Cdn Politics - Should we stay or go?

[KrazyHorse]

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

And they are not pacifists.

Pacifism is the general stance against all war. This is a war, yet you are not against it. I am vaguely intrigued by your position.

[Ben Kenobi]

I guess I see it as a choice between two evils, and that staying is better then leaving now.

We can't avoid intervention, that time has passed. So we do what we can to make things better.

[KrazyHorse]

So you're against starting a war, but not against continuing one?

[KrazyHorse]

Or are you, perhaps, not completely against war...

[Ben Kenobi]

If we leave now, people who we have already claimed responsibility for will die.

If we stay, we will end up killing people who are trying to kill the people we are protecting.

I would say the promise makes all the difference. If we promise to protect someone, then we have an obligation to protect them.

If we don't make the promise then we have not made ourselves responsible.

[notyoueither]

We promised to go to war for NATO allies 55 or more years ago. In fact we have a history of going to war for friends that is over 100 years old.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm not arguing with that.

I would have been in favour of invading Afghanistan even if we hadn't had terrorist connections as an excuse.

[notyoueither]

I was addresing Ben.

If we promise to protect someone, then we have an obligation to protect them.

Every war we've fought since 1867 has been based on an obligation to defend a friend.

You could make a case that the Boer War was not such a case, but then again Canadians joined regiments with the idea of defending the Empire.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Every war we've fought since 1867 has been based on an obligation to defend a friend.

Because Afghan goat herders are a menace to the USA. 9/11 did not demand a military response, and the operations against Al Qaeda would have probably made better press if they hadn't.

You could make a case that the Boer War was not such a case, but then again Canadians joined regiments with the idea of defending the Empire.

Defending the Empire against the Boers... God give me strength.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon


Because Afghan goat herders are a menace to the USA. 9/11 did not demand a military response, and the operations against Al Qaeda would have probably made better press if they hadn't

No, the terrorist organisation that was practically a part of their government demanded a military response.

The Taliban were even given a choice.

Give up AQ or war with the US with NATO support and backing, 100% of the way.

Not our fault they were dumb**** enough to think we might have been bluffing.

NATO doesn't bluff.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
Defending the Empire against the Boers... God give me strength.

I hope he does.

The point isn't if the war was just or not. The point is why Canadians would have joined regiments to go there.

[Tingkai]

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

There is a genocide occuring in Sudan. It is happening right now. We should have troops there.

There is no clear threat in Afghanistan.

Our troops in Afghanistan are battling local tribes who don't like the occupation, particularly when Nato forces go around destroying their poppy fields.

We've fallen into the American trap of invading a country without any clear definition of victory, no exit strategy and no clear definition of who the enemy is.

I have no problems with hunting down Al Qaeda, but let's face it, NATO is not going to invade Saudi Arabia.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither


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.

We've been there for 4 years and it appears the insurgency is growing. When does our obligation end? When Afghanistan is like Canada? If (very big if) we succeed in our vague mission we may end up with another country like Pakistan. *insert cheers of joy here*

Despite the meaningless rhetoric coming out of Ottawa, we are not there to install "Canadian values". Sharia is not a Canadian value (we actually rejected it in this country) and we have no intention of setting up a state free of this menace.

Yes, Kabul Karzai wants us to stay but it appears the locals do not.

It doesn't take balls to support a misguided mission NYE - just the inability to take the blinders off.

BlackCat - Piss off.

[Ben Kenobi]

There is a genocide occuring in Sudan. It is happening right now. We should have troops there.

Ask Mr. Layton if Christians are dying in Darfur. Mr. Layton has no love of Darfur, and it's just a sideshow for him.

And my point is that there is no one who wants to pull out now, that is doing so for reasons of non-intervention or pacifism, just political opportunism.

There is no clear threat in Afghanistan.

Really. So the folks that plant explosives under the Canadians are not a 'clear threat?'

Our troops in Afghanistan are battling local tribes who don't like the occupation, particularly when Nato forces go around destroying their poppy fields.

It would be fine, but the local tribes are perfectly willing to inflict casulties on their own people. Perhaps it's because they aren't local, and are recruited from outside Afghanistan. Their presence in Afghanistan is just as much of an intrusion as the Canadians, but at least the Canadians don't go around trying to kill civilians.

We've fallen into the American trap of invading a country without any clear definition of victory, no exit Letstrategy and no clear definition of who the enemy is.

Right I suppose the American trap of Vietnam?

Let's hope we are made of sterner stuff. AQ figures we are weak, and this vote confirms their suspicions.