4
Which rule of law do we want to restore? ...Read the full article
This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?
- Post a comment
- Skip to the latest comment
-
Mark Stock from Canada writes: I appreciate you writing this article. In response to your question "Hasn't the time come for us to end the bleeding of our soldiers in a conflict in which our vital interests are not at stake and the side on which we are fighting upholds values that are remote from our own?", I think that the time has come to get the Canadian military out of Afghanistan. Like the majority of Canadians, I did not support this so-called mission. I believe that if we Canadians were able to look more into the rationale for the Canadian government's war, we might find criminal intentions.
Involvement of Canada in this conflict was started by Paul Martin and continued by Stephen Harper. I remember Paul Martin repeating what I would call a corporatist mantra on TV before he took over from Jean Chretian. In justification of the events of 9/11, I believe Martin mentioned trying to sustain conflict and war well into this century. Disregarding that George W. Bush was appointed president in 2001 even though Al Gore got more votes and disregarding that a few people from the United States threatened to bomb Afghanistan into oblivion in the Spring of 2001, I have a question: How many buildings collapsed on September 11, 2001, in New York?- Posted 12/08/08 at 10:41 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
Q: What was the mission again ?
A: Oh yes ........... to train an Afghan army.
Q: Why are Canadian troops still there.
A: Because the Afghan army trained in 2003 and 2003 does not want to take orders from Bush and his puppets.- Posted 21/08/08 at 5:26 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
Harper and Canadian troops are too quick to take orders from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kristol, Wolfowitz, etc- Posted 21/08/08 at 5:30 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Neal Attfield from United States writes: To claim that confronting this insurgency isn't in Canada's national interest takes an inventive construction of the facts Prof. Laxer. The Taliban are avowed enemies of Canadian values, and are actively working to destabilize neighboring nuclear armed Pakistan. This is, and should be a central concern of our foreign policy.
That this war is not being fought effectively is a valid complaint, and the Government's attempts to gloss over these difficulties doesn't serve our national interests well. However, it does not follow that the fight is not a worthy one.
These arguments serve reflexive anti-americanism, not the informed and honest discussion of this issue that our men and women in uniform deserve.- Posted 29/08/08 at 2:54 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
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.
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.
