Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Sarkozy pledges troops for Afghanistan

DAVID STRINGER

Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 10:44 PM EDT 27/03/08

French President to confirm offer during NATO summit next week ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Andre Carrel from Salmo, Canada writes: How many more times is Sarko going to make an announcement about making an announcement about announcing more troops for Afghanistan?
  2. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: "We cannot afford to "lose" Afghanistan"? I've got news for you Sarko, it was never "ours" in the first place.
  3. Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: This will surely infuriate the lefty defeatist crowd who permeate these comment boards and spew forth with their troop bashing and Afghan hating diatribes.

    I am sorry France sees the value in continuing the NATO mission. Those poor poor Taliban.

    Oh yeah I forgot, support the troops, right libs?
  4. Val Kaminski from Muskoka, Canada writes: New Angus Reid poll 67% of Canadians do not want extension. 34% want extension and thats the COn base the war mongers. Vote it down Liberals and win the Election. Fire Dion and we win for fun.You people in Ottawa are supposed to be smart now act that way.
  5. Ariel Laver from Vancouver, Canada writes: "Nicknamed the “bling-bling president” because of his extravagant tastes, Mr. Sarkozy's trademark sunglasses and ubiquitous cell phone were nowhere in sight amid the elaborate pomp of the state visit. He played the statesman, greeting the Queen and appearing reserved and sombre in a dark overcoat as he reviewed the Horse Guards. His glamorous wife, the model-turned-singer Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, was dressed in a demur belted grey Christian Dior coat and matching pillbox hat. She curtsied to the Queen, and they chatted animatedly at Windsor Castle. “It was like a French Catholic schoolgirl meets Jackie O,” said Lucy Yeomans, editor of the fashion magazine Harper's Bazaar, likening Ms. Bruni-Sarkozy's outfit to the famously stylish former U.S. first lady Jackie Kennedy. Ms. Bruni-Sarkozy smiled earlier as Prince Charles kissed her gloved hand in greeting as he met the visitors at London's Heathrow Airport. Britain's tabloids greeted her in typical style — printing a nude photograph she posed for in 1993. The original print is due to be auctioned in New York next month by Christie's auction house." Were any of the above paragraphs really necessary to develop the story? Did it provide more information to readers regarding France's commitment to provide more troops? Since when did the Associated Press become a tabloid angency?
  6. Carbon Blob from Ontario, Canada writes: Someone posted this link yesterday that everyone should read:

    www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2008/02/whyeuropeansa.php

    Now if NATO was committing 100,000 troops it might make a difference in Afghanistan (but on the other hand it might just make it worse too). Our brave soldiers have had enough combat experience now. The training is over and it is time to bring them home now and restore our military capability (e.g., helicopters!) based upon the lessons learned over there to-date.
  7. MQ9 Reaper from Canada writes: Carbon Bob - Eric Margolis is a self-hating, terrorist loving nincompoop. Take what he writes with a bucket of salt.
    As for Sarkozy - Give him an opportunity to make good on his pledge. If he fulfills it, praise him. If he weasels out, then roast him.
  8. mike r from Southern Ontario, Canada writes: In response to Joe Canada's post earlier, last yr I was visiting friends in Ottawa who were starting to break into politics - all lower level stuff that recent grads get to do to help out the party. One person was commenting on the opinion he had heard from returned soldiers in regards to the whole "support our troops, bring them home" campaign/mentality of some people here in Canada (or lefties, as Joe would deem them all). The soldiers took it as a personal shot, when really the only purpose behind that statement/slogan was to keep our soldiers alive and not being killed in a battle they didn't start, but rather have been sent in to pick up the scraps and keep things under control since the instigators found a new toy to play with (Iraq).

    I fully appreciate the soldiers efforts, the sacrifices they've made, but I personally believe they're being taken the way this war has shaped us thus far, and if Canadian troops keep getting shafted this way by the rest of the world I think they should all come back next week as it's plain out unfair! I hope that the French FINALLY make a firm commitment because yes, it's about time for them stop making announcements about making an announcement and just be straightforward with it!
  9. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ..ah the old Sarko is really flogging this one for all it's worth......
  10. James C from Shenzhen, China writes: "Carbon Blob from Ontario, Canada writes: Now if NATO was committing 100,000 troops it might make a difference in Afghanistan (but on the other hand it might just make it worse too). Our brave soldiers have had enough combat experience now. The training is over and it is time to bring them home now and restore our military capability (e.g., helicopters!) based upon the lessons learned over there to-date."

    ----------

    carbon blob, i respect your post, however the job in afghanistan isnt finished yet. and the job of stabilizing, securing and rebuilding afghanistan is going to take a long time. we should at the very least stay in our current role until the end of our commitment. after that, we can consider leaving kandahar and/or afghanistan.

    btw, afghanistan is not "training," its the real thing. i know what you meant but lets not belittle the sacrifice people have already given by making the mission sound like something its not.
  11. Raymond Durrani from Ajax, Canada writes: I salute you Mr. President - Sarkozy/France:

    Lets get to the point - those kids in that wartorn country - everyone see the snapshots look helpless - they need peace in order for them to grow up productive citizens. But there will not be any peace until Talibans are buried. So, lets get real and give those kids a chance, please. Otherwise, they will be coming here as terrortists as they did on 9/11 - may be they were from Saudi Arabia but they were inspired in Afghanistan - by Osama the Evil.

    Any infiltration must be stopped - at any price and teach these kids what the Talibans and Extrimists didn't learn. Where there is will, there is a way. Any every soldier should say this short prayer everytime they get on the road, "I am always aware of the Lord's presence; he is near, and nothing can shake me". Psalm 16:8.

    I am sure it will give the Nato forces some Boost.
  12. Paul Jay from Canada writes: Raymond, those kids, they are the Taliban.
  13. ImaCANADIAN ! from Canada writes: It's no surprise that France under Sarkozy is adding more troops. He's been saying so since last year:

    December 23, 2007, Reuters - "Sarkozy Says France Could Add Troops in Afghanistan"

    "In a surprise visit to Afghanistan on Saturday, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said France might increase its troop presence in the country ... Mr. Sarkozy said a decision on any increase in troop numbers would come in the next few weeks ... The French president held talks with Afghanistan’s leader, Hamid Karzai ..."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/world/asia/23afghan.html

    The Manley report was being written at that very time, in consultation with the same players, NATO, Karzai, etc.
  14. Virginia Troy from Calgary, Canada writes: Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: I am sorry France sees the value in continuing the NATO mission.

    Not quite. According to a recent Angus Reid poll, 63% of French people think the Afghanistan mission is a failure, and 25% are not sure.

    Oh, I'm sorry, there I go again with the troop bashing.
  15. ImaCANADIAN ! from Canada writes: "slow progress on a joint call for a 26,000-strong peacekeeping unit of UN and African Union troops for Sudan's western Darfur region"

    The US and NATO have gone full-out with the heavy sales pitch and propaganda for more troops and equipment for their occupation of Afghanistan, yet there is "slow progress" to round up a basic force to respond to a genocide in Africa.

    All of the troops, military equipment, taxpayer money, political attention, and media attention in some 40 countries are being continuously sucked away into the blackhole of war in Afghanistan, leaving nothing for Darfur. The 6-year US-led occupation of Afghanistan is what has allowed the ongoing genocide in Darfur to continue this long.

    In most of these 40 countries, the public has demanded action on Darfur, and has been against the war in Afghanistan (as Virginia Troy pointed out above), yet these supposedly-democratric leaders have repeatedly ignored their citizens. This is democracy?
  16. Khalid Rahim from scarborough, Canada writes: In which province are the French going to estasblish their legionairre
    force the people to learn french, if they wish to work in France or join
    the french legion. If they wish to help the people in Afghanistan do it
    with reconstruction of their infrastructure, improve communications and provide roof to the homeless. STOP! importing your bullets and your butts to create more terrorism.
  17. Stude Ham from Outremont, Canada writes: nice sounding words... as long as none of us get to see what the caveats will be along with those french troops. most probably they will be limited to picking daisies ....
  18. Interested Observer from United States writes: Freedom Fries save NATO/USA. You couln't make this up!
  19. skenderbeg begger from Albania writes: WRONG (with all due respect) to Paul Thompson from Canada writes: "We cannot afford to "lose" Afghanistan"? I've got news for you Sarko, it was never "ours" in the first place. This warning by UNODC is the latest in a series of alarming reports by a number of agencies in charge of fighting organized crime, including the FBI, Interpol and Europol, which state that the Albanian mafia is the most serious criminal organization in Europe The western European heroin market, of which 40 to 75 percent is controlled by Albanians, brings annual earnings of around USD 7bn, which makes the trafficking in this type of narcotic by far the most profitable activity The territory that includes Albania, Kosovo and western Macedonia is a huge drug warehouse. Its contents are drugs measured not in kilograms, but in tons, a western diplomat posted in the Balkans said in a statement for Tanjug new agency, explaining how intelligence sources estimate that there are at least SEVEN tons of heroin in this region at all times, ready to be moved to the West. Former official of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Michael Levine has said that one of the wings of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was "linked with every known narco-cartel in the Middle East and the Far East", and that almost every European intelligence service and police has files on "connections between ethnic Albanian rebels and drug trafficking". "Albania and Kosovo are the heart of the Balkan drug trade route which links Pakistan and Afghanistan with Europe. That route is worth around USD 7bn annually and around 80 percent of the heroin intended for the western European market is smuggled along this route," said a report presented to the U.S. Congress. Mafia is actually controlling those who are in power, as Italian General Fabio Mini said on his departure from the post of commander of KFOR, the international peacekeeping force in Kosovo".
  20. James C from Shenzhen, China writes: "ImaCANADIAN ! from Canada writes: In most of these 40 countries, the public has demanded action on Darfur, and has been against the war in Afghanistan (as Virginia Troy pointed out above), yet these supposedly-democratric leaders have repeatedly ignored their citizens. This is democracy?"

    ----------

    sudan and afghanistan are different scenarios. if you know anything about darfur, you'll know its at least as complicated as afghanistan with its own set of difficulties, including the obstructionism of the sudanese government, and the fact they have china as a major supporter.

    if the public in these countries you speak of are supporting military action in darfur right now, how long after the mission begins before those same people begin shouting "BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!!"?

    thats a rhetorical question..... NATO troops cant be everywhere, and jumping from one mission that some claim is doomed, to another mission that will likely suffer the same fate makes no sense whatsoever.
  21. James C from Shenzhen, China writes: "ImaCANADIAN ! from Canada writes: The 6-year US-led occupation of Afghanistan is what has allowed the ongoing genocide in Darfur to continue this long... In most of these 40 countries, the public has demanded action on Darfur, and has been against the war in Afghanistan (as Virginia Troy pointed out above), yet these supposedly-democratric leaders have repeatedly ignored their citizens. This is democracy?"

    ---------

    here's only one reason why the darfur mission is in trouble:

    "He (ban ki-moon) acknowledged that Sudan's reluctance to accept contributions from outside Africa may be deterring governments from pledging help. The joint force is to takeover from a beleaguered 7,000-member African Union mission. But Sudan has yet to approve a list of contributing countries despite concessions to its demands that the force be predominantly African." source: CNN

    imacanadian, before you go flying off the handle blaming the US and NATO for darfur, research your position beforehand.
  22. One Eye Open from calgary, Canada writes: This isn't worthy of being called "News", since it isn't "new". However, I suspect the French will not send their troops to where they might actually have a chance of incurring a casualty. Previous articles have indicated they plan to send them to Eastern Afghanistan, not the deadly South.

    They want to bolster american ranks (whom they loathe), so the americans can free up troops to come help us.
  23. Raymond Durrani from Ajax, Canada writes: Khalid Rahim: Your conclusion of the French offer is not the modern worlds conclusion. This kind of philosophy, come from piratical sons. Those are the people who don't realize how good they have until they starve. First of all, neither you are from the ones getting the help nor from the ones giving help, so why not correct your assumptions and thinking in particular. You sounds like someone called Sayed Abbas, from Brampton, I hear. All he does is talks about Pakistan and Isalam- especially, how they defeated Christianity and got every inch of land back from the occupying western societies. That is all he brags about - Islam - I wondered about his level of intellegence. In here, a country - prospered, self sufficiant and has history of helping others and you are questioning their ability to help. Listen to me, please. Beggers usually, don't have choices. I would suggest that you take few lessions from the Afghans - they invited the Nato legion to help them save from the Talibans and to live, and here you are, sitting in Canada having comfortable life suggesting, what they should get from the world or from France for that matter. Get real, please. Please, if you can not help the ones in need, stay out of it and stop questioning the integrity of others - in this case integrity of the French people of France.
  24. Sam Ruisser from Richmond BC, Canada writes: I never thought I would say this, but
    "Vive La France"
  25. Georges Dordor from Canada writes: Again, and again it is badmouthing time for anything that the french are doing, nothing new . Let's not forget a major thing is that Sarkosy was elected with more than 50% of the votes, can you remind me where Harper was ,between 30 and 36%. I am far from a supporter of Sarkosy but it seems for some peoples Sarkosy or the french (in Quebec or anywhere they would be in the world ) can only do totally wrong. Am I really living in Canada, the best country in the world.????????????????
  26. Carbon Blob from Sector 7G, Canada writes: James C from Shenzhen, China writes: "btw, afghanistan is not "training," its the real thing."

    Well no kidding. I'm VERY aware of the sacrifices by our military (my younger brother has already done one tour and is due back in a couple of months). 80 deaths and many more injuries is sort of a clue to that.

    I firmly believe that one key reason that Canada is there is to "exercise" our military (and of course the fact that many in the military were gung-ho not to miss out on some action, having missed out on the ground in Iraq twice). Militaries are never really sure of their capabilities until they have been tested in battle. Canada has learned many hard lessons about logistics, equipment, and training. Afghanistan will NEVER be pacified. Just read their history. Canada has been there long enough. It is time to pull back and act on the lessons learned.

    Unless of course you propose conscription and an all out war by Canada and NATO against the Afghanis (as per WWII), what the heck are we expecting to accomplish?
  27. Khalid Rahim from scarborough, Canada writes: Raymond Durrani, I am a Pakhtun same as the Taliban are; But I went to a convent along with Aftab Sherpao a former Minister in the last government of Pakistan. The other Pakhtuns who studied in the same school are Asfandyar Wali Khan Head of ANP and Alamgir Khan of PPP. The majority of us did not agree with US war of proxy in 80s. At the same time we refused to recognize the dogma of the Taliban. We want the West to help separate those Pashtuns from the grip of
    Al Qaida who are responsible in turning them into militants. This can't
    be done with guns and force, but continous dialogue through Jirga that we fully understand and can successfully apply. As long as the Western Governments do not create a negative situation to uphold their own vested interest.
  28. Frank The Tank from Argentina writes: The French ...Fighting???!! LMAO

    I'm sure they'll be equipped with standard issue diapers......along with their drop proof rifles.
  29. Ragnar Smurfslayer from Canada writes: What you pinkos don't understand is that it takes guts to get things done in the world. The Russions didn't have it. The British Empire didn't have it. Alexander the Great didn't have it.

    But if NATO just sticks in there, finally Afghanistan will get beaten into shape! It's time to educate the women. Rebuild those Buddhas! That'll teach 'em eh! Ha. Take that TaLIBans!
  30. Eris Korenyx from Canada writes: Afghanistan is not our responsibility. We shouldn't spend any of our blood or wealth in solving its problems.

    Support the Troops!
    Bring them Home!
  31. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: I'm a little puzzled by your posting skenderbeg beggar. I was referring to our dubious ability to really control events in A'stan insofar as establishing an effective government is concerned, while you seem to be saying (I think) that we need to be there to stop the drug trade, which by all accounts has mushroomed since the west moved in. So what exactly is it I'm wrong about?
  32. James C from Shenzhen, China writes: "Carbon Blob from Sector 7G, Canada writes: James C from Shenzhen, China writes: "btw, afghanistan is not "training," its the real thing."

    Well no kidding. I'm VERY aware of the sacrifices by our military (my younger brother has already done one tour and is due back in a couple of months). 80 deaths and many more injuries is sort of a clue to that."

    ----------

    i'm also aware of the facts. i spent 18 months in the former yugoslavia and i take exception to combat missions being referred to as "training." on the other hand, thanks for the rest of your post.
  33. James C from Shenzhen, China writes: "Carbon Blob from Sector 7G, Canada writes: James C from Shenzhen, China writes: "btw, afghanistan is not "training," its the real thing."

    I firmly believe that one key reason that Canada is there is to "exercise" our military (and of course the fact that many in the military were gung-ho not to miss out on some action, having missed out on the ground in Iraq twice"

    ----------

    btw, i dont know who you've been talking to in the military, but at least when i was there (late 80s and 90s) soldiers werent lining up to be away from home for 6-12 months every two or three years, much less to be in a position to kill or be killed.
  34. Rachael .... commenting from .. Hollywood North, Canada writes: From the article:

    “Who better than its closest, sincerest friends to remind the U.S. of its responsibilities?” he said.

    Earlier, Mr. Sarkozy stressed his admiration for what he called British strength and dynamism, calling for “a new Franco-British brotherhood

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

    Wow, Mr Bush will be declaring a new Axis of Evil Slayer Coalition soon. Who knew French Toast will be the toast of town in Washington so soon after all the French Fries renamed to Freedom Fries.
  35. Paul Wallnutz from Ontario, Canada writes: James C from Shenzhen, China: I agree with you that the use of the word training by Carbon bob was not the best choice of words. I do however agree with the notion that many in the military were eager to join the fighting over there, especially at the higher ranks. I also agree with Carbon that the military has learned many useful lessons at the expense of too many Canadian lives. The army has now developed a core group of soldiers and officiers that have fought over there and who will be in the army for a generation. Afghanistan is a very big country full of people who don't want us there. A thousand French troops won't make a difference (and I'm not trying to slag the French army as so many fools above are trying to do in weak attempts at humour).
  36. James C from Shenzhen, China writes: paul, i would agree that canada has a core group of servicemen and servicewomen who have experienced combat. and a lot of lessons learned. depending on how you view this situation in afghanistan, you can view that as a result of canada exercising its responsibilities to NATO/international community, or you can view it as some of our military leaders wanting to test our equipment and training in a real combat situation. i lean towards the former.
  37. Gary Dare from Portland, Oregon, Canada, writes: One Eye Open writes, "Previous articles have indicated they plan to send them to Eastern Afghanistan, not the deadly South." Um, that would be on the Afghan-Pak border where France already has a couple hundred special forces troops in Operation Enduring Freedom, which is a pure combat mission against Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces that cross back and forth. Frank the Tank writes, "The French ...Fighting???!! LMAO" Besides the special forces in Operation Enduring Freedom, the French also rotate their aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle for CAP and French Mirage 2000 fighters escort USAF F-15's carrying bunker busters out of Kyrghystan. Please get your information from someone other than Homer Simpson.
  38. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: The most sensible course of action for the French is to take over a few districts bordering Pakistan in one province in the east, probably Nangarhar or Kunar. They'll be able to employ their light infantry in the mountains (where they will not need as many French-Pashtu interpreters as they might in Kandahar city), work in concert with their SOF, not require a large fleet of armored vehicles, be able to base out of the Jalalabad airfield and be fairly close to the rest of the French forces in Kabul. For the French to go to Kandahar would be foolish.
  39. Gerry Pankhurst from westport ontario, Canada writes: Cue Corderre: Now is the time to announce this has been a "done deal" for a long time. Some may forget you have already said that.
  40. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Go Pats Go!
  41. mark bowden from Canada writes: oh, isn't that just wonderful! the press are rolling around like a pack of dogs rolling in fresh horsey pucks! sarkozy and his glamorous pig wife chatting with the queen while all the cameras are pointed at his wife and her thong outfit. sarkozy is the saviour of the western world.
    a tank, 3 jeeps and 50 fresh combat troops! huzzah, the war in afghanistan is over!
    our canadian troops, 2500 strong slog on. no cheering crowds in london, and washington winks. we love our guys, let's get 'em home.
  42. Krakatoa East of Java from Canada writes: if the french don't ante up we can send in Jonathan Roy!
  43. Inga Himeson from Pineville, Canada writes:
    Mr. Sarkozy said: ''..... sending more French troops would depend on NATO guarantees that Afghans would be given more responsibility, and that non-military efforts would be better co-ordinated....''

    Under the non-military efforts be sure to teach Agrarians how to make the world renowned Freedom Fries.
  44. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: A thousand troops is a token force designed only for political cover. It's amazing how naive many of the posters are.... The The BBC has Afghan Education Minister Mohammad Hanif Atmar calling for the Afghanization of security there. He says that sending more NATO troop is the wrong thing to do and that Afghan forces can defeat the Taliban in 5 years instead of the 15 that NATO forces estimate. He says that NATO forces cost ten times more than Afghan forces and that the extra money could go to development. He said it was smarter to work with the tribes and give them the power to defend themselves.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7313823.stm
  45. mark bowden from Canada writes: anyone read the nytimes today on the 22 yr. old "arms merchant" shipping millions of dollars of obsolete arms and ammunition to afghanistan? i betchya most of you dotards don't care a fig. post away. don't think of the incredible, stunning corruption and greed involved, just think of those brave little canadians doing their duty. flags, bugles and war. let's drink to those splendid dead.
  46. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: mark bowden, Thanks for pointing to that. The article made me laugh, although I know I shouldn't. On the surface the west waves the flag and makes speeches about Afghans yearning for a better life and freedom, while in the background we're stealing everything we can at their expense.
  47. mark bowden from Canada writes: udom thongpai, thanks for noticing. so often you post something and it's soon lost among all the numbing rhetoric.
    it's almost: 1. smoking causes lung cancer. 2. my dad smoked all his life and, blah, blah ... 6. i think marlboros had the best ads. remember the guy on the horse? well he was..... blah, blah.
    it seems every post that even "grazes" on politics is soon lost.
    and so it goes.
  48. J Lee from North Vancouver, Canada writes: O how wonderful. Now Stevie and his chums can claim that the 1000 extra have been achieved. More adventures, bravery and stories about our boys fighting to keep us secure, build schools for little girls and rid the world of the baddies. And to top it all off he probably saved NATO to fight again in future battles. But let's not mention the soldiers who are already dead, mangled, maimed, or dismembered or the ones who will yet end up dead, mangled, maimed, or dismembered. And how we say we support them but don't. And let's not talk about the reason we are in Afghansitan, even if there is a reason which there isn't. And let't not talk about the alternatives if we don't fight there. And since it doesn't affect our daily lives here in Canada let's all just be happy. But someday like all previous foreign forces in Afghanistan the future will smack us hard. As the Taliban commander says, " we'll get you one by one by one till you leave our land."
  49. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: mark bowden from Canada writes: "anyone read the nytimes today on the 22 yr. old "arms merchant" shipping millions of dollars of obsolete arms and ammunition to afghanistan? i betchya most of you dotards don't care a fig. post away. don't think of the incredible, stunning corruption and greed involved, just think of those brave little canadians doing their duty. flags, bugles and war. let's drink to those splendid dead." ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Bowden, if this story is true (and I have no reason to think its not) - then it is just part and parcel of what always takes place in a war. Any war. Nazi's benefitted by stealing highly coveted works of art from the Dutch, French and Spanish. The entire fortunes of thousands of Jews were stolen and placed in Swiss banks, to be utilized after the war. Again, by the Nazi's. Family goods were taken by British citizens during and after the bombing of London. And the list goes on. Contractors, developers, all manner of government agencies, arms dealers and manufacturers, the steel industry, iron works, fabric and clothing manufacturers, etc., all tend to benefit greatly whenever a war is waged. Nothing new there. People have always tried to make an additional buck during a war in order to sell 'something' to 'someone' who needs 'something.' It's called, "commerce." Welcome to the 'real world,' Mark.
  50. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: When Mark & Udom are done congratulating each other for their intellectual blogging prowess, perhaps they could read the article about the many refugees (read displaced persons) who have returned to A-stan. Omnly a few comments on that space, perhaps they could fill it up a bit with their pithy thoughts on why the refugees are returning.
  51. mark bowden from Canada writes: combative american - i must say your logic is a trifle twisted. if napoleon burned down moscow then it's o.k. for japan to attack pearl harbor. if hitler stuck millions into concentration camps then it's o.k. to napalm a crowd at a hockey rink. i see now. if someone did something really crooked then i can do it too. if i don't do it and i don't support it i'm not doing as others have done. reality is lost on me.
    why are you posting? you could be busy selling phony drugs to old folks homes.
  52. Ted Andrews from Canada writes:
    TROOPS OUT NOW!
  53. mark bowden from Canada writes: ucanthaveitall - where did i say anything about refugees returning to afghanistan? if they are and all is well, i have nothing more to say about it but to thank the u.n. and admit i was wrong. i'm relieved and look forward to our troops coming home. this is great news!
    thank you. for once i'm very happy to be wrong.
  54. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: J Lee from North Vancouver, Canada writes: "..let's not mention the soldiers who are already dead, mangled, maimed, or dismembered or the ones who will yet end up dead, mangled, maimed, or dismembered. And how we say we support them but don't. And since it doesn't affect our daily lives here in Canada let's all just be happy. But someday like all previous foreign forces in Afghanistan the future will smack us hard. As the Taliban commander says, " we'll get you one by one by one till you leave our land." ------------------------------------------------------------ From what I've seen or been privy to, nowhere has the coverage of our casualties been more complete than it has in our media. It is a daily occurrence to see every facet of this war put in front of us constantly. So much so, that were a Canadian soldier to suffer a mosquito bite in Afghanistan, the Canadian press would cover it with such a biased lean that one would swear that by the end of the story, he'd be near death as a result. Not sure what you're getting at? On the other hand, when it comes to Afghanistan and the Taliban commanders there, I think you give them much too much credit and power. True, prior to our invasion, they had rarely been conquered. But that was before the advent of a whole cast of new weaponry advanced through 21st century technology. Were I a betting man, I would not want to bet against our chances there. Even Muhammad Ali lost once he got into the ring. And he too was considered by friend and foe alike, as "unbeatable."
  55. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Dear J Lee - you wrote "But someday like all previous foreign forces in Afghanistan the future will smack us hard. As the Taliban commander says, " we'll get you one by one by one till you leave our land." I would suggest that unlike previous forces, (Brits, Soviets,other mujahadeen), NATO has won and won quickly. Superior training, superior equipment, superior firepower has removed any conventional hope for the t-ban. Secondly it isn't about battle, the reconstruction, aid and $$ are coming into a safer, more secure environment. And lastly Canada is playing a major role. Be proud, its our first time in the Stan and frankly we rock at all aspects - killing the t-ban, training the Afghan army & police, advising the fledgling governement, and bringing style and panache to an otherwise dreary battlefield..
  56. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Ted - I admire your brevity! Watch your heart though.
  57. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: mark bowden from Canada writes: "combative american - i must say your logic is a trifle twisted. if someone did something really crooked then i can do it too. if i don't do it and i don't support it i'm not doing as others have done. reality is lost on me."

    You've taken what I said, wrong. I'm not saying that it is alright to do what others have done during a time of war - I'm simply saying that "wartime commerce" is as old as the human race. Not right. Not necessarily wrong. It just "is."

    It is never right to steal from someone, or to take things that are not rightfully yours. On the other hand, it isn't wrong to be involved in a venture that just happens to be aligned with a war (ammo, guns, tanks, planes, uniforms, etc.) and to then make a profit off of the commercial trade it invokes.
  58. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Dear Mark - don't thank the UN too much. The UN is too busy trying to find its A$$ with both hands over DARFUR, etc. Let's face it NATO gets the lionshare of credit.
  59. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Commerce - agreed. I like the way the locals pound artillery shells into decorative bowls.
  60. mark bowden from Canada writes: where would i find that article on mosquito bites, canadian soldier.
    i'm very sure we're dealing with an incredible liar, but an easily discredited one. by the way, i'm actually a complacent russian from kazakhstan. i leave that for you to spend some of your useless life scratching on. wherever you're from - return!
    (kinda have the feeling he's orville from chilliwack).
  61. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Mark - Do you know Borat ??- VERY NICE.
  62. mark bowden from Canada writes: this is the last. the ammunition was 1960's chinese ammo that is not useable. it is stealing money. it's about crookedness. try reading the article in the nytimes.

    ttfg.
  63. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: mark bowden from Canada writes: "where would i find that article on mosquito bites, canadian soldier.
    i'm very sure we're dealing with an incredible liar, but an easily discredited one. by the way, i'm actually a complacent russian from kazakhstan. i leave that for you to spend some of your useless life scratching on. wherever you're from - return!
    (kinda have the feeling he's orville from chilliwack)."

    Was that meant to be a comprehensible response to what I wrote, or perhaps a collection of some of your more disparate thoughts?

    I give up.
  64. rob tremblay from ottawa, Canada writes: Everyone should check out the interviews with the 20 taliban members done on this site. Very informative. Also, to some of you who think that afghanistan can be won, think again, USA have tried in the past, so have the soviets. The taliban consist of muslim natives of afghanistan who simply dont agree with non-muslim intervention in their country. The more troops we send the more we fuel the fire. The more we fight "terrorism" the more we create it. Im not saying i agree with muslim extremists who have taken things too far, or am not siding with the bush doctrine, all im saying is we need Afghans to understand what it is we are trying to do there before we will have any affect. As of now, one of the only understandings is that these native afghans see non-mulsim military forces occupying their land. We need to pull out, and re-think a NATO mission for stability. NATO stability is not reliant on the stability of afghanistan. Our precense and that of other countries in Afghanistan is causing larger conflicts in neighbouring states; pakistan, iran, iraq. There needs to be a cool down period, because right now we are only contributing to terrorist generations to come.
  65. Journey Man from Canada writes: rob tremblay from ottawa: Good post!
  66. Udom Thongpai from Victoria, Canada writes: UCant Haveitall, In the past many thousands of refugees came back because they were Northern Alliance people and comparatively westernized. The ones in the article have for the most part been forced across the border by the Pakistanis and the Iranians. The Iranians did this at gunpoint partly to choke off a growing insurgency on their territory and also to control smuggling. They didn't allow the Afghans to bring their belongings. Pakistan closed the camps closest to the border due to security concerns with the cynical connivance of the UNHCR. In both cases most of the people had managed to create new lives for themselves in the camps, and lost everything by being chucked out.

    "SOURCE: AFGHAN CONFLICT MONITOR, UNHCR, CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE IN DISASTER MANAGEMENT" But only a few refugees have anything to say, and surprise, they think the people who are giving them money are wonderful.

    I've been talking about refugees for over a year, and giving links to articles about them. I think this is the first refugee story I've seen in a Canadian paper and it's pretty weak. Tens of thousands of refugees have just spent the winter in tents starving. Canada has done NOTHING to help.... When you boast about what a good deal they're getting you're heartlessly using suffering people for minor political gain.

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top