- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
Well, what do you do when people shoot at your troops and kidnap Canadaians who try to help the population get back on their feet? It's a thin line between peace keeping and something more agressive, but if the Al Quada types think you will not fight back, they'll do as they please. Since we didn't go there to just turn around and pull out, we have to stand our ground. If that's the same act as the Americans are into, so be it, unless somebody has figered out how to keep the peace by waving an olive branch.
What exactly does Richter stand for?
It is not clear.
She is clearly pandering to the Downtown Eastside anti-war crowd here, for what reason, who knows?
Perhaps she supports the Taliban's position that girls ought not to be able to go to school.
Certainly Islamic extremists, the sort of people who executed a school teacher in Kandahar because he dared to teach girls, will take comfort from Richter's navel gazing here.
Its probably better that we retreat behind our own borders, and let the misogynists terrorize young women. I think that's the argument Richter is making here.
I think richter should move to the downtown eastside she belong there Good riddance of a grandstander
Pundit, how many more oppressive nations to women's rights are on your list for us to militarily enlighten after Afghanistan? I also am concerned with our change in our military direction as pointed out by Kim Richter.
As a follow-up to hers, I have also posted this column on our military role,
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/
2...fghanistan.html
In keepin with your thoughts, perhaps countries like Saudi Arabia and countless more should also be forced to change their oppressive ways and become democratized and westernized! Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated!
Seriously though, your arguments on oppression of women's rights specifically are noble(your comments rarely have noble intentions!) and this editor for one certainly agrees with your concerns. But I question the means to change them and indeed question justifing our continued military action to forcibly change their values and customs. Is it realistic and will military intervention sustain changes permanently or simply exacerbate the problems? Are there better options and ways especially by Canada to change basic human rights in oppressive countries?
In that case LFP you're suggesting that the use of troops for peace keeping is incorrect?
Methinks, do you think we are Peackeeping in Afghanistan or in a security/combat role. That is all I am saying. And perhaps that is what Richter is saying too. I believe its the latter. The question is should we be doing the latter. What will be the impact by doing so?
When you think of it LFP, you can't do one without the other, or at least the threat of the other. Why not send them unarmed otherwise? Better to not send them at all seems to be where this would lead the discussion.
Commenting by HaloScan
