[kenmore]

I guess real duty is better than paint ball... or shooting bottles off the barnyard fence eh?

[Streaker]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Streaker Streaker:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Streaker Streaker:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Streaker Streaker:

Yes, the Taliban are nasties, but in the bigger picture it is unethical for Canada to be there. In our own, modest little way we're making it easier for the Americans to do what they've done in Iraq.

Afghanistan and Iraq can no longer be separated.

I have to disagree with you. Some war after the fact by a country you don't like has no bearing on our duties and responsibilities to NATO and our allies.

There was nothing in the NATO treaty compelling Canada or any other NATO nation to go to Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is a largely American-created mess. Now we're left with the dirty job of cleaning it up (a costly exercise in futility) while the US goes and screws up yet another country next door.

It's wrong for us to be there.

No, it's not. My only wish is more countries would do their part.

Under the present circumstances, it most definitely is wrong for us to be there.

But, if the Americans would pull out of Iraq and then put 100 000 more troops into Afghanistan I'd be less strongly opposed to Canada's involvement there, as strange as that may sound.

It doesn't sound strange, you hate the United States and your bias shows. Iraq and Afghanistan are completely separate actions and yet you've just tied them together.

Sorry to say it, but your take on this is stunningly naive.

[Canadian_Mind]

We went into A-stan in pursuit of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, as they were responsible for supporting the terrorist attacks that killed thousands of American's and hundreds of foreign nationals. America was attacked, and in conventional warfare we are obnliged to defend any NATO nation that comes under attack. This was a unique situation, as it wasn't neccisarily a country that attacked, but an organisation suppoorted by a national government. We treated it as such, and went after the group and supporting government.

Were we obliged too under the treaty? No. But we signed it in good faith that any of the partners would come to our aid as we would go to theirs, so morally we were obliged too.

And now that we've been a part of making the mess in Afghanistan, it is now our responsibility to protect it and rebuild it until such time as it can once again look after itself. Thats why I believe we should not set deadlines for our military commitments, nor should we set deadlines for our aid and rebuilding commitments. Lets stay there until the job is done, and provide enough resources to get the job done. More troops, more aid, more civilian workers, teachers, doctors, well drillers, etc.

Until such time as the government actually says why we our there (what I listed above), no one is going to want us to stay, cause all they see is useless fighting.

[RUEZ]

Streaker Streaker:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Streaker Streaker:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Streaker Streaker:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Streaker Streaker:

Yes, the Taliban are nasties, but in the bigger picture it is unethical for Canada to be there. In our own, modest little way we're making it easier for the Americans to do what they've done in Iraq.

Afghanistan and Iraq can no longer be separated.

I have to disagree with you. Some war after the fact by a country you don't like has no bearing on our duties and responsibilities to NATO and our allies.

There was nothing in the NATO treaty compelling Canada or any other NATO nation to go to Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is a largely American-created mess. Now we're left with the dirty job of cleaning it up (a costly exercise in futility) while the US goes and screws up yet another country next door.

It's wrong for us to be there.

No, it's not. My only wish is more countries would do their part.

Under the present circumstances, it most definitely is wrong for us to be there.

But, if the Americans would pull out of Iraq and then put 100 000 more troops into Afghanistan I'd be less strongly opposed to Canada's involvement there, as strange as that may sound.

It doesn't sound strange, you hate the United States and your bias shows. Iraq and Afghanistan are completely separate actions and yet you've just tied them together.

Sorry to say it, but your take on this is stunningly naive.

You're one to talk.

[ridenrain]

So let's get this clear:

$1:

Panel leader John Manley told Montreal newspaper Le Devoir that British soldiers were originally set to deploy in the provinces of Kandahar and neighbouring Helmand.

But the former Liberal foreign affairs minister says Canada insisted on taking the reins in the volatile province and NATO accepted.

[sasquatch2]

I just read a Margolis article in the SUN.

I won't post a link......I won't waste your time---I wasted mine....

Margolis is further out than streaker----if that is possible.

Suffice to say Margolis does not approve the Manely report........

[ridenrain]

Margolis may be one of the most prolific but least qualified to comment on such things.

[sasquatch2]

Margolis is to Canada as Noam Chumpski is to the US.....

Both a waste of skin.