"Until we are able to wrestle the War Lords and the Fanatics who believe that their religion and way of living is the only one"

Other than the war lords part, sounds like many religions I know and it seems to be getting worse.

I am not sure why we feel it is acceptable to drop humanitarian missions into some of the less well off countries in the world and begin selling them conversion to some form or christianity, not much different than was done with those who populated this soil when European settlers found their way here.

If I were born into their society, I am sure I would be ticked off as well.

Nothing is going to be achieved by force. In our time it was not achieved in Jugoslavia, it was not achieved in Korea, it was not achieved in VietNam, it was not achieved in Iraq, it was not achieved in Iran, and it was not achieved in Israel, to name but a few that are relatively well known in the "West".

In the meantime, Cuba sits there nice and quiet going about its business and does not seem to bother too many other than the USA.

So, over that same time period, where are the success stories of where a way of life was changed through force from the West so that the "West" feels relatively at ease with it?

I cannot see us changing our way of life in a revolutionary way. I think we have at least that much in common with others who share the planet in that they would not make such changes either.

With respect to Layton raising an issue of international policy as public debate while we have troops in a UN mission, that is the nature of our democracy. It is essential we keep having such a debate while monitoring what is happening and how effective the tactics are.

I would rather such debate occurs in public than in closed session of Cabinet. I can't see there being any great secrets of war which may be released. We are not giving "comfort to the enemy" by having such a debate in public. This is not the early 1900's. Communication is open and accessible to anyone who speaks the language and has access to the media.

In my mind, by debting the issue, we are showing concern for our troops and citizens. We are showing that the decision to put them in harm's way is one which is not taken lightly and is open for continuous debate and reassessment as things change. We are no longer a Society that conscripts hundreds of thousands only to have some general feed them continuously and insanely as fodder to the machine guns on the other side of the trenches. I believe we have become a much more civil society and personally, I like it that way.

I am sure that if Denmark were to bomb the key cities in the Maritimes over the Hans Island dispute, that even Mr. Layton would join forces with the other Parties and call for retaliatory air strikes against Copenhagen.

;-)

Keep in the front of your mind that Canadians have not endorsed our country’s current level of militaristic activity in Afghanistan. In fact, all three opposition parties, not just Jack Layton, are demanding an opportunity to debate Harper’s turning of Canada’s involvement into a military as opposed to a peace keeping action. Canadians generally do not approve of trying to force other countries to live as we do.

It is surely obvious that one cannot force the Western view of democracy and freedom on other nations, no matter how many civilians are killed, no matter how many guns are fired, no matter how many bombs are dropped. In fact, attempting to compel freedom is an oxymoron, and rather more at the moronic end, at that.

Why is it presumed that the ideals of freedom and democracy derived from the Euro-Christian viewpoint are the only way that freedom and democracy can be expressed? Perhaps we should occasionally recall that civilisation began in what is now called the “Middle East”, and the people there have a greater experience with it than anywhere else on earth. Imposing our western opinions about how things should be done on peoples whose culture is radically different from our own, as many colonialising regimes have tried to do in the past, is doomed to failure once again.

If we truly support freedom and liberty, surely we would encourage people like Layton to express themselves on an important issue like this instead of using emotional comments about the soldiers and their families to deprive him of his liberty to speak out through some nebulous sense of shame.

Our mission in Afghanistan has turned from keeping the peace into one of forcing Afghanis to live in a manner they do not want. That is self evident, for otherwise they would not be not opposing us. It is not a question of loyalty to Canadian national interests. This is a question of letting a nation exercise freedom and choose its own destiny.

We should not be there, except to keep peace.

"The most shocking fact about war is that its victims and its instruments are individual human beings, and that these individual beings are condemned by the monstrous conventions of politics to murder or be murdered in quarrels not their own."
Aldous Huxley

Ammonra, I agree with your post. Google the following: Project For The New American Century.

Our government has only the support of 32% of Canadians for our warfare (not peacekeeping) engagement in Afghanistan.

Mr. Layton must be applauded for his stance on the issue. The "problem" must be solved by the Afghan people themselves, not by foreign invaders. It is their problem, not ours. We have enough problems of our own. We can continue to give them humanitarian aid and work at the United Nations on their behalf.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi

In this hysterical political atmosphere of "immminent threat" and pre-emptive warfare it is refreshing to see at least one political leader in this country stand up and take a firm stand against us simply falling in line with others who have their own agenda and which does not entirely agree with what Canadian values are all about.

Canada is NOT hell bent on dominating the world.

Thank God.

Well Ben you stuck out your neck and you got it chopped. It is nice to know that we still have inteligent people that care about our country.

The only reason why we would have terrorits attack our country is obvious. We have aligned ourselves with a nation that has decided theirs is the only way of life.

Cheers

Politics and religion... one size fits all, right?

That would appear to be the opinion of most and certainly of the Bush administration.

Here's an interesting perspective on each of politics and religion. I'd like to offer a specific example each.

Politics: The U.S., has a very limited view of values... their own values and a corresponding belief that their values are the only values to matter and they're prepared to break their values to ensure others adhere to them... hmmm, a bit of a paradox, eh.


Religion: Catholic Church, being the largest single religious denomination has their greatest support in the Third World and yet is funded primarily in the Developed World. Now this gives rise to great paradox again... trying to run an organization on values that do not alienate your largest constituency, while funding your endeavours by another constituency that has differing values... how will the Church ever come to grips with issues such as women priests, married priests, homosexuality, gender equality, etc., etc.

The following comes from a post–World War II interview between Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was allowed by the Allies to speak with Nazi POWs, and Hermann Goering, the Nazi Reichsmarshall. Their conversation took place on April 18, 1946, during a break in the Nuremberg trials, and was recounted in Gilbert's book, Nuremberg Diary:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

“Why, of course, the ‘people’ don't want war,” Goering shrugged. “Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”

“There is one difference,” I pointed out. “In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.”

“Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

The so called Democratic Government of Afganistan (Karzia) has a number of Warlords in it. These people were taken into the Government so that the Government wouldnt have to fight them, and they will also be able to cleanse themselves from their past.

The present Afganistan Government is serioulsly corrupt.

The productions of Poppies and the production of heroin for the year 2006 is the highest that it has ever been Poppy production accounts for something like 35 % of Afgan GNP.

The Canadian forces in Afganistan are fighting under NATO. This is not a peace keeping force but a combat force. The UN is Not, repeat Not involved in this fighting. We are fighting a war against the Taliban Government which was overthrown by the Americans for supporting Ben Ladin. How long will the Taliban and the people of Afganistan pay for this support.

Did not the Americans support Ben Ladin and others in Afganistan when they were fighting the Russians. Are we going to fight the Americans for their support of Ben Ladin. Have we forgotten that Ben Ladin is from Saudia Arabia, and that most of the people involved in 9/11 were Arabs from Saudia Arabia. Why is Saudia Arabia getting off scot free from this issue.

So I guess what we are saying is that we will send Canadian Soldiers to Afganistan to die in support of a corrupt Government, supported by Warlords, that is a major producer of Heroin, and while we are doing this we will say we are supporting a Democracy.

Oil from the Caspian Sea. Piplines through Afganistan to the Indian Ocean, support for our American Friends, and influence in that part of the Country might be closer to the real reasons why we are their.

These troops were sent to Afganistan by the Liberals, with the support of the Conservatives, and the NDP initially, and their mission has changed since the Conservatives have got elected.

It is very hard for us to make a case for our being their, however it will also be very hard now that Soldiers have died to make a case for getting out. This is the delima of the Americans in Irag. and it was the same in Vietnam. Once you get in, how do you get out.

Afgan history shows that they will never stop fighting.

It took Vietnam over 100 years to get rid of the Japanese, British, French, and Americans, however at the end of the day they did it., and are now being courted by the Americans to improve relations and trade.

If anyone is interested their are huge oil deposits off the Coast of Vietnam. HMMMMM.

Do you people really think that the coalition forces are on some empire building, colonial expansion?? The reason we are in Afganistan is that it is a major terrorist breeding ground. Now if they would just stick to blowing up there own people, the west would likely not be concerned. However, these fanatics attacked on American soil. This cowardly attack in the heart of the US changed the world forever. This isn't about competing views on wether democracy is good or bad. Its about going after an enemy whose sole purpose is to destroy you and your way of life.
Owl, "nothing can be achieved through force" is incredibly naive. What was WW2? The history of man is littered with change achieved through force

Democracy (one of many possible political systems) is a product of evolution; the people must really desire it after they have tried other systems.

George W. Bush seems to be convinced that it is an export commodity, like Coca Cola, McDonalds, Burger King, Adult Movie Rental shops, casinos and so forth.

In return he expects to get rewarded by the "grateful" recipient countries with oodles of free crude oil and a take-over of their banks and natural resources.

In Afghanistan Kabul and its immediate surroundings are a heavily guarded security zone. The rest of the country is run in the old fashioned manner of heroin fiefdoms run by warlords. The taliban (once supplied with Stinger missiles by the Americans) are back in full force, knowing that the US has its hands full in Iraq.

It is very dangerous to leave the security zone.

Retreat is often the wise and smart thing to do when one knows that victory is unlikely, if not impossible.

The Russians retreated when they realized that the Afghans will fight any foreign occupier for as long as it takes.

Ask the British about their experiences in Afghanistan and how many times they left in full retreat.

Strange, if our country Canada were to be invaded by foreigners who were determined to change our political system and grab our resources we would be compelled to rise up and drive them out.

Why is it that we are expecting the Middle Eastern countries to be a bunch of patsies and push-overs, especially after we have bombed their countries back into the 1920s and killed their women and children?

Any "peace" in Iraq or Afghanistan will be only temporary, at best.

What will the western powers do if the Iraqi people choose another dictator after most of the American troops have left? Will it mean another "shock and awe" and another 100,000 civilian dead in collateral damage?

The warmongering has to stop. Let other countries determine their own destiny, whatever it may be.

Layton expresses only what 68% of Canadians are thinking in respect to pre-emptive warfare.

According to the information I am aware of, Mr. Dow7500, 19 of the 21 terrorists who flew airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon were from Saudi Arabia. These were the fanatics that attacked on American soil, as you put it.

I did not see any American attack on Saudi Arabia, obviously a breeding ground of terrorists and the home country of Osama Bin Laden who drove the Russians out of Afghanistan with American supplied weapons, especially Stinger ground-to-air missiles.

However, Saudi Arabia does NOT have a democratic government and most Saudis object to the presence of American military bases in their country - to no avail, of course.

American foreign policy is a total disaster and it has been ever since the end of WWII, the last war that had some justification with the rise of fascism in Germany, Italy, Spain, the USSR and Japan's imperialistic ambitions.

Canada's security will not be improved by our present policy in Afghanistan - it will only deteriorate.

What resources are we after in Afganistan?

" oddles of free crude oil and a take over of their banks and natural resources"

Wow, now thats a statement. Sounds like diplomat is on his way to the NDP policy convention with the rest of the looney left. The war in Afganistan is really only a front, and the real ambition is to dominate the Afgani banking system.

Good one. What other conspiricy theories have you got for us?

Sounds a bit like "SHOOT EM ALL AND LET GOD SORT THEM OUT"???
Soldiers are not happy about being there for the most part...At least not the ones I have talked too. They could never say that out loud for fear of military reprisals...and those reprisals are like nothing any civilian jail ever seen.
By the by....capital punishment is still allowed within the military.
I think the biggest issue could be that Canada used to be peacekeepers and are now thrust into the role of warriors. Right or wrong we will all have our thoughts on this.... I feel we should be peacekeepers. Protect our country by all means but to follow in the footsteps of others because we want to be popular with our neighbor to the south I am not so sure has been the prudent thing to do. Come election time I suppose we shall see.

What a pity. This was a very good debate about some very serious issues, then dow7500 has to bring it down and ruin it by attacking a group who have a different opinion from him. So much for free speech.

Thanks, Ammonra! Nobody should take semi-illiterate postings like the ones from Sir/Madam dow7500 seriously! He/she doesn't even now how to spell Afghanistan and probably wouldn't be able to find it on a map in less than five minutes!

Heehee!

"'nothing can be achieved through force' is incredibly naive."

What is incredibly naive is for anyone to misquote someone. If you go back to my words, they were: "Nothing is going to be achieved by force" and those words were written in the context of today's areas of strife, as well as the ones which I mentioned. To apply those words to the entire spectrum of human strife and wars is a mistake on the reader's part.

The context is the cause of the fighting going on. The root cause and the nature is quite different from the nature of the fighting in WW2. WW2 was still a "traditional" one nation against another, primarily for aquiring "land" or re-aquiring land which had been removed, in addition to fighting communism. The latter was one of the reasons the USA did not enter the battle till they were attacked. Many people conveniently forget that.

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

"The history of man is littered with change achieved through force"

No doubt it is. What you fail to mention is whether the change is for the improvement of the lot of people on this earth. The major "improvement" I can see, to be crass about it, is that it may help to keep the population of the world in check a little bit.

Look at the change brought about through the force of the Roman Legions. An empire which lasted the thousand years that Hitler and his cronies thought they could achieve as well. The Roman Empire collapsed and virtually their entire technological wonders disappeared with it. They did not call the ensuing 1,000 years the dark ages or stagnation for nothing.

That can be considered an argument for applying military force, if one is on the side of that force which will be the dominant one. Military force certainly provides a level of stability. To consider that stability as sustainable forever is a mistake many people make.

But then, very few people really concern themselves with sustainable peace, or sustainable anything other than the sustainability of their lifestyle while they inhabit this earth.

So, humanity is likely destined to continue thinking that stability is achievable through military force and acting accordingly.

Combat situation not popular and totally unnecessary . . .

>"WW2 was still a "traditional" one nation against another, primarily for aquiring "land" or re-aquiring land which had been removed, in addition to fighting communism."<

Far from it. The Allies joined forces with Stalin's marxist communist regime and America supported it with billions of dollars worth of military equipment.

The re-aquiring of land had to do with the arbitrary decisions made by the victorious powers after WW1.

Some of them had the most disastrous consequences, as we all know/or should know.

If only they had limits on clase size when I was in school, I'd see the world like diplomat and ammonra.

Dow7500. Use your head for something besides a hat rack. Do you really beleive that the Russians fought to take over Afganistan for 10 years so that they could be the proud owners of a rock pile.

Do you beleive that the American CIA would invest 3 billion dollars in support and training of Osama Ben Ladin and others of his ilk so that they could fight the Russians and eventually force them out of Afganistan for no reason.

This whole Afganistan situation is because of the Oil and Gas in the Caspian Sea area, and the pipelines that have been or wiil be built to get this gas to market, without going through the Soviet Union.This oil/gas/pipelines will be owned and operated by large International or American Oil Companies.

Use your search engine and put Afganistan Oil Pipelines, or Caspian Sea Oil Pipelines, and you may get a better idea as to why all these Countries Canada included are in Afganistan, it certainly is not for the Heroin, or Democracy.

The Governments of the day are counting on you and others like you who accept the propaganda that is put out there without investigating it.

zing..got me now. I'ts all a Caspian sea conspiracy. Whose basement are you in?

dow7500,read Diplomats post on Hermann Goering again.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

In April 1946 Hermann Goering was interviewed and uttered the opinion that wars are a fabrication by the leaders and that the people really don't want war, anywhere.

In October 1946 he was sentenced to death by hanging. He cheated the hangman by committing suicide with a cyanide capsule which someone had smuggled into his jail cell.

A fitting end for a warmonger.

Diplomat. Your post on Goering is correct, however you failed to mention what he said before he bit the cyanide pill. ** The victors will always be the judges** Which is to say, it doesnt matter if you are right or wrong if you win you win. Not all the Nazis and SS were tried at Nueremburg, a lot were smuggled into South America, and into the USA and Russia because they were useful to these Countries. A lot of the American propaganda used by the Western Democracys to-day, and especially by the Americans were derived from the writings of Joesph Goebbles, whose propaganda machine was very effective.

Its almost impossible to get people to look deeply into a situation, or try to research it because it is just to much trouble for them. They would sooner drink beer, watch TV, eat a hot dog, and read the funny papers. These people are referred to by some as ** Joe Sixpack**

As an example the American Senate revealed again to-day through various intelligence reports etc;, that Saddam Hussein had no connection with Al Queida, and in fact seen them as a threat to his Government. Even with this evidence over 50% of the American people (and I suspect a similiar amount of Canadians) still beleive there was a connection.


An old quote.

**The one thing that is a bar against all learning and will keep you in everlasting ignorance in comtempt prior to investigation**

I am sure that you will agree with me that a number of postings have very little or no investigation. A lot of shooting from the *Lip*

Yes, Palopu, you are correct. It is a fact of life that the uninformed and indoctrinated have the same vote at election time as the well-informed and concerned voters.

Here is a recent quote from an American political analyst:

"The president, I believe, is desperate to be what he knows he is not – a great man. He has fantasized that he is a second Winston Churchill leading the forces of democracy in a great crusade against the forces of darkness. The only trouble is, there is nobody out there in the dark.

Sure, bin Laden and his small band of followers hate our guts. So what? They are half a drop in the bucket of 6 billion people. Bush has so distorted his view of reality, he does not seem to realize that most of our "allies" in the Middle East are dictators, and the people he calls terrorists – Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah –
participated in free elections.

Even his so-called war on terror is phony. You can't wage a war against a tactic. Most of the groups he labels as terrorists are local groups with local grievances and don't think twice about us.

We should remember the warning of Ayn Rand: ""We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.""

Nothing like an editorial that is not anti-American to bring out the left-wing loonies with their anti-U.S. conspiracy theories. No wonder this province went in the dumper when the psuedo academics, unions and N.D.P.were in control.
Fortunately, we can now see how looney the left is by simply watching the N.D.P.whack job convention.

Jack bin Layton is soooo far left he is falling over. I can now confirm that the federal N.D.P. is headed fer oblivion, if and when we ever get another election. Leftist rantings that denote insanity and the Green party taking away votes oughto put Jack and his lefties hanging out to dry. Here's hoping.

Maybe we should go to the far right and see if we can get George Bush to come to Canada and run for Prime Minister. Oops I forgot he has a criminal record for DUI so he is not allowed into the Country except on a permit. On the other hand he is a Born Again Christian who thinks he is right in every thing he says, so maybe he can get the Churches in the US and Canada to get him into the Country. Last but not least he disappeared for 5 or 6 months during the Vietnam War when he was supposed to be in South Carolina and couldnt be found anywhere. He avoided going to Vietnam by the influence of the Father, so maybe we could allow him into the Country as a possible draft dodger. We seem to like accepting those people into Canada. (Is that a leftest thing)

In any event he is a good example of going to far to the right which is just as bad as going to far to the left.

It will be a great day in the morning when Bush finishes his term and disappears into the sunset.