Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Gird for long haul, Kabul tells Canadians

JANE TABER

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 1:04 AM EST 27/12/07

With Harper planning spring vote on deployment, envoy hails foreign leaders' visits to Afghanistan ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Apparently, Canada takes her foreign policy directions from Kabul. Afghanistan's diplomatic service is also of the view that Canadians 'don't get it'.
  2. Dennis sinneD. from Calgary, Canada writes:

    Ki|| or be ki||ed...
  3. Scenic Sask! from Canada writes: Diane Marie - Canada doesn't take direction from Kabul. Canada finally has leadership that knows the right thing to do, even if left-leaning-liberals think it is wrong. Sometimes you have to sacrifice to do the right thing. I am proud to have good leadership for a change! We'll not let the women and children of Afghanistan fall into the abyss of the taliban again.
  4. kyle Durksen from NOTL, Canada writes: Yes but it is constructive to hear what the officials from the country that we are involved in have to about our involvement . For it is not them who give our foreign policy orders since we volunteered our services and troops in their country. Lets see what they have to say about our work there and take that into consideration.
  5. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ...Canada has fulfilled her obligations to Afghanastan, it's time to think of bringing our troop home....
  6. David Blott from Moncton, NB, Canada writes:

    Scenic Sask! from Canada writes: 'Canada doesn't take direction from Kabul. Canada finally has leadership that knows the right thing to do, even if left-leaning-liberals think it is wrong.'

    If that is the case then why won't Harper state that he believes Canada should stay in it current role beyond 2009 instead of hiding behind both the Manley Commission and a spring vote that he knows has little likelihood of happening as the odds are Canadians will be in an election campaign?

    Leadership would require that Harper makes his ambitions known now, not at some point in the future.
  7. Jeff Risi from Toronto, Canada writes: we are not finished yet. cutting and running is not an option yet.

    stay the course.
  8. Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: It bears repeating: NATO is in Afghanistan at the request of the Americans, who were attacked by Al Qaeda on their own soil. Instead of leading the pursuit of Al Qaeda, the Americans went on to try to occupy Iraq, with disastrous results. Why should Canadian soldiers continue to die in Afghanistan? Tell the Americans to pull out their 160,000 soldiers from Iraq, where they are doing absolutely nothing useful, and put them into Afghanistan and Pakistan, and chase and destroy Al Qaeda.

    Some people like to remember World War II. Imagine if the British had said to Canada, you go and occupy Europe and fight the nazis while we go and invade Iraq, and thanks for all your help.
  9. Northumberland Dave from Canada writes: The question here is will France, Australia, Italy supply combat troops or will they leave Canadians to do the heavy and dangerous job? Also since this is supposed to be a UN sponsored war why are they not paying as agreed initially? It is no wonder there is disunity and Canadians are not convinced that we should remain in Afghanistan. If these other countries are not going to take part in combat operations Canada should leave in 2009. Why should our troops pay the ultimate sacrifice while others sit in relative safetly. There is something very wrong here.
  10. earl pearl from Canada writes: Diane Marie, the only one implying that Canadian's don't get it are G&M headline writers. Are you one of them?
  11. Anti Fascist from Canada writes: Bull!!!!!!!
    Another load of lies and BS thats what this is. They can't say why Canada is involved and they can't say why it is a not a good idea to leave. Due to an error in judgment on the part of Paul Martin ( he listened to Rick Hillier) Canadian troops are in Afghanistan propping up a corrupt government of the most amenable kind to the oiligarch. Do the Australians really think they will have the pipeline turned on for them?

    Carpet of gold or carpet of bombs was the promise.

    http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5166
  12. David Blott from Moncton, NB, Canada writes:

    Jeff Risi from Toronto, Canada writes: 'we are not finished yet. cutting and running is not an option yet.

    stay the course.'

    Jeff Risi: By any measure, including that of the Bush Administration, regardless of the platitudes of Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper, the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating, despite the best efforts of our troops. 'Staying the course' is not only a waste of the lives of our soldiers and money, but given the circumstances a ridiculous proposal.

    Personally, I would favour a continued role in the country provided the three following conditions are met.

    1. That a clear strategy is defined along with measurable benchmarks of success and a plan for tactical changes if those goals are not being met.

    2. Measurable action on the part of the Karzai government to stem the systemic corruption in Afghanistan. It is foolish to believe that we will ever be successful there if the general population thinks that its government is no better or worse than the Taliban.

    3. That the US deal with Pakistan. As long as the Taliban and al Qaeda have a safe haven in the North West Territories, our troops will remain in a quagmire, where tactical victories may be possible, but the overall strategy fails.

    If Harper can put these conditions on the table, then our efforts may eventually pay off. Otherwise our presence is a waste.
  13. Machinations ? from Canada writes: 'We'll not let the women and children of Afghanistan fall into the abyss of the taliban again.'

    What a rosy picture you must have of the regime we support in Afghanistan - a patchwork of drug warlords propped up by NATO military aid, no different from the operations the United States ran for many years in South America versus the Communists. It is still a crime to convert to Christianity, women still very rarely attend school and innocents are being massacred in scores. Whenever we leave, there will be civil war and strife, and all we do is postpone this. Anyone thinking otherwise has scant knowledge of historical precedent.

    Further, the myth that we are somehow preventing terrorist attacks through this actions needs be dispelled. We only provide further ammunition for radical imams and their followers through our actions in the Middle East. McKay and 'Canada's New' government have one thing in common with the Liberals - they are both playing the role of lackey to the United States. Where will the pied piper lead us?
  14. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: Harper said, 'We must take a decision that is in the long-run interest of the country'. We have the 2010 Winter Olympics coming up in Vancouver. Who is going to protect them? This is an ideal opportunity for al Qaeda and we have pinned a big target to our backs. Our soldiers will be on the other side of the planet. Even if they were all here, there are so many vulnerabilities that defense is near impossible. If Harper's statement is true, we have no choice but to walk away from Afghanistan. We need to make that choice for Canada right now.
  15. Brendan Caron from Vancouver, Canada writes: Going in for the long haul has always been the way to go. It is the only way to go. There is no place for the left-leaning indecision meisters to ply their misinformation in government. Liberal or NDP you are out of step with reality. Sorry that there is no movie or hour long program to bring this to an end. The people of Afghanistan need our help and we are willing to help them. Go troops. Go!
  16. Alberto Bayo from Canada writes: Samad is just an old T.V. commentator....he's nothing
  17. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: You guys will happily leave Canada undefended and they will walk right in. They're probably here already putting their Olympic plans together.... Who will you blame when we get hit?
  18. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: earl pearl:-- Actually, I think opinion polls have demonstrated that Canadians 'get' Afghanistan, Mr. Harper's assertions to the contrary. What many Canadians have no difficulty recognizing is that the empty rhetoric being used to justify Afghanistan is remarkably similar to that which was used to justify the invasion of Iraq, that rationales are changing on the fly, and that information is being 'managed' so as to hide the true circumstances of the mission. Many Canadians know that they are being 'sold' and they aren't buying.
  19. Jim Shepherd from Lima, Peru writes: Many Canadians do not yet understand the liberation of Holland either.

    At least the Dutch school kids still tend the Canadian graves in their own country. Best Regards.
  20. David Blott from Moncton, NB, Canada writes:

    Brendan Carron would have us believe that anybody who questions continuing the mission in Afghanistan is a 'left-leaning indecision meister plying their misinformation in government'. Well Brendan, spin this from the New York Times:

    'WASHINGTON — Deeply concerned about the prospect of failure in Afghanistan, the Bush administration and NATO have begun three top-to-bottom reviews of the entire mission, from security and counterterrorism to political consolidation and economic development, according to American and alliance officials.

    The reviews are an acknowledgment of the need for greater coordination in fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, halting the rising opium production and trafficking that finances the insurgency and helping the Kabul government extend its legitimacy and control.

    Taken together, these efforts reflect a growing apprehension that one of the administration&8217;s most important legacies &8212; the routing of Taliban and Qaeda forces in Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 &8212; may slip away, according to senior administration officials.'

    Continuing a failing course is the definition of stupidity. Even the Bush administration has figured this out. Maybe Harper should take the lesson.
  21. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Brendan Caron, just because people are leary of the wisdom of propping up one side in a civil war that is arguably difficult to distinguish in many ways from the Taliban, that is clearly riddled with opium trade corruption and has shaky support at best anywhere outside of the capital, and at the same time is facing an enemy with a safe sanctuary and millions of potential recruits, and finally with allies in NATO who won't pull their weight, it is not necessarily because they are traitors. I wonder what you would do to them if you had the power, in fact I have a pretty good idea.
  22. Jim Shepherd from Lima, Peru writes: diane marie: I always enjoy your comments, since they are not far from centre, and tend to swing both ways.

    I tend to be more of a hairy-fisted, knuckle-dragging mining engineer, and the sight of me with hairy legs, knobby knees, and wearing a kilt coming over the ridge is something that few have been priviledged to have seen and survived (sorry, I forgot to mention the bayonnet part as well, but you probably get the idea).

    Canadians are legendary as Peacekeepers.

    We are also well known as the 'Ladies from Hell' due to our kilts. Best Regards.
  23. Mac the Knife from Canada writes: Lyin Bryan from Canada says: 'Good thing McKay is Condie's b!tch.......'

    ---------------

    Oh, there's an intelligent lad. First of all, Bryan, assuming McKay is Condie's b!tch, why would that be a 'good thing'? Secondly, have you ever considered the possibility that Canada's Government can form its own policies, some of which happen to coincide or overlap with another country's policies, and NOT be that country's 'lapdog'? Here's another thought....Harper has made it clear to the USA that Canada will back up her Arctic claims. He's building eight armed patrol vessels for that purpose and will be building a northern military base. Today's news reveals that the government wants more arctic patrol planes, too. Wouldn't Bush's lapdog avoid such expenses and just hand over our Arctic to the Americans?
  24. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: If the only thing standing between being overrun by Taleban and 'democracy' is a few hundred Canadian combat soldiers and a base housing about 2000 troops, then this mission most certainly does suffer from a serious lack of commitment on the part of NATO. This is something that we should consider. It is time to give our soldiers a break from combat and we have earned some time in more constructive roles in Afghanistan. Apart from the physical wounds, there are certainly psychological wounds that most of these troops will have sustained. If NATO can't replace this relatively small force, then the mission is doomed by a lack of commitment in any case and withdrawing from the region will not change its destiny. I think that it is a sad reflection on the state of affairs in Afghanistan when the small force that Canada can provide is deemed essential for its success.
  25. evelyn robinson from Canada writes: get out of afghanistan NOW
  26. J Law from Canada writes: Jim Shepherd from Lima, Peru

    Jim, don't take on that the Canadian Highland Regiments were the 'Ladies from Hell' A good number of Scottish Highland Regiments also take that claim to fame. Unfortunately most, if not all, those on the receiving end of those charges during WWI are now dead so they cannot pass on to us which regiment it was.

    But with the ferocity of those kilted boogers lead by unarmed maniacs carrying little more than a screeching bagpipe, do you think the enemy would be searching for the shoulder patches that signified which regiment? And, yes, the first to receive the name, 'Ladies from Hell'' could very well have been a Canadian Highland Regiment like the Cape Breton Highlanders or Black Watch or one of those from Ontario.

    Regardless, those soldiers like the ones who now protect us from harm are to be looked upon with the greatest of respect by the Canadain people.

    Jim, I wish you well in your work and may you have all the successes in the New year.

  27. Ron MacGillivray from Flatbush, ab, writes: 'Gird for long haul, Kabul tells Canadians...' I don't like the sound of that. We should just get out and let that gang of thieves in Kabul who have been masquerading as a government fend for themselves.
  28. Alyssa Watson from Canada writes: The only upside to cutting and running maybe would be to rebuild the Canadian Armed forces the Liberals dismantled in thier 13 year reign.
  29. Mark Orr from Toronto, Canada writes: When the HECK does the ambassador of a failed state start making statements like that. Our response should be: 'Mr. Ambassador, we will help you form your national army, but you have 24 months to stabailize the situation, if not, we'll be here, and you'll be on your own' Frankly, I think we have been to damn understanding and forgiving of Karzai and his cronies. We need to set a goal (not deadline) for withdrawal.
  30. James C. from Shenzhen, Guangdong, China writes: 'Scenic Sask! from Canada writes: Diane Marie - Canada doesn't take direction from Kabul. Canada finally has leadership that knows the right thing to do, even if left-leaning-liberals think it is wrong. Sometimes you have to sacrifice to do the right thing. I am proud to have good leadership for a change! We'll not let the women and children of Afghanistan fall into the abyss of the taliban again.'

    ----------

    thanks for your post. in the main, i agree with you.
  31. Bergeil DeBungie from Victoria, Canada writes: I see no change in strategy whatsoever, therefore we need to get out of Afghanistan now!
  32. Mike Parker from Canada writes: To what extend can one speak of an Afghan military? I don't want a Hillier answer, 'it takes 10 years to train an army...' We are talking about fighting for one's survival here. As much as we may want to put our necks on the line for the Afghans, it would be nice to hear stories of the local Toms, Dicks and Harrys (whatever they are called over there) taking a lead in defending their own country. In other words, there has to be a WILL from within Afghanistan itself to fight the Taliban if it's gonna make sense out here. As for SPINNING about the virtues of the Afghan war... Let's face the facts: (1) I know the Taliban were bad in how they oppressed their own people. Surprising enough, the Globe and Mail did a piece on them way back in the late nineties that was very informative. (2) However, the war our Canadian soldiers are fighting today would be very different if all of NATO was actually there. The Americans chose oil and went to Iraq. So yes, it may have been noble to go there per the Liberal government of that day...BUT Canadians are disproportionately doing most of the heavy lifting. Should we leave in Feb 2009? Yes we should. What about our fallen troops, if we leave, does that mean they died in vain? No of course not. It's foolishness to think that just because we haven't successfully gotten rid of all Talibans that our mission was a failure. So what if we leave our troops in Afghanistan till 2011 and it is still unstable? How about extending the mission till 2025. If we haven't made inroads against the Taliban, could we say anyone who died there was a mistake? No of course not. So let's NOT use that line even if we stay or leave. Personally I think we should leave and let other take our place per our original plan. USA wil have a different president with different policies by Feb 2009. I can't see that president be it Republican or Democrat singing the same tune Bush has been singing.
  33. Kevin Desmoulin from Canada writes: Kabal is the new Ottawa for canadians Well I have no see too many Afghan Politicians here in Canada selling this to us, What do they were are Stupid too?
    Yes The situation is long term
    NO We did our bit and it time for the armed forces to leave in 2009 As it was planned.
  34. Kevin Desmoulin from Afgananada, Canada writes: Hell Yes Lets make Afghanistan part of Canada We can all move there, routed the Taliban and make Afghanistan our 13th province.

    Does anyone actually think the afghan people really love Canada and really understand what most canadians think about Afghanistan?

    Now no explanation why 2 diplomats, one from the UN and one from the EU who were kicked out by the afghanistan government under the pretense of national security.
    They were to meet with local officials of helmand province and apparently the Afghanistan government knew what they were up to.

    Perhaps Kabal/Ottawa can explained this.
  35. Duane Freemantle from writes: Thanks to the internet it is easy to get a clear perception on what is really happening in Afghanistan. From recent news of 2 diplomats being expelled for the country, givens a clear perception that it is possible that Kabul really does not want to bring stability to the Afghanistan. Countries are built by including everyone (or arresting those that threaten the stability of the state). Just like in Canada and other countries, we include various leader to build a strong country. This is how Canada was built. Having foreign militaries trying to being stability to a country, is a short term solution. 'Grid for long haul' is what is said to those that benifit from the process, and is ill directed toward Canada. Those words are for the Afghans, not Canadians.
  36. janfromthe bruce from Canada writes: Australia's 'new' govt just won on getting out of Afghanistan and not doing combat there. So no, the Australians are not staying for any duration, and most definitely not in combat.
  37. The Bubble from Canada writes: Who is Karzai to TELL Canadians anything? He's a puppet of the US.
    Sarkozy has had barely enough time to stop thinking about his concubine.
    Rudd?Italy? when these cowards put in the effort and manpower of Canadians, maybe we might listen to them otherwise fall back and let the UN handle it and stop with the nonsense and backing the unilateralism of the US and lying about all of this.
    What a bunch of crap. Canadians are such fools, we don't even know what these morons talked about and now they are praising Canada and we have a wuss like McKay in there feeling powerful and allowing this nonsense without thinking for himself. And to frame the debate about us being brave and our brave soldiers and comparing it to the liberation of Holland is more propoganda, it's more like Viet Nam, we haven't got the support of the people.
    Manley's report will be more propoganda anyway.
  38. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Perhaps Ms. Taber is somewhat presumptuous in her statements.

    Quote:'Polls suggest Canadians believe their troops are paying too high a price and want out of the mission.'

    From my recollection, there were some old polls with rather general questions which was split along 50-50 lines: more support in the west and east- and less in central Canada.

    She also writes,' Experts are warning that the coming vote in Parliament about extending the mission will be messy and one the minority government will not win.'

    Again presumptuous. How can she, or these supposed experts predict what the vote will be when NO OPTION is presently on the table?

    Manley will come forward with his recommendations and rest assured PM Harper will water-down the Canadian involvement to more of support, training and reconstruction (if he doesn't, he will have proven he is way out of touch...we'll see)

    Note to PM Harper: It will be your responsibility to make sure all Canadians 'get it' with truth and plans. If the decision is to stay, you had better make sure there is equality in responsibility.....and make sure the US actually remembers there is an Afghan war going on!
  39. Scott McLean from writes: Funny how this country has transformed itself into the Sweden of North America. At the first sign of trouble we 'Pearson' ourselves into the idea that to resolve an issue, all we need to do is put on our blue French beret and clear the road of debris for the Taliban on their way to Kabul.
    You gutless wonders really need some self introspection on what type of citizen of the world you would rather be, one who sits back and watches a people being slaughtered because of their religion, or one who will enable a people to establish their own country/enjoy peace in the one they currently occupy.
    The defeatists in Canada who allow the likes of Layton and Dion to put forward the idea that sitting around a table is the ONLY way for conflict resolution are the reason our soldiers are driving around that country on lawn tractors instead of armoured vehicles.
    The world has changed from the 60's, even if your train of thought has derailed around that same era.
    Shameful.
  40. Mr X from Edmonton, Canada writes: 'Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: It bears repeating: NATO is in Afghanistan at the request of the Americans, who were attacked by Al Qaeda on their own soil.'

    Did you forget about the Canadians who died? Here we have troops that stay in countries for years and years to hold the peace and Canadians get killed and people want to run away. Brilliant. This is not about Americans! Al Qaeda tested a bomb on a Filipino airliner before 9/11. It is about killing people who don't believe in their brand of Islam including muslems who don't subscribe to their views. The Americans are only a bigger target.
  41. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Gutless wonders eh, Mr. Maclean? There's a difference between guts and stupidity. I suppose you'd go over there like John Wayne and teach them all a lesson, while the rest of us stand in awe.
  42. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    I have a few questions for those who want to leave Afghanistan right now and allow me to qualify.

    I am against the present situation and set up for several reasons. We need change and plans that will have our allies engage with more equality, and the Americans to increase their levels perhaps with some of the 102,000 troops presently in Japan and Germany.

    We also need Pakistan to pull their weight and help out along the border with a firm commitment. Otherwise, this is a lost cause and certain defeat!!

    So I ask, what are the consequences, if any, if we cut and run now without knowing what will be on the table in a few months?

    I mention 'if any' because Canada represents only 4% of the forces, but they do carry a heavier burden with the exception of the US and the Brits. What are the total repercussions if we all leave the region? Does it really matter at the end of the day?

    As a follow-up question, what do we say to the families and friends of the troops who gave their lives..that this was all in vain? That we made a mistake? This is so much more than a political question.
    .
  43. David Bakody from Dartmouth, Canada writes: Stand by your man! Would that be, a/Bush, b/Karzi, c/Taliban who now want money under the table not to fight, d/corrupt contractors as Afghanistan is now the 3rd most corrupt country in the world, e/Drug Lords who have seen a 69% increase in profit, f/Internation aid organizations assuring big payoffs for their efforts to give awyay money with out no accountablilty, g/Canadian education and health care placed on the back bunner to support Afghan's, h/Navy and Air Force set back years further to fund the troops, and of course an even bigger market above the 85% of opium coming into North America for our population to have access to. Yes Ladies and Gentlemen.......this is all good news. Well most, have I mentioned the Taliban now control over 62% of country .......and and it's a BIG AND, Manley will report on the wonderful progress and dare not mention any of the above, while plans are being made to move 2011 to 2015 to 2020 to forever> .......Any bets?
  44. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    In the bigger picture, there is something I find curious and confusing.

    Perhaps we can all agree on something-that the Taliban represents a more fanatical and extremist form of Islam than the supposed moderates of the faith. In Afghanistan, Muslims are killing Muslims, while the NATO/UN nations intervene.

    It appears with the exception of Iran who are helping for their own geopolitical reasons, why are NO OTHER Muslim nations engaged in this conflict to help defeat the extremists? To aid their brothers?

    Where are the armies of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Algeria, Libia, Turkey, even Indonesia.......? If they are truly against an extreme form of Islam, where brother is killing brother, wouldn't logic dictate that they should intervene and be part of the solution?

    Wouldn't countries with Muslim majorities and their armies and leaders have a better chance to bring this to an end-a more credible option for dealing with the waring factions in Afghanistan?

    Or is there something I am missing?
    .
  45. The Bubble from Canada writes: It's always the fools who go where angels fear. Armchair warriors on this site would never let their families get involved. I be there are no posters on here who have had their own family die. You people who are for war are simply brain dead and full of violence because there is no sane reason for us to do this, it is an economic reason. The only slaughtering is being done by Blackwell and the Americans.
    A perpetual state of war was proposed first in Brave New World and it's great for the economy, this is why we're there.
  46. mike sty from Canada writes:

    Troops Out Feb 09
  47. Basser Basser from Canada writes: I support Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. I believe it is a just cause ( unlike Iraq) I believe most Canadians have an easy time separating IraQ and Afghanistan. What troubles me is France and Italy (and a little bit Australia) being touted as proof of why Canada must show a longer term commitment. When they start to lay down their own lives and make a true comittment to stand truly in harms way, then I will listen and respect their commitments as well as the Afghan diplomats attempt at comparing us and them. And for the record, I am a 'Lefty'
  48. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: Canada (or NATO) can get out in no time if they change strategy.

    Of course, there will be 'collateral damage' since the enemy usually melts amongst civilians (who at times don't discourage them by giving them sanctuary).

    The point is this:

    Are we fighting a war? Or are we there for making news for the media? Are photo ops part of the military mission there?
  49. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: R Carriere: What are the consequences if we leave? Mid term: Not much. We have another year of building the ANA & ANP before our time is up. A US battalion task force & PRT would be a bit smaller than ours but the command & admin staffs would be much, much smaller. If the US replaces us they would need no more than about 1300 troops. The Brits could also replace us with far fewer troops than we have. Everything depends on how many trained Afghans can take the field......Long term: Zero. We signed on until 2009 and will have done what we said we'd do. The rest of NATO may squawk but so what. US opinion is the only one that counts and apparently they didn't care if we came or not. It's unlikely there would be economic blowback from the US, which is what our going to Kandahar was designed to stop.....So after a bit of huffing and puffing the US, NATO & the Afghans would carry on without us (and probably not notice we'd gone)...... It's the Afghans fight to win or lose and its past time they started to take over the war. Our leaving might be a good spur to get on with it.
  50. Lawrence Hutchinson from Houston, United States writes: David Blott from Moncton, NB, Canada writes:
    Well Brendan, spin this from the New York Times:

    You are simply naive if you can take the NYT at its word. They suffer from BDS (Bush Derangment Syndrome) snd are incapable of not casting any aspect of the world situation in a negative light.
  51. Smoke and Mirrors from Toronto, Canada writes: Shouldn't we Canadians at least be getting a break on wholesale hash prices while our troops are there?

    Where is the trickle down effect of supporting tribal chiefs?
  52. Peter Kells from Bytown, Canada writes: As George Orwell's Big Brother would say 'War is Peace' - I wonder what other Newspeak our current fearless leaders will have us believe?
  53. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    F.T. Ward from Canada: Morning FTW-appreciate your comments.

    .
  54. Tim Cares from Canada writes: No quick fix. Try no fix, period.

    It's up to you, Mr. Ambassador, to get your country's act together.

    Get rid of the warlords and drug dealers that are in your parliament.

    Get rid of the corruption in the national police force.

    What are you doing from your end?
  55. Smoke and Mirrors from Toronto, Canada writes: How about WE get rid of the corruption in OUR national police force?
  56. Jerry g from Canada writes: Mr X from Edmonton, Canada writes: '
    Did you forget about the Canadians who died? Here we have troops that stay in countries for years and years to hold the peace and Canadians get killed and people want to run away. Brilliant. This is not about Americans! Al Qaeda tested a bomb on a Filipino airliner before 9/11. It is about killing people who don't believe in their brand of Islam including muslems who don't subscribe to their views. The Americans are only a bigger target. '

    Please stop this GWB line that AlQueda caused the 9/11. There is overwhelming evidence showing that this was an inside job. Until there is a truly idependent commission that addresses all of the inconsistancies, like building #7,, flight 93, pentagon and of course the collapse of the towers. As a result, Canadian are fighting the wrong country. So lets get them out out in 2009 or earlier.
  57. Kevin Desmoulin from TO, Canada writes: Scott McLean from writes: Scott McLean from writes: Funny how this country has transformed itself into the Sweden of North America. At the first sign of trouble we 'Pearson' ourselves into the idea that to resolve an issue, all we need to do is put on our blue French beret and clear the road of debris for the Taliban on their way to Kabul.
    You gutless wonders really need some self introspection on what type of citizen of the world you would rather be, one who sits back and watches a people being slaughtered because of their religion, or one who will enable a people to establish their own country/enjoy peace in the one they currently occupy.

    I have compassion for Afghanistan and I know most Canadians do too. This citizen of the world see our place as peaceful people not fighting in a religious ideological war, as a proxy for the US
    I rather be rallying around the flag for Canada, not rallying around the flag for Afghanistan. We did our bit and most likely will continue to our bit. But lets take care of our country first and our people first.

    We being played for fools by the rest of NATO and by our government.

    We should have never gone there.

    All this has happened bc of our friend the US pushing it's way and culture on the rest of the world making enemies and the rise of Islamic extremism which rose up bc of the actions of the United States.
  58. Mikey from the GWN ___ from Canada writes: R. Carriere,

    'Where are the armies of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Algeria, Libia, Turkey, even Indonesia.......? '

    Turkey has almost as many troops in Afghanistan as we do. Jordan is there too.

    http://www.nato.int/ISAF/docu/epub/pdf/isaf_placemat.pdf

    As for the rest, have you ever meet someone from say - the military of Saudi Arabia? In my experience, arrogant and useless!

    Cheers

    Mikey
  59. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: It's hard to blame Afghanistan's ambassador for thrying to shame Canada into an extending the mission there , after all, the day Nato leaves is the day he becomes a refugee , since the government he represesnts is so thouroughly corupt that it has no local suport, aside from the warlords and druglords the Taliban would kill .By no quantifiable standard is Afghanistan better off today than when the US invaded.Life expectancy and literacy are down, opium production up .
    Canadaians have the stomach for casualties , in a just cause, in suport of a popular government.People go hungry in Kandahar , right next to Canadian/US bases.
    The sooner Nato leaves, the sooner Afghans can choose their own goverment.
  60. Smoke and Mirrors from Toronto, Canada writes: There have been 737 coalition deaths -- 468 Americans, four Australians, 86 Britons, 73 Canadians, one Czech, nine Danes, 12 Dutch, two Estonians, one Finn, 12 French, 22 Germans, 10 Italians, three Norwegians, one Pole, two Portuguese, five Romanians, one South Korean, 23 Spaniards, two Swedes -- in the war on terror as of December 26, 2007, according to a CNN count.

    http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/oef.casualties/
  61. Rolly Beethoven from Canada writes: 'Gird for the long haul'. Who are they kidding? That part of the world has been at war for generations. I guess our grandchildren's children will most likely be 'Girding up for the long haul' also. That is if that part of the world is still in existance by then. Get real!!
  62. A PM from Canada writes: No proof Iranian gov't behind IEDs: Afghan diplomat
    Updated Wed. Dec. 26 2007 6:52 PM ET

    The last people we can believe is the Harper government on the Afghanistan issue. They say only what GWB asks them to say. Bunch of liars.

    CTV.ca News Staff

    Afghanistan's Ambassador to Canada appears to be cautious about blaming Iran for improvised explosive devices (IEDs) being used in attacks against Afghan and NATO soldiers in his country.

    On Tuesday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay alleged that many IEDs in Afghanistan have come from Iran.
  63. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Mikey from the GWN ___ from Canada: Morning M: thanks for the link and info-appreciated.

    .
  64. concerned canadian from Canada writes: Look at History, the people of Afghanistan have never been conquered by any Nation, they have never lost a war, lets be realistic and stop the suffering of everybody involved.
    Bring our soldiers home now.
  65. T TFD from Canada writes: A PM from Canada writes: No proof Iranian gov't behind IEDs: Afghan diplomat
    ...
    On Tuesday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay alleged that many IEDs in Afghanistan have come from Iran.
    Posted 27/12/07 at 9:02 AM EST
    ---

    Wow, didn't think that would be debunked so quickly.

    Now granted I was instantly skeptical when MacKay made these accusations while offering zero proof...and yes, having the American Ambassador along for a Canadian mission/visit was kinda suspicious, and using a holiday visit to lift the troops spirit as a platform to spew political talking points was kinda lowbrow....but wow, the next day his statements are refuted from multiple sources is pretty amazing.
  66. Will Alexander from Harper supporters = trailer park boys, Canada writes: I see the brainwashed 'Support Our Troops' drones are out in full effect. A few points to ponder while you wave the flag: * 54 percent of Afghanistan's landmass hosts a permanent Taliban presence - they call the shots, not NATO. * Afghanistan is now the #1 producer of heroin in the world. Revenue is being used to support the corrupt govn't or the insurgency - NATO forces are doing nothing about it. * About 60 percent of Afghan respondents said the current administration is more corrupt than any other in the past two decades - including the Taliban. * Several highly placed members of the current Afghan government and legislature have been implicated in war crimes during the fighting in Kabul in the early 1990s - and we're supporting them. Many of these have been accused of running drugs while holding office. * As of July, 2007, U.N. 314 civilians were killed by Coalition or Afghan military forces. Who knows what the real tally is - every time an independant group publishes numbers NATO refutes it. Winning 'hearts and minds,' eh? * Taliban and Al Qaeda use Pakistan as a base of operations, the current REGIME in Pakistan is turning a blind eye to this. Until NATO moves into Pakistan or the current govn't cracks down, don't expect much to change in Afghansitan. So this is the 'stay the course' that my tax dollars are supporting? Nice. Either triple the number of troops in Afghanstan or expect more Canadian troops to come home in body bags.
  67. Malcolm Thistle from Thornhill, Canada writes: Canadians don't have the stomach to make sacrifices for their own country. How can they be expected to make sacrifices for others? We're a shell of a country that is a dependency of the United States. Oh sure, we're a big pink blob on a map, and we have a nice red flag, and a big federal government, etc., and all these things make us sort of think we're a country. But we have no national identity or will. So we substitute the principles of political correctness for the ideals of patriotism. Years of this have made us sort of immune to the values of patriotism and nationalism and now we look down our noses at others who are nationalistic and support their country. It's unnatural to be this way but successive liberal governments know this and have continually offered political correctness as a higher virtue than nationalism or patriotism. It makes politics easier for them too because they don't have to make hard decisions or rally a national will to get things done - just appeal to our instincts of political correctness.So the result is we rarely act as a real country - with a natonal will - to protect our interests and make ourselves stronger. The last time was the sacrifices of the veterans in two world wars. Since then, 'politically correct' themes have dominated our national scenes and we are divided by our politically correct partisanship. We are totally incapable of standing up to the rest of the world against Kyoto, for example, because it's not politically correct even though it would hurt our country, and we are totally incapable of making sacrifices to help another country.
  68. Malcolm Thistle from Thornhill, Canada writes: Canadians don't have the stomach to make sacrifices for their own country. How can they be expected to make sacrifices for others? We're a shell of a country that is a dependency of the United States. Oh sure, we're a big pink blob on a map, and we have a nice red flag, and a big federal government, etc., and all these things make us sort of think we're a country. But we have no national identity or will. So we substitute the principles of political correctness for the ideals of patriotism. Years of this have made us sort of immune to the values of patriotism and nationalism and now we look down our noses at others who are nationalistic and support their country. It's unnatural to be this way but successive liberal governments know this and have continually offered political correctness as a higher virtue than nationalism or patriotism. It makes politics easier for them too because they don't have to make hard decisions or rally a national will to get things done - just appeal to our instincts of political correctness.So the result is we rarely act as a real country - with a natonal will - to protect our interests and make ourselves stronger. The last time was the sacrifices of the veterans in two world wars. Since then, 'politically correct' themes have dominated our national scenes and we are divided by our politically correct partisanship. We are totally incapable of standing up to the rest of the world against Kyoto, for example, because it's not politically correct even though it would hurt our country, and we are totally incapable of making sacrifices to help another country.
  69. Mervin Hollingsworth from Saskatoon, Sk., Canada writes: David Blott from Moncton, NB, Canada writes:

    If that is the case then why won't Harper state that he believes Canada should stay in it current role beyond 2009 instead of hiding behind both the Manley Commission and a spring vote that he knows has little likelihood of happening as the odds are Canadians will be in an election campaign?

    Mr. Harper's committment was to have votes on committing Canadians to combat missions abroad. Unlike the Liberals who never allowed votes to take place Mr. Harper is fulfilling his committments. Now we have people like you criticizing him for meeting those committments.

    Of course we all know Liberals had no problem in breaking their promises on an ongoing basis.

    Mr. Harper is forcing the opposition parties, particularly the Liberals, who put us in this qagmire of Kanadar to put up or shut up. Let's see if the Liberals have the guts to stand up and say that they made a mistake in committing Canada to Afganistan. Let's see when the rubber hits the road if the Liberals are prepared to consider the best course of action for the country.
  70. M Warren from Ottawa, Canada writes: After what happened to Bhutto today, forget about it. Without the ability to travel safely over Pakistan's roads and airspace, the Afghanistan mission is finished.
  71. Will Alexander from Harper supporters = trailer park boys, Canada writes: Mervin Hollingsworth from Saskatoon, Sk: Get your facts straight, Merv. The Liberals may have send Canadian Forces to Afghansitan, but Harper is the one that put them in the combat role - we didn't see too many body bags coming home until Harper took office (and started taking orders from GWB).
  72. dallas mcquarrie from Regina, Canada writes: Gird for the long haul? Only if the government is completely insane! Going to Afghanistan as an occupying army was a mistake in the first place (ah, the high cost of sucking up to Bush and his war machine), and every day we stay there only makes it worse. If Harper and the Conservatives want a 10 year commitment to Afghanistan, let them campaign on it.
  73. Stockpiling ammo and food from Canada writes: The fuse in the Pakistan powder keg is now lit,, We need to get our troops out of the region , or be dragged into a huge quagmire that will lite up the entire Middle east.
    Stick your hand in a hornets nest ,,,you get stung

  74. Mikey from the GWN ___ from Canada writes: T TFD,

    ' No proof Iranian gov't behind IEDs: Afghan diplomat'

    The Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution are not the Iranian government

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force

    CHeers

    Mikey
  75. Robin M. from Canada writes: The profits that exude from war will never be sacrificed for peace. After the two world wars and the resulting economic boom, the U.S. saw how war increased their coffers. Sorry, I am a cynic when it comes to the reasons for bombing people weaker militarily than the West, destroying their infrastructure to oblivion and then offering to rebuild what was destroyed in the first place....(economy - money flowing into Western companies)

    It is a sick world we live in, when as a supposed civilized and evolved culture most in the West continually buy-in to the war propaganda as being a natural state of being. And now, with the assassination of Benizar Bhutto, there will most likely be riots that could result in civil war in that country, who just happens to be one of the Nuclear powers.. the West will then be called upon to intervene and another cycle begins... We keep on feeding the beast and the beast keeps getting larger..
  76. Mikey from the GWN ___ from Canada writes: Will Alexander,

    'Get your facts straight, Merv. The Liberals may have send Canadian Forces to Afghansitan, but Harper is the one that put them in the combat role '

    Will - you need to check your timeline. Bill Graham was making speeches about increasing casualities in October, the move to Kandahar was complete in November. The Federal election was not until January!

    The Liberals made it a Combat Role prior to the Conservatives even winning the election!

    CHeers

    Mikeuy
  77. Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: If ignorance is bliss we have a happy government. Tribal war lords, drug thugs running the country of Afhganistan through US/NATO/Canada's agreement and enforcement. Aid money poured into a sink hole of corruption - zero accountability. harper/hillier global alignment on US imperialism/hegemony. Sucking at the teete of the US military, industrial complex. US puppet Karzai already has the exiled Taliban leader back into Afghanistan, on the payroll and in a power sharing accord. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3247547.ece Mullah Omar, the one-eyed 'commander of the faithful', rarely agreed to meet non-Muslims, leaving much of the regime's reputation in Mullah Nizami's hands. In Pakistan, Mullah Nizami ran an underground Taliban magazine, called Sirek [Shine], and he continued to meet exiles. He returned to Afghanistan in June under a reconciliation programme. Since his return, he claims the government has reneged on a promise to give him money and a job. seven years on and on - what have we learned? Tribes loads of local Taliban leaders. Thugs. Islamic rule - always. Sharia law will still be the 'law of the land' and our Canadian Women's Driving School is a 'pipe dream' - UN photo of the year was an eleven year old girl, an 11 year old child - marrying her 40 year old husband - in Kabul - where we have been for 7 years and this was a public, sanctioned marriage. Way to go! At this rate we will be there til the cows come home - right? A nebulous far away target in never, never land - like baird's AGW targets - but I digress.
  78. Simply Red from Canada writes: Harper thinks canadians don't 'get' the mission? Probably because he can't sell it -- because he doesn't have very clear thinking on why we're there in the first place.
    If Harper 'got it'... maybe he could articulate it.... and then we'd understand.
  79. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ...now we know how the poor Ruskies felt about the Yanks supplying the Taleban with weapons.....Karma keeps striking over and over again...eh Mikey?....
  80. Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: Mikey from the GWN ___ from Canada writes. 'Become doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves with false reasoning.. .'

    A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

    Love them TO DEATH!

    Love them with our Uranium tipped missiles.

    Love them with our torture.

    Love them with our cluster bombs.

    'Let us not love with words or tongue, but with actions and in truth'
  81. russ Cooper from Cranbrook, B.C., Canada writes: Mr. Harper... am I hearing you right? You DON'T know if Canadians understand what's at stake?

    Oh. Well, there's a simple way to resolve that. How about telling us exactly just what is at stake? For us, for that region and for the world as a whole. If many people don't understand, don't you think it's your responsibility to inform and educate the citizens you work for to make sure they got the smarts and know what's happening with THEIR country. Put it on the table and let the people you are attempting to serve - Canadians - decide for themselves.

    Whadayathink?
  82. Mikey from the GWN ___ from Canada writes: Zando Lee,

    'now we know how the poor Ruskies felt about the Yanks supplying the Taleban with weapons'

    Ahmad Shah Massoud and the rest of the Afghan Mujahideen were not Taleban!

    CHeers

    Mikey
  83. Cynthia Nurse from St. Thomas, Canada writes: Vote coming up in February…..I hope it is a free vote with each member voting on behalf of their ridings.

    In my view what Afghanistan needs to defeat this corrupt force they are facing are tools, resources, and training. For their military, and agricultural engine

    The questions I asked myself are:
    1. If the Afghanistan Army were well trained, equipped and financed could they build from within and stop the corruption coming into their lands without foreign troops?
    2. If the Afghan farmer was assisted with acquiring modern equipment, training and financial support to grow alternative crops for their nation or export, would they willingly give up farming poppies?

    I believe the answer to both questions is yes.
  84. terry greenberg from North Vancouver, Canada writes: Only 30,000 Brits controlled over 300 million Indians in colonial India. Only 8,000 Dutch controlled 60 million Indonesians in colonial Indonesia. Those days are gone. In the 21st century, Asian people will not allow Westerners to occupy and control their countries. The Afghans wouldn't even allow it in the past. It is absolute folly to think the West will impose its will on the Afghan people. The United States could not win against Vietnamese in pygamas, because the days are gone when a handful of Frenchmen could do so as they did in the colonial era. The Soviets had their Vietnam in Afghanistan, and they lost for the same reason. They were Westerners, full of arrogance, like we are, and thought they know better what is good for the savages in the East. We will lose in Afghanistan. In fact, we lost a long time ago, when we failed to give the Afghans real development just after the ouster of the Taliban. We cannot get that opportunity back. We were foolish to go in there, and it is just compounding our idiocy to insist that we have to keep fighting. We are not defending Canada in Afghhanistan, any more than the US was defendiong America while it butchered over a million Vietnamese. We are colonial occupiers in an Asian country. Canadians should not be thinking about whether or not to extend the mission, but how to apologize and make up for our crimes against the Afghans. If we cannot find the compassion to be concerned about the harm we are doing over there, perhaps we should refocus our discussion on how we will pay for them when we lose. Perhaps we should think about the REPARATIONS we should be paying for all the Afghans we have killed, wounded, either directly or by supporting US bombing, and all the property we have destroyed. Every Canadian should be asked in future to pay more taxes to cover these debts that we are incurring. The longer we stay the bigger the debt we will owe.