Tell me again why we are in Afghanistan....

[Icebound]

..


http://www.skyreporter.com/blog/page/1/20090104_01/

Canadians are over there dieing for these corrupt crooks.... and then when there is the slightest hint that one of them might actually be prosecuted, the AMERICANS spirit him out of the country and treat him like royalty.

WTF?


...

[Cat Driver]

Maybe it is because he was instrumental in allowing the Americans to set up one of the worlds biggest best equipped military bases there on the pretext that is for the betterment of Afgahanstan?

[Phlyer]

Did you not notice that our lingering softwood lumber dispute with the US was solved right after we went to Afghanistan?

[Nark]

Is this is your justification as to why their shouldn't be a NATO mission in afgahn?

I like nothing more than going home at noon on Friday and enjoying the California sun then sweating my ass off in the desert, however assholes around the world keep me employed because they don't play by our simple to follow rules. Read into the "American Domination" what you want in the last sentence, but look no further than Iraq. We are pulling out faster than the last time I was in Thailand, now that Iraq is following our rules, of which are simply stop blowing up civilians to propagate their Jihadist point.

Semper Fi

[Phlyer]

Is this is your justification as to why their shouldn't be a NATO mission in afgahn?

I like nothing more than going home at noon on Friday and enjoying the California sun then sweating my ass off in the desert, however assholes around the world keep me employed because they don't play by our simple to follow rules. Read into the "American Domination" what you want in the last sentence, but look no further than Iraq. We are pulling out faster than the last time I was in Thailand, now that Iraq is following our rules, of which are simply stop blowing up civilians to propagate their Jihadist point.

Semper Fi

No, that's my justification as to why Canada should not be there. Last I checked we never declared war on the Taliban or anyone else there for that matter. I don't think we should be there just to keep our elephant friends from bullying us in the trade front. IMHO.

[Phlyer]

...however assholes around the world keep me employed because they don't play by our simple to follow rules.

Since when is the USA the moral code of how the world shall and will be run?

[Expat]

That reporter is on to something. There is a lot of secret sh*t going on here. Secret flights, secret missions, covert ops, etc..
We call them green ops, black ops...

Nark,
If the Iragis are now nice to the US, why then build a 800 million dollar embassy there?

[Nark]

There is a lot of "stuff" that goes on that you are not privy to, and especially the media. It seems to me that the media thinks they are on a perpetual high horse with information in the stories they write.

...why then build a 800 million dollar embassy there?

I think I've heard this one before: Because 800 Billion was already taken?

[Doc]

Well, I for one am more than willing to support our troops. They have become more than test hamsters for road side bombs. My support will be in a ticket home. Ivan was there for years, and didn't solve a thing. Bring 'em home.

[mcrit]

I'm going to take 'we' in the title of this question to mean the west (acting through NATO).
The main reason we continue to occupy AFG is to deny the enemy resources and freedom of movement.
I will concede that our chances of destroying the Taliban through the use of conventional military force alone are slim to nil, however we need to have control of the terrain in order to implement other measures. The reformation of AFG is a long term process.
On a tangent, I think that the best way to destroy radical Islam is to secularize them. Find groups within the Muslim community that are pushing for secularization, and covertly fund them. Find groups within Iran that desire a secular government, and covertly fund and arm them. The greatest strength that radical Islam has right now is a mass of poor, uneducated humanity. We need to take this away from them. The best way to do this is to educate them and then give them something to lose. Someone who is well fed, warm and has the internet to surf is a great deal less likely to blow themselves up for the greater glory of Allah than someone with an empty stomach sitting in a cold mud hut.
Just a quick point on geography. Has anyone noticed what sits right in between Iraq and AFG? Iran. Where was radical Islam born, and where does a great deal of its funding come from? Iran. Where does Iran get its moey from? They sell a lot of oil to China. Hmmmm.....which budding super power has the greatest interest in destabilizing the west? I would suggest that there is a great deal at play behind the scenes here.

[bmc]

God is an American. Just ask Sarah Palin. Or Fox News.

[bmc]

...however assholes around the world keep me employed because they don't play by our simple to follow rules.

Since when is the USA the moral code of how the world shall and will be run?

It's not. He's a banner tower and part time super hero with a cape and secret decoder ring.

[2R]

Icebound you may get an answer from John McCallum if you call his office
As Defence Minister, McCallum achieved what was then the largest increase in the annual defence budget ($1 billion) in more than a decade in return for offering up $200 million in savings from reducing low priority spending.[8] He also retroactively reversed a gross inequity which awarded up to $250,000 to military personnel who lost their eyesight or a limb while on active service - but only to those with the rank of colonel or above. Now all Canadian Forces members are covered by the plan regardless of rank.[9] Working with Germany, he successfully persuaded NATO to take control over the security mission in Kabul, Afghanistan, while also ensuring that the mission was led by Canada.[10] He also determined that the army, rather than the navy or air force, was to be the top priority in budget allocations.[11]

He became widely known and criticized in 2002 when he admitted, while serving as the Minister of National Defence, that he had never heard of the 1942 Dieppe raid, a fateful and nationally significant operation for Canadian Forces during the Second World War.[12] Ironically, he wrote a letter to the editor of the National Post in response, but committed a further gaffe, confusing Canadian participation in the 1917 Battle of Vimy Ridge in France with the Nazi-puppet state of Vichy France from 1940 to 1944. Response at the continued historical ignorance prompted outrage and humour among the press.

In November 2002, while still serving as Defence Minister, McCallum encountered further controversy when officials refused to allow him to board an Air Canada flight because his breath smelt heavily of alcohol.[13] McCallum announced soon thereafter that the incident prompted him to abstain completely from alcohol consumption. He reportedly also intended to lose weight and give up smoking.


It all makes sense now ,not a sober decison to send troops into battle without the proper equipment or training

[mcrit]

It all makes sense now ,not a sober decison to send troops into battle without the proper equipment or training

That's nothing new. Ask the fellows who did peacekeeping duty in Bosnia. There were a number of them that had serious injuries because the Liberals refused to she out the money for proper gear for them. Take a look at the state of Canada's military in '37 on the eve of WWII.
The current government seems to understand that it takes funding to have an effective military. I also get the impression that they understand that sometimes an effective military is needed to make yourself heard on the world stage.

[LH]

For those with poor memories, don't listen or watch the news or are just having a bad days, I'd like to remind you of a piece of RECORDED news history..........and NOT a figment of my imagination either.

Myself and other Canadians saw and heard the Secretary-General of the United Nations openly request and plead with the PM of Canada on CBC's "The National", to come to the aide of the UN and send troops to Afghanistan to aide that nation.

Canada agreed to do such a thing and went to Afghanistan under the ISAF. A short time after they were in-place, NATO decided that they also would lend a hand.

At NO TIME before Canada was into full combat in Afghanistan did the President of the United States publicly request Canada to go there......and even if he did, it was the Secretary-General who asked/pleaded with the PM. IF someone knows of other information to the contrary from some 'inner sanctum', then might I request that they share the source(s) of the information, time, date and place with us 'unwashed and ignorant masses'. If not, then I state once more, that my statements are a matter of record with CBC and other national and international records. Didn't hear it yourself perhaps? Then might I suggest you watch and listen to the news more often or get new batteries for your hearing apparatus.

This statement is not in support of Canada being in Afghanistan nor against it. It's a statement to demonstrate only that everytime the President of the United States farts, Canada doesn't bow down and offer homage to his holiness. This also has nothing to do with Iraq, where the President did ask Jean Chretin for help in that 'adventure' and he refused. Might I also add that that statement and action is technically incorrect also because at present there are over 150 Canadians serving in various branches of the American military and wearing American uniforms. Until recently, there was also a Canadian Lt. General on 'Exchange' who was 2 i/c of the largest American Division in Iraq.

[hairdo]

Is this is your justification as to why their shouldn't be a NATO mission in afgahn?

I like nothing more than going home at noon on Friday and enjoying the California sun then sweating my ass off in the desert, however assholes around the world keep me employed because they don't play by our simple to follow rules. Read into the "American Domination" what you want in the last sentence, but look no further than Iraq. We are pulling out faster than the last time I was in Thailand, now that Iraq is following our rules, of which are simply stop blowing up civilians to propagate their Jihadist point.

Semper Fi

Justification comes not from one source but from many. He may not be the first "nail in the coffin," nor is he likely to be the last. Perhaps he helped the US in Afghanistan in some way, but the general public doesn't know that. What they do know is what he did before, and that is what he will be judged by... unless there is reason given to believe otherwise.

Point 2: They are American "rules" not the worlds "rules." It's called freedom of choice, not freedom to choose what America thinks is best. These are sovereign countries Nark, if they choose to play be their rules, that is their choice. If they attack America, fine, but don't tell me that everyone needs to follow the American playbook.

[rdj200]

My opinion is that we are there primarily for one reason compassion. It may sound kind of strange, but lets look at what is being done over there. Canada has responded since WWII was to alleviate the suffering of the people; it's my opinion that this is in no small part the the vast number of European immigrants who came to this country after the war, and wanted to make sure that people were cared for, and this tradition has continued. That brings us to the modern Afghan conflict, its not selfish that were are there; what does Canada have to gain? I am confident that we are there to bring hope to these people who have not had any, there are now schools, hospitals, and a government that is being established. Not without problems mind you; its just not possible to erase desperation and corruption overnight, but will take time. Its just unfortunate that we as Canadians have lost our moral fortitude in this new century and I am quite concerned about the course that we are charting for ourselves.

[sky's the limit]

My opinion is that we are there primarily for one reason compassion.

I hate to tell you, compassion has nothing to do with it. Having just come from there, I can assure you your theory is groundless.

I really don't want to get drawn into this thread, but that statement is just so far from accurate, I couldn't let it go.

stl

[Nark]

...It's not. He's a banner tower and part time super hero with a cape and secret decoder ring.

No. I'm a part time banner tower and a full time super hero. As a matter of fact, I just got back from playing superhero.
If you want to debate the finer points of eating an MRE or a baby-wipe shower I'm certainly an expert.

But it seems to me you want to debate my credentials not the fact that we are in Afghanistan.



Hairdo:

So you think that because Abu Sayyaf blows apart malls, schools and hospitals in the Philippines, it's their problem? We should just sit back and drink a Molson or two Saturday night, cause hey, the Maple Leafs are on?

Afgahanistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan... the list goes on of places "the American Way" should be instilled. In case you missed the point of my quotation's around that, The American Way is extremely close to the Canadian Way, save for the love of hockey. These people whom I hunt are the same that prey upon you when you are traveling in Thailand, Bali, Middle East, Spain etc... because you are western. Do you think that once a Canadian gets snatched up, they release them saying, sorry I thought you were one of those infidel Americans?


BMC and others:

You compare the Soviet occupation to that of the NATO force that is in place today. Please explain to me, in your own words, how the two compare? Please explain to me why we should ignore the plight of others?

[2R]

Fear not, help is on the way in the form of Conscription ,Thx to Rangel


[edit] Universal National Service Act of 2003
The Universal National Service Act of 2003 (H.R. 163, S. 89) was a bill to resume the military draft in the United States, introduced in the 2003 session of the United States House of Representatives. The bill would have provided that, as early as June 2005, young men and women ages 18-26 could be called to service. Section 6 of the bill does not include college enrollment in the list of valid deferments and postponements of being drafted[1].

The measure was introduced by representative Charles Rangel, a leader in the Democratic Party and co-sponsored by five other Democrats. On October 5, 2004, Republicans called for a vote on the bill. The bill was considered under a motion to suspend the rules, which required a two-thirds vote for passage for the roll call vote to take place. The roll call vote on the bill was 2 in favor, 402 against. The only Members voting "aye" were Jack Murtha and Pete Stark.

Observers largely believe that Rangel, knowing beforehand that the bill would never be passed by the House, introduced it only to make a point. Rangel himself argued that the point of his bill was to express his opposition to the war in Iraq. In an editorial in The New York Times, Rangel said “if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve—and to be placed in harm’s way—there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq.” (See dailytexanonline.com and seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Some commentators opined that the bill figured in a "scare campaign" to convince US voters that Republicans (or specifically the White House) had secret plans to re-institute conscription after the November 2 elections. For example, John Sutherland, a columnist for The Guardian, claimed on May 31, 2004 that the bill is "currently approved and sitting in the Committee for Armed Services".[2] He further predicted that the draft itself would be implemented as early as June 15, 2005. William Hawkins, a columnist for The Washington Times, denies that the bill was ever approved and claims that when Republicans brought it to the floor on October 5, it was for the express purpose of killing it.".[3]


[edit] Universal National Service Act of 2006
The Universal National Service Act of 2006 (H.R. 4752) introduced February 14, 2006. New York Democrat Representative Charles Rangel again called for the draft to be reinstated. It required men and women 18-42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for "other purposes". Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had rejected this proposal. It had no sponsors.


[edit] Universal National Service Act of 2007
The Universal National Service Act of 2007 (H.R. 393) is a bill introduced by Charles B. Rangel in the United States House of Representatives on January 10, 2007. It proposes the requirement that all residents in the United States aged between 18 and 42 carry out national service, and be available for conscription during wartime. It allows no deferments after age 20.

After the bill was introduced on January 10, 2007, it was then referred to House Armed Services Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means. On February 26, it was then referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

As of December 12, 2007, the bill had two co-sponsors. They are Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) and Rep. James McDermott (D-WA).





[edit] 2008 Presidential Campaign =
This bill has become the subject of blogosphere speculation in the 2008 Presidential Race after Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both expressed support for such legislation. During an MTV/MySpace forum on February 19th, 2008, Hillary Clinton, when asked about education expenses, stated: “... that’s why I’m in favor of two years of national service, where you could earn up to $10,000 a year doing national service and go right into helping you pay for college.” In a follow up comment, Barack Obama then stated: “... one of the things that I’ve proposed, for example, is that I will give a $4000 tuition credit - every student, every year - so that they are not being loaded up with enormous debts, uh, but there will be a community service - a national service component. The military could be one way for you to get this $4000 tuition credit. Another way would be to work in an under-served school that needs help. Another way would be to work in an under-served hospital or a homeless shelter, or a veterans home. The point is, I think it is important for young people to serve.”

On July 2, 2008, in a speech at Colorado Springs, Barack Obama (as presumptive Democratic Party nominee) made another reference to such legislation when he called for the creation of a nationwide civilian service program, by saying: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Obama used the term "civilian national security force" only in the spoken version of his speech, not in the original written version. Obama then went on to explain his vision of a national service program similar to the one he outlined in the MTV/MySpace forum, saying he would make federal assistance to schools contingent to school districts establishing service programs, with a goal of 50 hours of service per year for middle school and high school students, and 100 hours of service per year for college students. He also expanded on his proposed program, calling for all ages to participate in an expansion of existing voluntary national service programs, and creation of new ones, in many areas, such as infrastructure rebuilding, service to the elderly, and environmental cleanup. Obama's entire service program proposal quickly became controversial, largely for being mistaken as a call for a national paramilitary force, though the proposal's only reference to military service was to volunteer participation in regular U.S. Armed Forces, as one activity that would qualify for inclusion under the program's umbrella.

On September 11 2008, at Columbia University, Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama addressed this further, saying, "But it’s also important that a president speaks to military service as an obligation not just of some, but of many. You know, I traveled, obviously, a lot over the last 19 months. And if you go to small towns, throughout the Midwest or the Southwest or the South, every town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban centers. And I think it’s important for the president to say, this is an important obligation. If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some."

[Icebound]

...
Afgahanistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan... the list goes on of places "the American Way" should be instilled. ...
...
...

Please explain to me why we should ignore the plight of others?

Accepting, for the moment, that "the American Way" should be instilled.

And accepting, for the moment, that the goal is to relieve "the plight of others"....

... then, how is it the "American Way", to support a corrupt regime... and furthermore, to sponsor and protect corrupt officials when the regime DOES try to cleanse itself of corruption.????


...

[rdj200]

STL,
By the sounds of it, being 'in country' and all could you elaborate at what our purpose is, all I ever get is just bits and pieces of media on the issue. This is a serious request, I look up Afghanistan on the internet and there seems to be no economic gain or anything of value, it seems to be a dried up country. So, could you educate me, if its not for the preservation of peace, I have not the foggiest idea why we are there. I am man enough to realize when there are more educated people then me, so please share your point of view, I would love to hear it.

[LH]

If someone is going to quote and write about the American Draft on this site, I would very much apppreciate it if they would not only quote the info that supports their opinions, but 'flush-out' the whole picture with the rest of the information, so as not to leave a wrong impresssion.

What was not mentioned in the post? Every State in the US has a certain number of their population and their National Guard who are subject to 'Call-up' if the Feds so ask for it. Once that number is reached, that State cannot be 'tapped' again for anymore bodies legally and they have the US Constitution to back them up.

So whoever can pass whatever order into law in the US Congress, but if it contravenes a section of the US Constitution, then an amendment must be made to it.

Therefore, a Mr. Rangl or any other Congressman/lady or anyone in the Senate may flap their gums all they want about conscription, BUT if that number exceeds what they can get from the States and/or have them agree to, then it ain't going nowhere.

Always remember a difference between Canada and the US concerning conscription. In Canada if the Federal government passes such an Act, then the Provinces have NO legal power to contravene that, other then to protest. In the US, each State has it's own Armed Forces, that belong to that State and ONLT that State and the Feds just can't come along and use those Forces at their will. This is all guaranteed by law in the US Constitution. No such thing has ever existed in Canada and never will.

[hairdo]

Hairdo:

So you think that because Abu Sayyaf blows apart malls, schools and hospitals in the Philippines, it's their problem? We should just sit back and drink a Molson or two Saturday night, cause hey, the Maple Leafs are on?

Afgahanistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan... the list goes on of places "the American Way" should be instilled. In case you missed the point of my quotation's around that, The American Way is extremely close to the Canadian Way, save for the love of hockey. These people whom I hunt are the same that prey upon you when you are traveling in Thailand, Bali, Middle East, Spain etc... because you are western. Do you think that once a Canadian gets snatched up, they release them saying, sorry I thought you were one of those infidel Americans?

*Sigh* No Nark, I do not think that it's their problem. My point is, is that we shouldn't force our ways on people. If they want it, let them ask for our help. People do not take well to being force fed something. It would be like me telling you that you are not allowed to do things by the American way. I'm quite sure that you wouldn't take too well to that. Now, if you asked me for help so that you could make things like the Canadian way (for lack of a better example), I would gladly help you out. And if Abu Sayyaf is blowing up malls, schools, hospitals, etc. in the Philippines and the Philippine government asks for your help to stop these attacks, then fill your boots and knock 'em off. And if he wants to snatch up an American/Canadian/whomever, then that respective government can do what they can to get them back safely, whatever that takes.

Don't get me wrong here Nark, I'm not condemning the work you do. I know it's necessary and a maybe unrewarding at times, but I don't believe that one should go about the world forcing their beliefs on others, just because they can.

Last example... When the Brits still ruled what is now the USA(yes it was a long time ago), forcing their ways on you, the American people didn't like it and booted the Brits out. Don't be surprised if the Afghani and Iraqi people decide that they don't want it the American way, and then tell you to go home. It is their country after all.

Oh, by the way, the Leafs suck.

[Four1oh]

Hairdo, I'm sure the Taliban asked politely if the Afgan people wanted their religion or politics or public beheadings....