ps- very good blog emily

how much difference does it make????????????????

This war is complete insanity. Our soldiers are raiding homes in the middle of the night, holding women and children at gunpoint while any male over five feet tall is dragged away, some to be abused and tortured. Newspapers are filled with evidence that NATO troops are shooting wildly and randomly, sometimes in revenge at what they deem to be a hostile populace. Tens of thousands of people have died, most directly at the hands of NATO, not the Taliban.

It’s funny, because one person on here admitted that if the US invaded Canada then he would become a terrorist, almost but not in jest, so I don’t understand why it’s hard to believe that an Afghan living in a rural area who has been affected by our “war of choice” would take up arms against NATO.

Honestly people is this your solution for societies that are wracked by divisions? Takes sides and promote civil war? If the southern part of Afghanistan does not want to ruled from Kabul, what right does Canada have to “pacifiy” the population (i.e. commit murder) and impose the will of Hamid Karzai?

I honestly cannot believe how pro-war Canadians fool themselves into believing this Bush-like logic to justify launching wars against other countries – and by extension whole societies – in order to “better the society”.

There have now been 20,000-49,000 deaths in Afghanistan, and these people never attacked Canada! Not only are we creating more terrorism, but we are simply taking part in state terror. Every young Afghan that is shot, whether Taliban or not, is a STAKE IN THE HEART of democracy and freedom. These are the people on this planet who had the least number of options. If any of you people who drag out the “taliban” bogeyman spoke with an insurgent to find out why they fight. If you had been born in Afghanistan, there’s a good chance, espeically if you are a young man, that you would have become “Taliban”.

The people attacking NATO troops are defending their country. They have seen loved ones, friends and innocent people killed and are acting as many people in the West would.

Of course they are attacking NATO troops. Remember, Canada along with NATO attacked Afghanistan, killed almost every member of the government during the initial invasion and have since made it their mission to hunt down anyone opposing their rule or force. The very decision to use deadly force (i.e. – declare war) to change a culture and society represents a huge moral failure, wasted hundreds of billions of dollars, and a legacy of sorrow for Aghans that will take a generation to heal.

Now withstanding the rightness or wrongness of war. Canadians should ask their government that what this war has achieved? Except replacing one set of repressive people with other more violent and repressive.So what difference it made to lives of Afghans?

Today Taliban attacks are limited to south of the country which most country is out of their reach.What is going on there. Drug trade is blossoming and recorde production happening. It is all happening right under the noses of ISAF.What is the use of scarificing so many lives when they cant stop those drugs which are ultimatelty going to end up at the streets of Canada.

“could have” set an example of Western resolve – and Western benevolence – for all of the Muslim Middle East to witness.

Of course, going that route (I doubt they even imagined it for a second) would have risked bringing about “peace” in the region, which was the furthest thing from their minds.

The had their eye on the bigger prize in Iraq – and the benefits of “endless war”, which their annexation of Iraq guarantees.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFVWruygGr8

Absolutely true. Anyone in the military will state, without any doubt, that limited combat experience makes soldiers and the army as a whole much better, even if a few good people die in the process.

If you don’t understand why, try reading:
http://strategydave.blogspot.com/2007/04/un-mandated-peace-making-canada-in.html

“Meaning that Canada’s fatality rate is double that of the British rate.”

Your analysis of this is wrong in so many ways that I don’t know where to start. So, in no particular order: Many of our casualties are blue on blue (friendly fire). If we had our own close air support, instead of relying on Americans, we might have fewer of these. The British are engaged in combat just as much as our soldiers – comparing casualty rates with them merely shows the luck of the draw. Actually, it probably shows that the Taliban figure the Canadian public is more inclined to be swayed by propaganda attacks and so preferentially target our people, rather than the British. Your comparison of casualty rates would be more appropriate with the Germans, which also have more troops on the ground than we do. However, they are not engaged in combat because of national caveats. You can gripe about these but you’re wasting your time; Canadians, in the past, have operated under similar restrictions while other nations did the dirty work. Rest assured that the German soldiers are just as upset by this as the Canadians are. Soldiers generally don’t want to be left out of the fight.

And, really, the whole “should we be there” argument boils down to the question: what do we want our army to do? National defense, peacekeeping, or peacemaking? Again, read
http://strategydave.blogspot.com/2007/04/un-mandated-peace-making-canada-in.html
for another prospective on this. If you don’t want to read, just ask yourself one question: Does the UN Secretary General want Canadian soldiers to abandon combat operations in Afghanistan and join blue-beret peacekeeping operations somewhere else instead? (Hint, the answer is a resounding “NO”) Canadian soldiers are engaged in combat in Afghanistan under UN mandate – get over it.

As for the comment: “one could also point out that so far, the wars have only created more terrorism — the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do.”

Well, I agree that attacking a country is only going to create more terrorists. I would surely become one if, for example, the US invaded Canada. However, invading Afghanistan is about eliminating SAFE HAVENS for terrorists. In this, it is surely a success. Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists to operate openly; there is no doubt in this.

David…

under a brutal dictatorship, yes, but that’s never stopped the west from dealing with a country in the past. or openly supperting it. which then led to the current mess.

perhaps if the west started minding their own business, there wouldn’t be so many problems. it hasn’t ever been tried before, so who knows?

If you believe the war in Afghanistan is “unjustified” then you are either pro-Taliban or you are living in a world of make-believe. If the western forces leave, the Taliban and Al Qaeda will rule Afghanistan.

Do you seriously think that is better? If you do, then you certainly do not care for people as much as you pretend to do with your knee-jerk, far left rhetoric. Do a poll of Afghan Canadians and see what they think about your ideas. Or would you rather impose your own views of the world on people because “you know better.” Certainly you would never do that. Only the “corporate” governments do that.

http://www.rabble.ca/rpn/episode.shtml?x=57085