CanPol - The Sad Story of Stephane Dion

[Victor Galis]

Yeah, I think we had a window of opportunity and we wasted it. The real question is whether more troops at this point could reopen it or if it's too late for that.

As I see it you have to have security and reconstruction. You can't have them separately, they're co-requisites. The problem is if security isn't there, reconstruction is very hard. If you wait for security is there you will wait forever. You have a window of opportunity after winning a crushing victory in the invasion when security is there just because the enemy is disorganized. If you get some reconstruction going and prepare to maintain security proactively, you win. If you miss that, you get into the current mess.

Also, forget erradicating the poppies. It's not going to work and it just pisses off farmers and drives them to the Taliban's side for economic reasons. Last thing you want to do is piss people off while fighting an insurgency. You want to make the insurgents piss people off (see progress in Anbar province in Iraq).

[Wezil]

Reconstruction without security is the NDP position and it is absurd. You can't build anything when people are trying to kill you.

There have been lots of news reports the past few days of "talks" of some sort with the Taliban. I've been loath to go there as the reports are all over the board (ie "conditions") and I suspect the US will ultimately squash any such approach anyway.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not sure VG's ideas would work but at least he's thinking and not following the herd like too many Canadians.

Following the herd? As NYE said, most of the herd are chanting, "no blood for oil." Maybe even against the "weaponisation of space."

As for the NDP their position is complete and immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. I'm not sure why you say that reconstruction without security is their goal, they want us out and out now. Seems 'cut and run'.

[Ben Kenobi]

As I see it you have to have security and reconstruction. You can't have them separately, they're co-requisites.

Why not? Both are a work on progress. This is a false dichotomy. Yes they are together, but that doesn't mean that they have to both be there in order for progress to be achieved. Both are a work in progress.

The problem is if security isn't there, reconstruction is very hard. If you wait for security is there you will wait forever. You have a window of opportunity after winning a crushing victory in the invasion when security is there just because the enemy is disorganized. If you get some reconstruction going and prepare to maintain security proactively, you win. If you miss that, you get into the current mess.

What mess? You have an elected government in Afghanistan, and yes you have pockets of terrorists, but for the most part Afghanistan is much better off. I'm puzzled why you suspect it is an impossible mess.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Following the herd? As NYE said, most of the herd are chanting, "no blood for oil." Maybe even against the "weaponisation of space."

As for the NDP their position is complete and immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. I'm not sure why you say that reconstruction without security is their goal, they want us out and out now. Seems 'cut and run'.

Yes, well the country is certainly divided about Harper's mission. It became his mission when he unilaterally announced before the last vote in the Commons that he was extending the mission regardless of the outcome of the vote. It's his baby now.

Bah, how did I end up having to defend the NDP? They do advocate reconstruction Ben, they just want the military action to stop immediately. As I say, absurd.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What mess? You have an elected government in Afghanistan, and yes you have pockets of terrorists, but for the most part Afghanistan is much better off. I'm puzzled why you suspect it is an impossible mess.

sorry to butt in...

"Democratically elected"? Really? What was the Taliban percentage of the vote, or did we exclude them, democratically of course...?

Some parts of Afghanistan have relatively less violence than other parts. But I will again point out, last year was the worst year yet.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've heard Harper use the little girls going to school and of course he's big on cut and run (his good buddy George taught him that one). He sets up a false choice bewteen little girls going to school or cutting and running. Very nice. Very shallow. Very dishonest.

I think the choice is between little girls going to school, or cutting and running like little girls.

"Hopeless" - If I used that word I apologize (I don't think I used it). There are more accurate words to describe the mission. I'm not a defeatist, just a realist. Having soldiers die for an unobtainable goal isn't noble or brave, it is just plain stupid.

I'm an optimist. I believe that the people of Afghanistan want and will establish a democracy in the region. I don't see it as an unobtainable goal, in fact I see it as already there.

Why don't you ask those soldiers whether they themselves consider their mission to be worthless, stupid or unobtainable? They seem to disagree and they are the ones who see things with their own eyes.

"They are not worthy" - Nice twist on what I said. I said that I feel no responsibility to "fix" anything in Afghanistan. They attacked us not the other way around. I owe them no schools, roads or anything else. There are more worthy recipients of our largesse is what I said. Keep trying though.

As you said, they are 'back in the stone age.' You really believe they aren't worthy. Perhaps if they were industrialised you would care.

Sorry NYE but the mission supporters have filled a thread with rather lame justification for suppressing these people.

Suppressing whom?

[Ben Kenobi]

Some parts of Afghanistan have relatively less violence than other parts. But I will again point out, last year was the worst year yet.

I am going to post this for our American friends.

The TOTAL casulties since 2002 in Afghanistan are 69.

69 soldiers. I've had more then that in most of my university classes. Heck, the mortality rate is probably lower there then here.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070822/nato_deaths_070822/20070822/

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why don't you ask those soldiers whether they themselves consider their mission to be worthless, stupid or unobtainable? They seem to disagree and they are the ones who see things with their own eyes.

I have yet to meet a military person that thinks the goal assigned them is impossible. That is why we do not leave these decisions to them. There are many observers to what is going on. Do their views not count b/c they aren't supressing the locals?

As you said, they are 'back in the stone age.' You really believe they aren't worthy. Perhaps if they were industrialised you would care.

Statement of fact. No judgements involved.

Suppressing whom?

The people trying to make us leave.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I am going to post this for our American friends.

The TOTAL casulties since 2002 in Afghanistan are 69.

69 soldiers. I've had more then that in most of my university classes. Heck, the mortality rate is probably lower there then here.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...0822/20070822/

Now post the Afghani deaths wise guy.

And you say I don't care about them.

edit - and btw, your numbers are wrong. Read todays paper.

[Ben Kenobi]

The people trying to make us leave.

You mean the kind folks that leave us roadside bombs?

What about the people that want us to stay?

[Ben Kenobi]

Now post the Afghani deaths wise guy

Oh, now you care about the number of civilian casulties.

Why do you want them? They reinforce the point that we should stay there.

I mean if we save the lives of thousands there, aren't we doing a good job?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Oh, now you care about the number of civilian casulties.

Why do you want them? They reinforce the point that we should stay there.

I mean if we save the lives of thousands there, aren't we doing a good job?

You posted Canadian casualty figures in (it would appear) some sort of attempt to make it sound like things weren't so bad in response to my comments on political violence.

Apparently only Canadian casualties count for you.

And yes, I care about civilian casualties because they're dying in our war. Surely you can't be this far into the thread without understanding my basic position Ben. You are better than that.

[DinoDoc]

Do Dion's problems mean that Harper will likely stay in power?

[Tingkai]

No. Despite Dion's problems, most Canadians dislike Harper. Harper has failed to find a policy that will attract voters other than the Conservative base.

The problem for the Conservatives is that most voters think Harper is an ******* who has nothing to offer other than an unpopular war in Afghanistan.

Latest poll:

Conservatives had 32 per cent support, compared with 29 per cent for the Liberals. That spread is covered by the poll's margin of error, which is 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The poll found the NDP had the support of 17 per cent of respondents nationally, while the Green party had 14 per cent and the Bloc Quebecois five per cent.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/257915