- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
It's maybe a touch of wishful thinking, but perhaps the USA will begin to back out of Iraq soon, and get back to the job of cleaning out the Taliban. Afghanistan is the source of the terrorist war on Western Nations and culture, and the US should never have been distracted. Canada and other "Peace keepers" could use the help right now.
Better yet methinks, why not the Americans get the heck out of everywhere. As one of the Democrats were saying, there is enough problems in their own backyard to spend money on and keep them busy for the next century rather than going out stirring up more trouble and spending billions on war.
Heck, they won't even entertain giving their less fortunate a medical plan yet they'd blow the wad on a fence across Canada....but I forgot, we're wicked and a possible threat so they must be diligent.
The War and the economy scuppered Bush's Conservatives. The Afghan war and the cost of it plus the Mis-Trust financial losses will most likely do trhe same to Harper's Conservatives.
Some folks just can't seem to remember who declared war on who, or was the 9/11 event just an accident?
The taliban and Al Queda are a cancer no less, and if any of you don't think it will spread, you better think again. Iraq is a horse of another colour though and has been a costly distraction as well.
Just a reminder, that the original Afghanistan invasion was authorized by the UN and the current work in country is under the control of NATO.
As for the $6 million tanks, I'm not sure what the cost of the tanks has to do with anything. The tanks were purchased years ago as part of our NATO commitment in Europe. They were paid for a long time ago so their cost now seems pretty irrelevant to any discussion of the war in Afghanistan.
Blair, don't you think the Afghanistan war against so-called insurgents is escalating far to much that we have to put tanks on the ground now. Keep in mind our Government is spending over a billion of our tax dollars annully in this war which now calls for deployment of expensive tanks too!
Tanks in Afghanistan are in my mind going to be used for defensive protection only. Lets face it we are just hunkering down! Not what they are generally used for which is agrresive moving attack against another mechanized army primarily. I remind you the russians had their big tanks in Afghanistan as well and we saw plenty of pictures of these burned out hulks.
If this is the case reconstruction would seem to be a distant dream at this point. How do you capture the hearts and minds of an Afghan people who probably at minumum arn't sure which side they should back at this point. I would suggest to you we may have lost them if we are mainly defending and attacking with no confidence or indeed any focus on reconstruction strategies that I see by our government. In fact many if not most humanitarian groups have also left Afghanistan due to the ever increasing confidence, aggresiveness and support for the Taliban.
I still say lets try to broker a best deal peace agreement with the Taliban and try to get them to moderate their views. Rome is not built in a day. Compromise has a better chance of succeeding.
LFP,
Most of the recent Canadian deaths/injuries have been during protection activities on the new highway. A highway that the Taliban desperately don't want to see built as any transportation system enhances communication which hurts them. The tanks can and will serve in a protective role during the road building. They can easily withstand the rockets and roadside bombs that are killing our soldiers currently forced to protect the road builders in armored vehicles that were designed to withstand such attacks only from the front quarters.
As for your other point reconstruction is not a distant dream but an ongoing activity and the one that is resulting in the most casualties. While a convoy can keep moving and change routes it is not possible to move a school, road or hospital and it is these fixed locations where our soldiers are taking the most casualties.
As for brokering a deal with the Taliban, let's deal with that simply: who are you going to talk to? They no longer have a fixed command structure so you broker a deal with one warlord and the next, who isn't in the deal, will still be fighting you. But more importantly, how can you as a social democrat (not party member but your politics seem to lean that way) even contemplate negotiating with people who want to go back to stoning women for the offence of teaching girls to read and threaten to cut off the arms of children for flying a kite? The Taliban have demonstrated that they are uninterested in moderating their views, they are extremists with an agenda.
I cannot understand people who spend their time fighting for women's rights and to stop the abuse of children in Canada but seem to think it is okay to let abusers and murderers run free elsewhere. A human life is a human life and either all lives are sacred or none are. The United Nations decided that the lives of the poor and downtrodden in Afghanistan were worth the sacrifice. From every report I have read our soldiers on the ground agree and are willing to lay down their lives, if necessary, to try and save the lives of innocents. To suggest we walk away and leave the Taliban back in control goes against everything this country has stood for and everything our brave soldiers have died for. Please remember This is not Iraq, this is not George Bush’s war, this is the United Nation’s war to stop crimes against humanity!!!
Blair as usual it is point - counterpoint on this issue. We fundamentally agree to disagree on Afghanistan. But seriously when you say Afghanistan is not George Bush's war, please give your head a shake. Bush then said your on our side or your on their side, no choice but to support the invasion. Remember we went there in retaliation to their hosting terrorist training camps, especially Osama, and not with any other intent. The poor and the downtrodden were never in the original intent and is now seriously a weak excuse. As I mentioned before many other countries are equally or more so poor and downtrodden. If we tempted the Taliban, who lets face it are not the warlords (many warlords & gangsters are in the Karzai Govt), to negotiate a reasonable coalition government and instead of spending $1 billion a year on the canadian war there offered this and other participating nations' monies instead for constructive rebuilding of a progressive nation over time we would be far better off. Blair I respect your thinking & thoughts but not your opinion on this war in Afghanistan. Enough said.
There is not really enough said about the facts of the war in Afghanistan. The only way anyone can accept that attitude is to say that don't have to care about the way women and children are treated, as long as it's out of our sight.
What's your oppinion on Darfur LFP? Shall we just sit back and watch wholesale rape and murder?
Quite the contrary I believe Darfur is exactly the mission Canada should be involved in instead of Afghanistan.
There's not much difference in the basics of the Darfur situation. It is after all blatant mal treatment of the nationals of that country as well. If assistance was given to alleviate the situation, the boo birds would cry out if fatalities grew,as they are bound to do.
We must be very causious when making blanket statments about cost. As stated in a previous comment, the cost is not for the hardware, ie the tank, it's mainly to pay for the transport, and the wages that pay for techniqual and mechanical support. Not accounting for these sundary costs would make our overall cost.. zero!
More importantly, the article is inferring that our 180 million in taxes is not being applied prudently. This is a rhetorical argument based upon values. What is not conveyed is that tax money is being applied to the Afghan Mission to attain universal human values such as security, and democracy.What this article implies is that 180M is not going to help human life. The Afghani PM says otherwise. Realize that Canada must receive permission or be asked to bring tanks. Also don't under estimate Canada's military minds. We are a country that squeezes blood from a stone to get efficiency from its military, is experienced in many UN conflicts, and has access to other countries military data, experience, and hardware. If the army didn't think it was helping human life (Canadian or Afghani) to bring a squadron of tanks, they wouldn't bring them. Canada will always have social problems at home, so saying we should 'take care of our own first' is an unattainable goal. By helping Afrghanistan, we are globlly helping our own.
Meanwhile Steve other urgent areas of starvation and mass deaths like Darfur which could at least equally and many argue much better benefit from Canadian troops take a back seat (in fact no seat at all) from Canada and other NATO countries. My gut feel is that we probably would not require $6 million Tiger tanks at all to help their population! Sad and disappointing Canadian priorities in this Editor's opinion.
Commenting by HaloScan
