Afghanistan

[Darth SS]

So, I ran a search and discovered that there actually aren't any threads concerning Afghanistan. Iraq is much more plentiful, but it would appear that Afghanistan hasn't really been discussed in detail. I know that it was brought up briefly when I posted that news article where Bush insulted Canada, but there has yet to be a full discussion about it.

Story 1 (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/18/bombing-canadians.html)

Long story short: Canadian troops were outside of a school they built, handing out candy to the children. A suicide bomber drove his bike into the crowd and detonated. Four canadian soldiers were killed.

Story (http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20060918% 2fparliament_reconvenes_060918&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True) (Sorry I couldn't get a better article)

Canada is deploying more troops and 15 tanks to Afghanistan, amid mounting protests and debate in Parliament.

Poland is in (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/14/afghanistan.poland/index.html)

All you need to know: Poland is stepping up and sending many troops to Afghanistan, almost meeting the whole request on their own. This is odd, given that they were originally in the Warsaw Pact and not NATO, or at least I think so.


My questions are these:

Is anything being accomplished over there?
Is this a winnable conflict?
Can NATO hope to succeed where Russia failed so many years ago?
Should we have gone in those years ago?

To Canadians (or anyone who feels like commenting)
Should Canada be in this conflict?
Is Canada a "peacekeeping nation?"
Should the CAF troops be called back?




I'll weigh in with my opinions just after I finish finding those links.

[adamark]

Is anything being accomplished over there?Establishing a more free and stable country. Afghanistan was a nightmarish place while the Taliban were running it. Toppling the taliban and now ensuring stability as the country grows stronger will lead to long lasting prosperity, hopefully.

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

This is not a flame. This is a disgruntled Canadian who is mad.

The fact that these Al-Queda bombed our own soldiers while they were giving out Candy to students shows what is wrong. I find them nothing but savagae beasts that need to be put down. And by that, I referring to the terrorists.

Is anything being accomplished over there?
Yes. Amidst the recent turn of events, We were able to topple the Taliban Government and stabilized the country for a while.

Is this a winnable conflict?

I am not too sure. Ask me in 6 months

Can NATO hope to succeed where Russia failed so many years ago?

No. If Russia couldn;t have put down the opposition back then, what hopes does NATO have.

Should we have gone in those years ago?
Again no. At the time there was no reason for deploying troops to the region. The only reason that we are there now is because the US was attacked by Al Queda.

To Canadians (or anyone who feels like commenting)

Should Canada be in this conflict?
They shouldn;t be, but I know why. It is because we are allies to the US and they wanted support when they wanted to oust the Taliban and Al Queda

Is Canada a "peacekeeping nation?"
Yes. After WWII and Korea, Canada became more of a peacekeeping country. We are supposed to be there to clean up the messes afterwards.

Should the CAF troops be called back?
As much as I would like to Call back our troops, they have a duty there. We can;t high tail it when the going gets tough.

These are just my opinions and am to tired to argue. I'll eb online tomorrow

[Solid Snake]

Poland, and most other eastern European nations recently "liberated" from the influence of the Soviet Union, is currently indulging with a love affair with the United States, much like western Europe was in love with the U.S. after World War 2. That largely explains why Poland has been sending so many troops and helping the U.S. so much with the war efforts in Afghanistan as of late. As a matter of fact, I'd largely say that eastern Europe, along with Japan, are two of virtually the only places out there in the world that isn't experiencing a gigantic influx of anti-American opinions. (I'm sure there are still anti-American sentimentalists in Poland, but by and large Poland has a phenomenally benevolent view of the states in comparison to, say, Germany or France.) Eastern Europe is still a bit too thankful for the opening of their markets after the Iron Curtain fell.

As for Canada being involved in Afghanistan; I think they should be, but I'm not a Canadian myself, and in fact as an American I probably have a stake in desiring them to stick around. Listen; I would totally understand if Canada wanted absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq was our mistake and our responsibility; it was a pre-emptive conflict against an enemy that didn't even have any WMDs.

But when it comes to Afghanistan, I think as an ally of America, Canada has a responsibility to help with the fight against the Taliban. If Toronto were attacked by Al Qaeda in 9/11, I would fully expect Canada to be up in arms imploring the Americans to assist in the toppling of the Taliban regime that openly harbored Al Qaeda's top officials. NATO very clearly spells out that if any of the nations in NATO are attacked there is an obligation to assist -- and at least with Afghanistan there can be no doubt that the Taliban was closely affiliated with and directly supporting Al Qaeda.

I understand that America is currently unpopular because of the war in Iraq, but I do hope most Canadians are able to seperate Iraq and Afghanistan into two seperate entities and realize that the foul-ups in Iraq don't necessarily automatically invalidate the justifications for Afghanistan.

[Fifthfiend]

A pretty thorough overview of where things stand:

Better paid, better armed, better connected - Taliban rise again

Kandahar under threat, war raging in two provinces and an isolated president. So what went wrong?

Declan Walsh in Ghazni
Saturday September 16, 2006
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1873769,00.html)


In the south war has gripped Kandahar and Helmand provinces, where British and Canadian troops are stationed. In the past fortnight Nato has launched a blistering offensive, killing more than 500 Taliban, to stave off an attack on Kandahar city - a previously unthinkable notion.

Elsewhere, suicide bombers are striking with Baghdad-like brazenness. In the boldest attack yet, last week two American soldiers and 14 Afghans were shredded by a huge blast outside the US embassy in Kabul, one of the country's most tightly guarded areas.

Opium cultivation has soared. This year Afghanistan will produce more heroin than western addicts can consume. The main hub of cultivation is British-controlled Helmand. Since August 1 Britain and Canada have each lost 11 soldiers in combat, a high toll for what was originally presented as a peacekeeping mission.

...

While northern and western Afghanistan remain stable, President Hamid Karzai is isolated and unpopular. Comparisons of the southern war with Vietnam are no longer considered outlandish. And dismayed western diplomats - the architects of reconstruction - are watching their plans go up in smoke. "Nobody saw this coming. It's pretty dire," admitted one official in Kabul.

...

In the past two months the Taliban has swept across the southern half of the province with kidnappings, assassinations and gun battles. American officials believe Andar district, a few miles from their base in Ghazni town, is the Taliban hub for four surrounding provinces. This week they launched a drive in Andar, searching houses and raking buildings with helicopter gunship fire into a Taliban compound. At least 35 people died including a mother and two children.

...

Travel along the Kabul-Kandahar highway that slices through Ghazni - once a symbol of western reconstruction - has become a high-stakes game of power. The Taliban sporadically mount checkpoints, frisking Afghans for ID cards, phone numbers or any other sign of a link to the government or foreign organisations. Those caught are beaten, kidnapped or killed. Foreigners travel south by plane, passing high over the road they once boasted about.

In the surrounding villages people are frightened and angry. In Qala Bagh district bands of 20 to 30 fighters descend at night. They demand food, shelter or a son to join the fighting, said Maulvi Aladat, the new district chief. A judge, a school principal and the local director of education have been assassinated in the past two months. The two girls' schools are closed.

The government offers scant protection. Ghazni's untrained police are outnumbered and outgunned. Huddled inside poorly protected compounds with few radios or vehicles, they are little match for large Taliban squads armed with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The US-trained Afghan army is curiously absent. Ghazni has just 280 soldiers, according to the governor, Sher Alam Ibrahimi. Although on paper the army has 35,000 soldiers, desertion rates are believed to be high.

...

Local government is plagued by corruption and weak leadership. Ibrahimi, a former warlord, seems an unlikely candidate for governor with his grindingly slow speech and murky background that includes allegations of war crimes. Many believe Mr Karzai appointed him for his links to a more powerful warlord now in parliament.

...

In desperation, his government has doubled the number of police through the use of arbikays - untrained tribal fighters paid directly by the governor.

...

Poverty also fuels the fighting. Several elders said the Taliban was offering upwards of 20,000 rupees (£180) a month to local unemployed men. Western officials are beginning to scrutinise the source of the funds.

Mr Khan told the Guardian the militants have bigger guns and more fighters. They have powerful friends. Several times he had collared Taliban fighters only to discover days later they had been released following a call from a powerful politician or influential tribal leader. They also have surprising amounts of money.

...

This year the Taliban formed an alliance with drug kingpins, offering to protect poppy farmers and smugglers in exchange for a cut of the $3bn trade. But diplomats believe most funding comes from fundamentalist sympathisers in Pakistan and the Middle East. Some believe governments may be also involved.

...

Military officers and diplomats also say Pakistan's tribal belt is the engine room of the insurgency. From its remote mountain sanctuaries along the border the Taliban has re-emerged from the shadows as a potent force. Two shuras, or tribal councils, coordinate the attacks - one in the western city of Quetta, the other in South Waziristan, a lawless tribal area that is also a crucible of al-Qaida terrorism.

...

Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University, said that after being driven into Pakistan's tribal areas in late 2001 the Taliban "reconstituted their command structure, recruitment networks, and support bases ... while Afghans waited in vain for the major reconstruction effort they expected to build their state and improve their lives".

...

Western officials are also divided about the sincerity of Pakistan's military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, in combating the Taliban. In Kabul last week he offered his help in defeating the Taliban, later describing them as a "bigger threat than al-Qaida". But that was undermined by a deal with tribal militants in Waziristan. In return for Pakistan soldiers withdrawing to base, the pro-Taliban militants undertook to stop harbouring foreign fighters and to halt cross-border infiltration. Within hours of the deal being inked, some tribal leaders claimed there had never been any foreigners in their area.

...

Shutting down the Pakistani sanctuaries would not necessarily end the insurgency. This year the Taliban's strength has been nourished by a new source: heroin. After spurning the opium trade as un-Islamic and immoral, this year the Taliban leadership reversed its position and allied with drug smugglers. The 59% surge in opium production to an unprecedented 6,100 tonnes will swell the Taliban war chest.

...

Dismay about the drugs epidemic has given way to arguments about how to tackle it. US and European military commanders, particularly the British, insist their troops should not get directly involved in fighting the trade. This week the head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, called on them to wade in. "Counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics efforts must reinforce each other so as to stop the vicious circle of drugs funding terrorists and terrorists protecting drug traffickers," he said, calling on Nato to destroy heroin labs, disband drug bazaars, attack convoys and arrest smugglers.

The speed and scale of this summer's violence has disoriented both Afghans and foreigners. In the south outlandish theories that the US is covertly supporting the Taliban, or that British troops have come to avenge colonial-era defeats, are common.

The underlying factors - cross-border sanctuaries, corrupt governance and drugs - have been in place for years. But what changed is the aggressive Nato deployment. After a difficult start, Nato has scored some successes. With more than 500 Taliban killed in Panjwayi, the Taliban stronghold west of Kandahar, soon the area will be cleared of insurgents, said the British commander, Lieutenant General David Richards. With luck, Nato hopes it will soon revert to its original goal, facilitating aid projects and strengthening the Karzai government.

But others question whether an insurgency can be defeated by death tolls alone. The only durable solution is to talk to the Taliban, said Wadir Safi of the University of Kabul. "Without negotiation this could go on for decades. The government must accept the Taliban as partners in these areas. You can't simply kill them all."

Afghans have a long history of ejecting foreign armies. The good news for Nato is that most still believe the military visitors are a force for good. "People are tired of fighting. Nobody wants to go back to that," said one official in Ghazni, who requested anonymity. "But if the people are disappointed much more, they could unite against the foreign forces. History could repeat itself."

[Darth SS]

And now DSS wades into the fray...


No. If Russia couldn;t have put down the opposition back then, what hopes does NATO have.

Well, I think there are a few key differences. First of all, the Mujahadeen had the greatest superpower on the planet giving them guns and money. The Taliban does not. Second, Russia went in there with a conquering attitude. They wanted complete and utter control of Afghanistan. NATO, right now at least, went in and said "We want Al-Qaeda. Got them. While we're here, let's rebuild this place."

Again no. At the time there was no reason for deploying troops to the region. The only reason that we are there now is because the US was attacked by Al Queda.

Check your timeline. It had been established that Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks on the US. NATO went over there and said, "Where is he?" The Taliban gave NATO the finger and then said, "Fuck you. We're gonna' protect him." In response, NATO levelled their country.

They shouldn;t be, but I know why. It is because we are allies to the US and they wanted support when they wanted to oust the Taliban and Al Queda

Sir, I do not agree with a word you say. But I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Yes. After WWII and Korea, Canada became more of a peacekeeping country. We are supposed to be there to clean up the messes afterwards.

I call bullshit. I mean, there are just so many things wrong with this statement....

First, peacekeeping as you're thinking of it isn't what Lester B Pearson originally suggested. Nay, modern peacekeeping is a bastard step-child of Pearson's idea. Its existence was used specifically to calm the rest of the world during the Suez Crisis, and the UN cared too much about kissing Egypt’s ass to even give them a mandate to let them do anything. To date, there have been VERY few peacekeeping operations that have accomplished anything. And, these are completely overshadowed by such astounding failures as Rwanda, the Congo, Bosnia, and Somalia. If you think the role of the Canadian army is to wave it’s hand and say “Stop it,” like a gay bouncer, then that’s your opinion. But, it shall indeed be a terrifying world when that is the majority.

If you want Canada to do only peacekeeping and not any actual conflicts for fear that our boys will come home in coffins, I say this to you: Coward. If the free world doesn’t stop fascist theocracies, then people are going to die. Simple as that. They are going to be killed because they don’t conform to someone’s interpretation of a prophet’s words. If you are willing to let innocent people die so that a few of our soldiers are spared, then I don’t think you’re any better than the people who pull the trigger.

And, cleaning up the mess? That’s exactly what Canada is doing right now. Afghanistan is in shambles. The entire mission there right now is reconstruction. That’s why so many Combat Engineers are going their. To set up water, electricity, build schools. Medics are helping to establish hospitals. You can’t have successful reconstruction without getting rid of insurgency; ergo they’re going after the Taliban.

Finally, historically, Canada is not a peacekeeping country. As much as we like to brag that we’ve participated in every peacekeeping operation ever, we’re contributing less and less. No, historically, Canada is the little guy that answers the call to arms and punches WAY above its weight class. Canada has a very proud military history, and I personally think that saying that Canadian troops should be glorified “please stop” signs is an insult to those men and women.

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

Well I appear to be in the wrong in my history of these evenets but I blame the education system in my area and my own ignorance.

[Solid Snake]

To date, there have been VERY few peacekeeping operations that have accomplished anything.

East Timor comes to mind almost immediately.

It's a very recent example of U.N. peacekeeping forces actually doing a pretty darn good job. (At least as of 2004, when I had to write a thirty-page term paper on the subject. If it's gone to hell since then, I guess I wouldn't be terribly aware, because the media doesn't give a damn about East Timor and no news from there is ever reported.)

Hell, a hundred people could die in some freak accident in East Timor and we'd still instead hear about a half dozen deaths in a carbombing in the Middle East instead. East Timor just ain't news in the eyes of most.

Otherwise Darth SS, I pretty much agree 100% with you, as my previous post would seem to indicate.

[BitVyper]

But when it comes to Afghanistan, I think as an ally of America, Canada has a responsibility to help with the fight against the Taliban. If Toronto were attacked by Al Qaeda in 9/11...

I feel it's worth mentioning that (as I recall) somewhere around 22% of Canadians don't even believe America's official story about 9/11. That's nearly a quarter of the country that's not even sure the attack came from Afghanistan.

Personally, I'm not into the whole 9/11 conspiracy thing, but I do find the official story at least somewhat suspect. I can at least say that I don't necessarily file the 9/11 conspiracy people into the same category I put Apollo hoax people.

[Solid Snake]

I feel it's worth mentioning that (as I recall) somewhere around 22% of Canadians don't even believe America's official story about 9/11. That's nearly a quarter of the country that's not even sure the attack came from Afghanistan.

Personally, I'm not into the whole 9/11 conspiracy thing, but I do find the official story at least somewhat suspect. I can at least say that I don't necessarily file the 9/11 conspiracy people into the same category I put Apollo hoax people.

The 22% statistic is unfortunate. It suggests that 22% of Canadians prefer ideology and anti-American rhetoric over logic; because a bit of common sense (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons) would seem to strike down any feasibility of a conspiracy.

The only element of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 I find even slightly questionable involved the attack on the Pentagon; but since the attacks on the WTC towers alone were more than enough to justify American retaliation, why would anyone in the U.S. want or need to stage a plane hitting the Pentagon and waste money in the process? It seems utterly unnecessary.

[BitVyper]

The 22% statistic is unfortunate. It suggests that 22% of Canadians prefer ideology and anti-American rhetoric over logic;

I didn't say "22 percent of Canadians hate America." I said that they don't believe the official story about 9/11, which HAS had enough flaws pointed out in it that I find that to be a perfectly rational response.

This, "you're either with us or against us" stuff is part of the problem people have with the current administration.

...but since the attacks on the WTC towers alone were more than enough to justify American retaliation, why would anyone in the U.S. want or need to stage a plane hitting the Pentagon and waste money in the process? It seems utterly unnecessary.

As I said before, I'm not really into the grand conspiracy theories, but the fact that those stories may not make sense doesn't make the alternative true. That's exactly the kind of logic conspiracy theorists like to employ.

Edit: Besides that, whether it's anti-America or not (and it really isn't) really has no bearing on whether or not it's valid.

Edit 2: And please remember, while you're busy implying that such Canadians are somehow unintelligent for being skeptical, that you're talking about me.

[Azisien]

It might be important to point out that, just because 22% of Canadians don't believe the official story does not mean they do believe Loose Change or some ridiculous conspiracy theory. The logic sounds very black and white, as Bit kind of said.

It's like you saying you don't believe in extraterrestrials. And then I say, well, I believe in extraterrestrials. And then, obviously I believe in all the VERY detailed conspiracy theories about specific SPECIES of extraterrestrials that affect our planet as of this moment.

Nope. I just happen to think it's a statistical impossibility given the universe's structure for there not to be extraterrestrials out there. But that's another topic I guess. Simply used for analogy purposes.

And I'm currently holding back on posting to the more original questions, until I can properly summarize them. Plus I can get an idea of what others think beforehand.

[Darth SS]

Big Mac, you live in Alberta. That means you have to follow the Alberta education curriculum just like me. If your teacher has never even mentioned the fall-out of 9/11 then something weird is going on in your town.



I'm not going to say I find the 22% statistic surprising, but I'm frankly kind of surprised it isn't lower. I question how many of those were people who frankly had no damn clue what "The Taliban" is, and just said, "The US is going to war? Obviously it was warmongering."

[BitVyper]

"The US is going to war? Obviously it was warmongering."

Didn't I just address this like, one post ago? To spell it out once again: As I recall (because it's been awhile since I read this), around 22% of Canadians don't believe the official story for 9/11. I said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about America's motives for war. Statistics aren't enough to go on for that kind of thing. In fact, the statistic really proves nothing. I posted it in response to something else, as spelled out below.

Whether the skepticism is warranted or not really has nothing to do with why I posted that. Someone had said something to the effect that Canadians had an obligation to help, so I just thought I'd point out that a good chunk of Canadians are still skeptical about the reason. That's all.

Edit: That said, I do most certainly feel that a degree of skepticism of the event is entirely warranted. There are a lot of problems with the official story. As I said before, that doesn't mean I fall in with the conspiracy theory crowd, or even that I'm saying the government is lying. All I am saying, is that the current story seems to be missing a number of details.

[Solid Snake]

Someone had said something to the effect that Canadians had an obligation to help, so I just thought I'd point out that a good chunk of Canadians are still skeptical about the reason. That's all.

Well, just to play Devil's Advocate with your reasoning, a full 78% of Canadians do understand what actually happened on 9/11, and I suppose in a democratic society it would make sense that the government's policies would reflect the opinion of the majority.

Just sayin', I don't think 22% is a statistically significant enough percentage to make Canadian leaders question their NATO commitments to Afghanistan. And as you yourself have pointed out frequently in rebuttal to our points, not all of that 22% even necessarily believe in a conspiracy theory that blames the U.S. government; a good percentage may simply believe that there are slight holes in the official story -- and if that's the case that still doesn't negate the reasoning for Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, it just means a couple specific questions regarding the 9/11 attacks haven't yet been answered.

Considering Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the attacks, and considering the Taliban refused to boot Al Qaeda from their country after Al Qaeda said they were responsible for the terrorism, that's a pretty damning piece of evidence against the former Afghanistani government even if in some weird alternate universe Al Qaeda was actually lying. In other words, even if Al Qaeda hypothetically weren't responsible for the 9/11 attacks, bin Laden and his kooks claimed responsibility for it and the Taliban still chose to harbor them. If the Taliban's going to harbor folks who claim they're responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, I say, congratulations for digging their own graves. As for Canada's involvement; well in 2001 they chose along with the rest of NATO to invoke that article in which they considered the 9/11 attacks an attack on the alliance as a whole. It's not as if Canada was forced into Afghanistan against its will.

EDIT: Now, if what you're saying is "Canada has the right to ask the United States to answer specific questions regarding the nature of the 9/11 attacks in order to validate Canada's commitment to the region," well that's a bit more reasonable, though I think the 9/11 Commission Report covers a vast majority of the necessary bases in retelling the events, and 78% of Canadians seem to agree.

[Monstructor]

I like the fact that we're fighting a war, not just doing peacekeeping, because a country that would never fight a war has no balls. I don't want us to be at all like Sweden or Switzerland (speaking of which, I remember a Kids in the Hall sketch where one of the guys is going on about how he hates Switzerland. "Move over, America, there's a new asshole on the map!!!"). But I think we're fighting the wrong war for the wrong reasons. This is an American problem, and an American war. We have no stake at all in this conflict. Even if we win in Afghanistan, the Americans will get all the oil. We have our own oil at home. So why send our brave, valorous servicemen to die horrible deaths in some Godforsaken toilet in the middle of nowhere in the Third World? The fact of the matter is that oil is worthless compared to a man's blood. Not because he's a Canadian, but because he's a human being, and you'd have to be a true monster to spend a human life-especially one so noble as to be willing to fight, kill and die in his country's name-just to get oil (though I'm not claiming that Canadian soldiers are saints). I blame that damnable Harper for this. Aside from the fact that the man (if you could even call him a man) has no spine, let alone enough of one to stand up to the Americans, he actually *wants* us to be America's minion/bitch/slave/underling. Commander Knob may very well be the worst prime minister we've ever had, not to mention that he's a white supremacist or a Nazi or something. But hey, don't blame me, I voted for the other guy.

[Darth SS]

But I think we're fighting the wrong war for the wrong reasons. This is an American problem, and an American war. We have no stake at all in this conflict.

Yes we do. Canada is the only country of the Al-Qaeda's five most hated countries that hasn't been killed. Besides that, you honestly can't tell me that making the world a better place is a bad ideal to be trying to achieve.

Even if we win in Afghanistan, the Americans will get all the oil. We have our own oil at home. So why send our brave, valorous servicemen to die horrible deaths in some Godforsaken toilet in the middle of nowhere in the Third World?

Last time I checked, Afghanistan isn't a big exporter or oil. I don't think they even have oil. At all. It's mostly an agriculture based country. Their current number 1 export is opium. Before that, it was grapefruit or something.

I mean, hell. Last time I checked, Afghanistan didn't qualify as third world. That's Africa pal. And, Canadians have been dying horrible deaths in godforsaken toilets in the middle of nowhere for a long time. It's called being a soldier. If you want examples, then there's Korea, Bosnia, Lebanon (most recently) and my personal favorite, Kosovo. Oh...were most of those peacekeeping missions? Wierd.

I blame that damnable Harper for this. Aside from the fact that the man (if you could even call him a man) has no spine, let alone enough of one to stand up to the Americans, he actually *wants* us to be America's minion/bitch/slave/underling. Commander Knob may very well be the worst prime minister we've ever had, not to mention that he's a white supremacist or a Nazi or something. But hey, don't blame me, I voted for the other guy.

First off, Harper didn't put the troops in Afghanistan. In fact, his MINORITY government put a motion in the House of Commons for them to stay until 2008. It passed with an overwhelming majority. That means that NDP, Liberals, and Bloc had to support him. Martin put the troops in Afghanistan.

Secondly, he's never said "Canadians should obey the US." In fact, he's gone off and said "Know what? Give us our softwood money back." He's condemned the war in Iraq, and done his best to foster trade relations with other countries so we're not so reliant on the US. He's definitely not a saint (*coughKyotocough*) but he's a damned sight better than a government that was in power for so long that it became complacent about everything. I mean, he's the first Prime Minister to raise the salaries of the soldiers you respect oh-so-much in a damn long time.

So, of course because he has a right wing political stance, he must be a Nazi. Truly, your ability to remain moderate and fair just...astounds me. Honestly, I'm in awe of how not-radical you are.

By your logic, I can call you a damn Commie because you must have voted farther left.

[Monstructor]

Firstly, I'm not liberal. And I didn't say that conservative=Nazi. And thirdly...well, I can't think of a way to finish this paragraph.


Edit: Also, I like Harper's views on homosexuals and gay marriage. And if you ban me for that, then you're a political correctness Nazi. I don't have to like gays if I don't want to, and if I'm not allowed to even imply that they're not my favourite minority then it really doesn't matter what the forum rules say.

[Mashirosen]

Monstructor, you're either retarded or trolling, I'm not sure which and don't particularly care. Banned again, maybe permanently, maybe not.

Edit: a month, what the hell. Smarten up in the meantime or find a more constructive hobby than threadshitting on our forums.

The rest of you, as you were.

[Fifthfiend]

And as ever there is Mashie, showing us how it's done.

'Threadshitting' is my new favorite word.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Secondly, he's never said "Canadians should obey the US." In fact, he's gone off and said "Know what? Give us our softwood money back." He's condemned the war in Iraq, and done his best to foster trade relations with other countries so we're not so reliant on the US. He's definitely not a saint (*coughKyotocough*) but he's a damned sight better than a government that was in power for so long that it became complacent about everything. I mean, he's the first Prime Minister to raise the salaries of the soldiers you respect oh-so-much in a damn long time.

It's amazing. I actually agreed with absolutely everything you said in this post. To be fair, it's nice to see that most Canadians take the same stance I do (I'm a Newfie, so a far cry different than someone from Alberta, but what the hey!).

I'm not so sure about what that 22% figure means though. I would think it more or less means that most Canadians think the government is hiding something rather than the whole thing was a setup. After all, lots of people died, and I really don't think the American government would be willing to kill billions of dollars as well as thousands of their own people just to oust a relatively non-threatening country. And governments covering something up isn't entirely conspiracy theory. It's a pretty regular thing.

But yeah, if Toronto was the attacked, we'd expect the States to help, so we've got an obligation to help the States as well. As for Iraq... I just think thats been taken too far.

As for Harper, I think he's done a fairly good job so far considering he's a minority government and all the crappy horror stories the Liberals tried to spread about him pre-election. I actually met him and he seemed really nice. If he runs again next time, up to this point I'd say he deserves to get the majority. Minus Kyoto. He should probably work on that.