicks the ass of those raised in North America, along with the bonus opportunity of possibly getting maimed or killed. They go because they know they can make a difference and the guys coming back are telling them they have seen they're making a difference.

I would still have more confidence in those who want us out of there if they would volunteer to go over to Afghanistan before we leave and individually explain to all the women in positions of authority, elected individuals from small city councils on up, etc why leaving them to be slaughtered by the Taliban was a more moral road to take. Given Taliban Jack's professed support for equality and rights for women, perhaps he could just focus on explaining to Afghan women why he supports them being thrown out of schools, ordered back into burkhas, and stripped of just about every right that women in Canada take for granted. Not to mention a regular procession of stoning, hangings, and female heads being blown off in assorted soccer stadiums...
the regular beatings in the streets for a bewildering number of offences is simply pour encouragez les autres...

It's easy to talk about deserting people to the mercy of murderous thugs, whether you argue that on the basis of "culture", or use instances of failure during the mission, or the fact we aren't acting similarly in Chad, Dafur (like we have the troops...) or whatever as the excuse. It's quite another after you've been someplace like Yugo or Rwanda and had to personally look people in the eyes while telling them that you're leaving them to their fate because your countrymen safe back home said that's what you had to do. There's another life altering experience for you that most of the "withdraw!" folks are going to be incredibly fortunate enough to never have to experience. Lucky them.

Sadly Mark, in the end I believe we are going to fail in Afghanistan. Not because we couldn't defeat the Taliban in any manner of war they chose to fight - because we can. Not because we couldn't win hearts and minds - because we can. And not because we couldn't rebuild the infrastructure of the country to the point of self sufficiency and create an Afghan Army capable of kicking the Taliban's ass - because we can do that too.

We are going to fail in Afghanistan for the same reasons that the US quickly failed in Vietnam right after the overwhelming and crushing defeat they handed Giap, the North Vietnamese, and the Viet Cong during Tet. The US slaughtered the NVA, practically wiped out the Viet Cong - and promptly lost the war. We are going to fail for the same reasons: the naysayers and the optics won't look right to Canadians who want a quick, clean, bloodless victory in Afghanistan. Of course, there is no such thing as a quick, clean, bloodless victory any time you have to resort to force of arms to accomplish something, and many Canadians these days simply refuse to accept that. They want the mythical Canadian in a blue beret, who blows his whistle and everyone stops fighting and goes home. The world doesn't work that way.

We are going to fail for the same reasons we have the kind of gun control we have and many of the other shortcomings in Canadian society: Canadians are scared of their own shadow and anything that might be "icky". If it might require doing or experiencing unpleasant things, then better to play the "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" game.

So eventually, it will become a political liability to remain in Afghanistan. We'll leave and instead just give money to Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, etc. They'll take the money and, ultimately, accomplish SFA. The UN will continue waggling their fingers no matter what the Taliban do (and what else could the UN do with Canada and others bugging out?).

The Taliban won't quit killing women, those who won't pray, etc no matter what Amnesty International does. The torture and beatings won't stop.
Doctors Without Borders isn't going to fight for women's rights to medical help when the Taliban tell them men don't deal with women who aren't their wives. And, good folks though they are, they ain't gonna stick around once a few of their folks get capped - they just don't stick around in situations like that.

At the same time, our leaving will tell the Taliban that we have neither the heart nor spine to stand up to them, and they'll take that as a sign they can spread the madrassas and their peculiar views on Islam further and further. Anyone who thinks our sacrificing Afghanistan to the Taliban is going to solve either the Muslim or Christian world's problems with murderous Muslim extremists is dreaming in technicolor. Sooner or later we will be looking at the Taliban over gunsights again... and the next time may well be much closer to home, in an environment where they're much more difficult to deal with.

So we we bail and run home with our tails between our legs - not beaten by the Taliban but by our moral and political cowardice - and therefore add another chapter of history about how it is supposedly impossible to win in Afghanistan, when we should be adding a chapter that discusses how political expediency and moral cowardice make failure inevitable. People will write "told ya so" books for years about the "invincible Taliban" and how fighting in Afghanistan is foolhardy. Others will add those books to their libraries as proof of the invincible Taliban. Meanwhile, all the stuff that doesn't make the news like a ramp ceremony does - like a well dug by Canadians that provides clean drinking water and thus prevents dozens of kids dying year in and year out from contaminated wells - won't happen any further. And so, THAT death toll (which far outstrips the accidental deaths caused by Canadians), simply goes on, and on, and on, year in, year out...

But cheer up, it won't make the news, no Canadians were killed while these kids died. Voila! Success! Everybody's happy!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
495 Posts
From a military perspective it makes no sense to set a date for withdrawal. If the Canadian government openly declares that they will leave in 2009 then it makes the job of the Taliban much easier.

The "peacekeeper" argument is a joke. Canada is a decent-sized country with a large economy. There is no real excuse that allows us to avoid this kind of commitment.

Similarly, worrying about being on bin Laden's "hit list" is absurd. He is a crazy Islamic fundamentalist. Would you give up your modern freedoms and standard of living just to be on his good side? That's what it would take.
 

·
Mr. Haney(Cruz) for Pres.
Joined
·
2,644 Posts
Sadly Mark, in the end I believe we are going to fail in Afghanistan.
Then let Canada cut its losses and get out ASAP.

We are going to fail in Afghanistan for the same reasons that the US quickly failed in Vietnam right after the overwhelming and crushing defeat they handed Giap, the North Vietnamese, and the Viet Cong during Tet. The US slaughtered the NVA, practically wiped out the Viet Cong - and promptly lost the war. We are going to fail for the same reasons: the naysayers and the optics won't look right to Canadians who want a quick, clean, bloodless victory in Afghanistan.
This is little more than self-serving historical revisionism... I lived through the Vietnam War era. I wonder if the soldier writing this can say the same thing? The reasons why the US lost the war in Vietnam are many, but here are a couple of biggies:

1) Neither the highly corrupt South Vietnam administrations nor American Imperialism won over the minds of large numbers of the South Vietnam people.... The Karzai administration is similarly corrupt and G.W. Bush isn't a very inspirational figure for the Afghanis to have much faith in.

2) The opposing forces in Vietnam had safe bases from which they could go on forever and resupply their forces and allies in the south with both manpower and materiel. With this reality South Vietnam (and US) forces could be attacked indefinitely so that peace could never be achieved until the North was victorious in the south.... The Taliban have what are essentially safe bases in Pakistan, and they can enter Afghanistan at will.

The US began its involvement in Vietnam in 1950 and pulled out in 1973. If the US didn't leave when it did - it shouldn't have sent soldiers there in the first place, but that's another story - they would still be fighting there today. For what, to stop the advance of "Communism" thoughout the rest of the Pacific? That was the reason we were given at the time for US involvement.
 

·
Ex-mod
Joined
·
7,931 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
^ exactly.......and great article btw.
 

·
Mr. Haney(Cruz) for Pres.
Joined
·
2,644 Posts
Similarly, worrying about being on bin Laden's "hit list" is absurd. He is a crazy Islamic fundamentalist. Would you give up your modern freedoms and standard of living just to be on his good side? That's what it would take.
Norway sure hasn't. :nuts:
 

·
"The Ignorant Fool"
Joined
·
2,576 Posts
Get them out.. the sooner the better.
Agreed. It is a narcostate even under our noses. If they build more terror training camps, a few tactical nukes or bunker buster bombs will do. No more soldiers there. They are not worth one Canadian or American life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,365 Posts
Things are probably worse now than at the beginning
Girls being able to go to school is worse? I know us **** are sexist, but wow, we aren't that sexist.

But we should pull out anyway, apparently the Afghan government doesn't want to lose anyone to the cause, either. We'll just have to reason with the Taliban and find a compromise.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
79,203 Posts
Girls being able to go to school is worse? I know us **** are sexist, but wow, we aren't that sexist.

But we should pull out anyway, apparently the Afghan government doesn't want to lose anyone to the cause, either. We'll just have to reason with the Taliban and find a compromise.
It actually goes deeper than girls going to school, and involves civil war with possible mass bloodshed. However, je digress... we are supposed to keep things lite here. :) :)
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top