Cdn Politics - Should we stay or go?

[notyoueither]

Way to lob it into Liberal laps, Mr. Harper.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
We stay. Vote passes.

I thought you were a pacifist

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil
Harper can't blame the Libs for the deployment/casualties anymore. Afghanistan is his baby now.

More like Mackenzie King's when his government signed on to NATO.

Grab some balls, Wezil.

Canada has obligations. We helped invade the country. We have an obligation to fix it.

[KrazyHorse]

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kontiki


I'm not sure there's even the facade of peacekeeping with regards to NATO's involvement in Afghanistan. As I understand it, NATO initially got involved as an allied response to an attack against one of it's member countries, and the ISAF is now tasked with providing security and assisting the new government with expanding its control over the country and assisting in reconstruction. Peacekeeping is more traditionally keeping two conflicting parties apart, a la Cyprus or Bosnia. As such, dicking around anywhere in the country pretty much is NATO's responsibility.

It isn't peacekeeping and it never was.

First it was a war.

Now it is an occupation in the face of an insurgency.

[Ben Kenobi]

I thought you were a pacifist

I am, I opposed afghanistan in the first place. I didn't see the value in retaliation.

Now, most of the work is trying to fix up everything so that it works, if the terrorists stopped shooting at the Canadians, the Canadians wouldn't have to fire a shot.

The locals in Afghanistan are quite happy, so we need to get everything in place so that they can manage things themselves. If it takes a few more years to do the job right, then we can do that, and leave Afghanistan as soon as they are ready to take the reins.

Reconstruction is much different then retaliation.

[KrazyHorse]

Sorry to tell you this Ben, but we're still in the "hunting down the enemy" phase.

EDIT: mother****, can't spell

[Ben Kenobi]

We already committed ourselves for at least another year. Like I said we are obligated to meet our commitments.

This debate was about what happens after that. Will we still be 'hunting down the enemy' in a year's time?

[KrazyHorse]

Probably.

[KrazyHorse]

(being serious, by the way)

[Ben Kenobi]

KH, I respect that, it's a reasonable position.

I just can't get over Mr. Layton saying that we should get out of Afghanistan so that we can get into Darfur.

It seems like none of the folks voting to take us out of Afghanistan really gives a fig about the casulties, or about non-intervention.

[KrazyHorse]

For the record, I think we should stay in Afghanistan

If I were a pacifist, I would not think so.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why's that?

Because all war is bad?

If there were a draft, I'd be one of the folks who would serve as a non-combatant because I feel that there is a difference between being a pacifist and serving one's country. It is perfectly possible to do both.

I guess that's also why I feel we should uphold our commitments after we have made them. I'd rather not see us there at all, but if we are going to be there, we should do things right.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Because all war is bad?

Uh...if I were a pacifist then yes, that's what I would believe.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's not that silly a question.

There are many folks who are 'anti-this-war'.

And many of those folks voting against the bill fall in that category.