- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
LFP,
You knew I would have to reply so let's get it over with.
The mission in Afghanistan is not a rogue NATO or Bush mission, it is a United Nations Mission.
The U.N. authorized the activity and then asked for help to accomplish the work. Nato volunteered to undertake the mission and is in command of day-to-day operations. But don't forget this is a U.N. mission, authorized by the Security Council and I quote here:
"NATO took command and co-ordination of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in August 2003...ISAF operates in Afghanistan under a UN mandate and will continue to operate according to current and future UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. ISAF’s mission was initially limited to Kabul. Resolution 1510 passed by the UNSC on 13 October 2003 opened the way to a wider role for ISAF to support the Government of Afghanistan beyond Kabul."
We aren't there because of Bush, we are there because the U.N. asked us to go. For those who suggest that NATO leave and let the U.N. take over, well NATO is acting for the U.N.
Blair, really now come on? Face it it Bush started this not NATO. NATO and the UN were simply put his vehicles of convenience only to make it look like an international venture. Let me give you a very simple anology. It's like for instance if The Township made a deal to get a developer to buy land on it's behalf in let's say Fort Langley to buy a let's say restaurant/bar! Maybe you would argue that the Township would never do such a deal though!!! Nor would George W. !! Maybe there's an even bigger analogy of leaders too?
And don't forget our bet Blair. Over a year ago you and others scoffed at my prediction that we would negotiate with the Taliban to end this war. In fact negotiations have gone on and my prediction remains.
Sorry about dragging you once again into our famous almost two year long debate or as I like to call it "the good vs the wrong" 
But given the aforementioned developements I had to bring it up again! I've been relatively good on this topic due to all the numerous hush-hush land deals coverage 
P.S. - I AM THE GOOD !
LOLLOLLOLLOLOLL
Sorry LFP, I have to disagree. Al Queda started the war, and they started it with just about every nation in NATYO. If you don't think that we should have responded, I have to disagree there too. If you think that Bush has screwd up that response, then I agree whole heartedly.
Semantics -:- KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED(mastermind) & Osama Bin Laden attacked the US (WTC) and RICHARD CHENEY(mastermind) & George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan (Al Queda).
Bin Laden used Afghanistan and the Taliban Government as their front and Bush used the UN & NATO (incls. Canada) as his front. As simple as 1,2,3.
P.S. Defense Sec. Gates now has everyone using the same classical gotcha cop-out line, "I was mis-quoted". >>>B.S.!
LFP,
The UN vote was unanimous. If you think Bush can push China and Russia around you have more faith in him then me.
On teh betting front, that fal election didn't happen so I'm up at least one cup of coffee on you 
Cheers,
Blair, Right after 911 and speeches like "your EITHER on OUR side or on THEIR side" by the intimidating, angry and volatile Bush war machine mode at the time, the UN vote was no big surprise to me Blair. I still stand by my point.
I do owe you a cup of coffee though on the election one. Hope you don't mind that I will have to wear a holes cut out paper bag during coffee though! I'm terribly shy!
Horrible, misleading & fragile minority governments that lie about income trusts (I really don't like Harperitic politics and politicians if you haven't guessed yet!) screw up all kinds of bets & predictions
But you will lose on the taliban peace process or I will eat my shorts too 
BTW I note that NATO is in an uproar now on the Gates anti NATO military comments.
P.S. - I sure like the term "Harperitic" that I just coined! It smells just right!
Bush or no bush, and NATO or no NATO, I for one do not tolerate the fact that Al Queda (with the approval of the Talaban) initiated an undeclared war on Canada by killing thousnds of its citizens on 9-11. When replying to this we had the choice of retaliating or negotiating. But then how do you negotiate with a zealotous mob of radicals with no real nucleous, and a depth of well over a billion souls?
Furthermore, the radical Islam wing is growing by the day, which only enforces the fact that sooner or later we would be in some form of conflict in some foreign country for basically the same reason.
The issue would be so much simpler if it were not for the lies and treachery of the Bush government, but who knew at the time the extent of how complex that idiot would make the issue. Now the hornets are out of the nest, and they are in a frenzy with anger.
Terrorism is becoming a world wide illness, and is certain to grow as the dominant religions dig in for the fight as they are doing now in the US and Canada, as well elsewhere. Need I point the finger at the absolute core of the problem, or is it not obvious for all? The violence throughout written history tells us that religeous violence is not anything new, but with the shrinking of world boundaries, it has become a much more severe threat to a peaceful existance almost anywhere. The recent bloodshed among fellow Christians in Northern Ireland was a mere annoyance compared to what will face us if radical religion grows on all sides, as it now seems hell bent on doing. That's my opinion, as well as a deep and growing concern.
LFP,
Some obscure gent by the name of Ban Ki-moon posted a detailed assessment of why the UN is in Afghanistan on the Globe and Mail web site today.
It ends with the following line: "The Afghan government has far to go before it regains control of its own destiny. But that day will come. It is hard work. There is little glory. It requires sacrifices. And that is why we are there."
It's a pity Mr. Moon doesn't realize that the UN is just a toy thing for George Bush...
Blair, put a list together of other countries that have the same or worse problems of Afghanistan. Lawlessness and countless horrors abound equally in other world nations especially in Africa. Maybe even more so?
Should we model this country's NATO & UN (Really the US) action plan there too? Do you really think that the rich western countries can force democracy and change on these countries in the same armed way? It's been a real success story hasn't it.?
"The Afghan government has far to go before it regains control of its own destiny..." QUOTE SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE SUCCESS IF EVER IN MY OPINION?
PS: below is the link to the G&M article you speak about. I could also add tons more countering articles from prominent orgs. & individuals that decry the success and likelihood of success in Afghanistan. Look at it this way though, we all have learned to correctly spell Afghanistan at least. The only benefit I see to date!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/s...fghanistan/
home
Commenting by HaloScan
