The truth does not win; the truth is just what is left when everything else is wasted
Quote of the day
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes
NavigationOur writers |
 |
Who's dying in AfghanistanPosts: Joined: 2006-06-02
I have already raised this issue, but coming back from a short vacation I feel rage inflame again my whole body by reading in the Globe and Mail that
[quote]
... the first contingent from a group of 2,500 mostly Quebec-based soldiers, many from the famed Royal 22nd Regiment, or Vandoos, being deployed for their Afghan tour of duty at a time when the mission has become increasingly unpopular among Quebeckers.
On the minds of most at Valcartier Sunday were the dangers ahead, reinforced by reports of the funerals of three Canadian soldiers this past weekend alone.[/quote]
In the meanwhile, soldiers from Italy, France, Germany and Spain remain safely ensconced in non-fighting zones, exerting a so-called role ot reconstruction.
Why should only soldiers fron the USA, UK, Canada, and The Netherlands continue to die for peace and freedom in Afghanistan?
Submitted on Tue, 2007-07-17 13:21
You really ought to be
You really ought to be ashamed, and embarrassed, for cheapening people's deaths by using them as some sort of political or self-righteous moral rant.
Canadians chose this mission, so they should shut the hell up and stop complaining or pressure their government into bringing their soldiers home.
Really, who do you think you are to sit on your little soap box and lecture other countries about the decisions they make regarding Afghanistan?
Why are Canadians such a bunch of whiners?
Submitted on Wed, 2007-07-18 14:19
reply Who's Dying in Afghanistan
[quote]Why are Canadians such a bunch of whiners?(chris9234)[/quote] Perhaps Canadians are a bunch of whiners, as you say, but, when it comes the time to fight and die for a just cause they don't look for excuses as some other peoples do. Now, why do you think Italians, Spaniards, Germans, and Frenchmen, although asked to do so by NATO, up to now have refused to send their soldiers in combat zones? Because their communist politicians, following their usual ideological antiamericanism, have and are blocking any efforts by their respective governments to change the engagement rules. Same story as in the former Yugoslavia's war, and Kosovo. Shame on them: They should be expelled from NATO for cowardice.
Submitted on Thu, 2007-07-19 13:01
reply Robert,
If Canadians
Robert,
If Canadians thought Afghanistan was such a noble and just cause, they wouldn't be planning to pull their troops out in early 2009. The truth is the Canadians are there to help their American allies find and kill their enemies (which I'm fine with), the reconstruction stuff is all designed to make people like you feel all good and fuzzy about yourself so you don't have to dwell on the fact that your soldiers were sent there to kill people, period.
Submitted on Thu, 2007-07-19 15:17
reply Who's Dying In Afghanistan
[quote]....your soldiers were sent there to kill people, period.(chris9234)[/quote] Your arguments are so dishonest it makes me puke just reading them. What the hell, just one last time. Yes chris: Soldiers are sent abroad to kill enemies. In the case of Canadian soldiers, their enemies were not specifically USA's enemies, but enemies of freedom, justice, and humanity like Nazifascists, North Koreans, Serbs, Saddam Hussein, and Talibans. No Canadian soldiers were sent to fight in Vietnam, or Panama, or Dominica, or Cuba, or Nicaragua. The RCMP didn't help the CIA in its dirty tricks in Chile, or Argentina. But I know your kind of fuzzy-headed pacifist philosophy: No war at any cost. People like you (a small minority thank God) would have KTA of Hitler and Musso. And now I go and wash my hands.Few.
Submitted on Fri, 2007-07-20 21:08
reply Afghans
Afghans are dying in Afghanistan. Quite a few of them in American bombing raids.
Submitted on Sun, 2007-07-22 13:12
reply Who's dying in Afghanistan
[quote]Afghans are dying in Afghanistan. Quite a few of them in American bombing raids.(eric_5)[/quote]
Yes eric, you are absolutely right. Unfortunately, as always in wars, civilians also are killed, one would hope accidentally. In the particular case of Afghanistan, there are reports on the criminal custom of Talibans of hyding amongst women and children while shooting and lobbing grenades.
Besides, what do you suggest? That the UN, the EU, Nato and ISAF stop the fighting, apologize to Talibans and let them free to return to the good old practice of imposing Sharia law on Afganis?
Submitted on Sun, 2007-07-22 13:44
reply Odd to forget Afghans are dying
Robert, Afhgans are dying in increased numbers as a result of NATO being conscripted to carry out US policy. I would suggest that NATO be disanded and replaced by a European military organization.
Submitted on Sun, 2007-07-22 22:03
reply Morally superior Robert
<i>'But I know your kind of fuzzy-headed pacifist philosophy: No war at any cost. People like you (a small minority thank God) would have KTA of Hitler and Musso.'</i>
Robert, Can you stop with the silly rhetoric? <i>'People like you…'</i> Give me a break, not only is that an overly simplistic, lazy, and convenient line of reasoning, it's purely baseless and completely wrong. Where did I ever say no war at any cost, that's ridiculous, and didn't I just write that I was fine with the Canadian soldiers fighting along side their American allies? I just don't need to dress it up all flowery like you do to feel all morally superior towards other people. <i>'enemies of freedom, justice, and humanity'</i> That's hilarious, you should write for the cartoon network.
Submitted on Mon, 2007-07-23 12:57
reply Who's Dying in Afghanistan
[quote]
Afhgans are dying in increased numbers as a result of NATO being conscripted to carry out US policy. I would suggest that NATO be disanded and replaced by a European military organization.(eric-5)[/quote] I agree. Unfortunately no such Organisation exists for the moment which can replace NATO. And, given the tendency of Europeans to prefer butter to cannon, it will take a long time to create.
Submitted on Mon, 2007-07-23 13:36
reply Peace-loving Europeans
The distaste of Europeans for war is a fairly recent thing. The Second World War was a convincing demonstration of the advantages of peace. Tens of millions of Europeans died and not a shot was fired or a bomb dropped on Canada (unless you know of an islolated incident). When North Americans have died in their tens of millions, they may become as peace-loving as Europeans. European nations have substantial miltary capacity. Organizing it is a political matter. A useful step would be the exit of Canada and the United States from NATO (and its renaming, of course).
Submitted on Mon, 2007-07-23 16:10
reply Who's dying in Afghanistan
[quote]When North Americans have died in their tens of millions, they may become as peace-loving as Europeans.(eric_5)[/quote] Yes, eric, peace-loving and Muslims. One thing is being a peace-lover, another being an appeaser.
Submitted on Tue, 2007-07-24 13:34
reply Tens of millions die in North America
Would North Americans learn the lesson that we Europeans have learned if they died in their tens of millions, as we did?
Submitted on Tue, 2007-07-24 13:40
reply Eric, I don't think you
Eric, I don't think you Europeans have anything to teach us Canadians about the virtues of peace, as a country we've been one of the most peaceful countries of the last hundred years, and only ever seem to go to war on someone else's account. As I said to Robert, though he likes to avoid it, most Canadian soldiers will be out of Afghanistan in just over a year (so much for the idea of a noble cause), and those Canadian soldiers that remain will be focusing on reconstruction duties. Support for the war in Afghanistan was never very popular here, and is only becoming less so with each passing day. The current government would like to keep our soldiers there past early 2009 but even the've basically admitted lately that there isn't much chance for that given the opinion of most Canadians.
Canadians like Robert can talk all they want about the virtues of Canada, and then pretend to be morally superior to Europeans, but the truth is Canadians far and wide don't believe in this war. Voices like Robert are in the miniority, and I can only thank god for that!
Submitted on Tue, 2007-07-24 14:14
reply Peaceful Canadians
Chris, When I mentioned North Americans, you know who I had in mind. Bloodthirsty Canadians, who think killing Afghans will make them safer, are in a minority, I'm sure. Like the rest of us, Canada is trapped into serving American foreign policy by membership of NATO. Time to end the organization in its present form.
Submitted on Tue, 2007-07-24 20:04
reply ??
Canada's membership in NATO does not compel Canada to send troops to Afghanistan, or to "serve American policy". That's Canada's decision. Does every NATO member have troops in Afghanistan? I don't think so... I don't see how replacing NATO with an all-European entity would make matters in Afghanistan any better. The European reluctance to place troops in combat roles in Afghanistan has nothing to do with loving peace. Ceding control of the Afghan countryside to the Taliban is hardly likely to produce peace, more likely to produce more and worse fighting down the line. The European leaders just want to keep their own people out of the fighting, they couldn't care less whether there is peace or not, as long as there's no political fallout for them.
Submitted on Wed, 2007-07-25 12:18
reply Steven,
'Canada's membership in NATO does not compel Canada to send troops to Afghanistan' Steven
Of course it does, and on this one you're out to lunch. Almost every public debate here regarding our troops in Afghanistan involves our commitments to NATO and our American allies, and a lot of the public support for the war here – which then drives political decisions, is based on living up to those commitments.
In fact, those commitments are the only logical reason I can find for supporting the war effort in Afghanistan.
Submitted on Wed, 2007-07-25 13:01
reply All NATO countries in Afganistan?
Steven, If you 'don't think so' , you could check the facts before you 'don't think so'. Except for fulfilling their NATO obligations (even if only with a token force) there is no reason why Europeans should serve America by promoting confict and disaster in Afghanistan.
Submitted on Wed, 2007-07-25 13:04
reply Who's Dying in Afghanistan
The Canadian government is growing increasingly frustrated over the unwillingness of mainly European NATO members to deploy troops to help fight mounting Taliban resistance in the south.(21 October 2006)(Wikipedia)
November 2006: NATO summit at Riga (Latvia). Combat curbs have been the most contentious issue at the two-day summit in Latvia, following tension over the reluctance of France, Germany, Spain and Italy to send their troops to southern Afghanistan. Countries agreeing to ease the restrictions on deployment, include the Dutch, Romanians and smaller nations such as Slovenia and Luxembourg. France, Germany, Spain and Italy have said they will now send help to trouble zones outside their areas, but only in emergencies(Wikipedia)
Under NATO rules (one for all, all for one), NATO members must intervene automatically only to defend another member country under attack.
For Afghanistan, under NATO or ISAF, participation is only voluntary and the Country can decide where to send its soldiers.
Submitted on Wed, 2007-07-25 14:13
reply NATO and the 'War on Terror'
The American attack on Afghanistan has been dressed up as a self-defensive war against terrorism. NATO members have, therefore, been called upon to assist in the defence of America, as per this interpretation of the Charter.
Submitted on Wed, 2007-07-25 17:23
reply Who's Dying in Afghanistan
<i>"International Security Assistance Force (10) (ISAF) is the name of a NATO-led peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, which consists of about 35,500 personnel as of May 31, 2007. Thirty-seven different nations have contributed troops to this military force, including contributions from North America, Europe and Australia."</i>(Wikipedia) <i>"Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) is the official name used by the U.S. government for its military response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States."</i>(Wikipedia) In summary, neither ISAF nor Enduring freedom where established under NATO rules. Participation to either one or both is voluntary and not compulsory as under NATO rules of war, and actually many non-NATO countries participate to either one or both. Only Enduring freedom, led by the US, is specifically to fight terrorism not only in Afghanistan but wherever it exists
Submitted on Thu, 2007-07-26 13:46
reply Conflict and disaster?
Isn't that a fairly good description of Afghanistan's recent history... with or without the US and/or its allies? Does anybody really think that pulling out of Afghanistan would bring peace? The current conflict in Afghanistan is the product of the Taliban's decision to give shelter to Osama bin Laden, who proceeded to blow up buildings, the inevitable result of which was war. If the Taliban retake Afghanistan, isn't a repeat of this extremely non-peaceful cycle the most likely outcome? Nobody really wants to be in Afghanistan - not the Americans, not anyone. There's certainly no significant payoff; it's not the sort of place anyone wants to colonize. Nations have sent forces there because the probable consequences of not doing so seem worse than the consequences of doing so. As Robert has already pointed out, neither Canada nor anyone else is compelled to send forces to Afghanistan. Canadians may choose to "honor their commitments" to NATO, but it's still their choice. I'd personally say that Afghanistan has been handled rather badly, and that a lot of the mistakes that have been made trace back to the inimitably stupid decision to invade Iraq. That doesn't mean the decision to remove the Taliban was wrong. It was necessary.
Submitted on Thu, 2007-07-26 22:08
reply Wikipedia
Wikipedia is useful but it's the NATO website which makes it clear that the Charter has been interpreted as providing an obligation to support America in the war on terror. Afghanistan has been a battleground for three decades and US led NATO attacks on Afghans are not improving their lot. A reduction in the violence and a shift to constructive efforts is called for.
Submitted on Thu, 2007-07-26 22:29
reply A reduction in violence and
A reduction in violence and a shift to constructive efforts would be lovely... but constructive efforts aren't likely to get far with the Taliban using violence to obstruct them. Do you really think the violence is coming only from one side?
Submitted on Fri, 2007-07-27 11:30
reply Who are the Taliban?
It has been found convenient to call the resistance to foreign occupation the 'Taliban'. Whoever they are, they must be included in discussions about the future of the country. The two points I would argue for are that and the reform of NATO to exclude members whose presence dates from the now irrelevant circumstances of the Cold War.
Submitted on Fri, 2007-07-27 14:00
reply Who do you think they are?
It has been found convenient to call the resistance to foreign occupation the 'Taliban'.
And who do you think they are, Noam Chomsky and the noble revolutionaries?
Whoever they are, they must be included in discussions about the future of the country.
If you don't know who they are, how do you propose to include them in discussions about the future of the country? And do you really think that anyone who can send out suicide bombers and detonate IEDs deserves a place in discussions about the future of the country? You could end up with some interesting discussions that way, but I'm not sure how productive they'd be.
The two points I would argue for are that and the reform of NATO to exclude members whose presence dates from the now irrelevant circumstances of the Cold War.
I assume that you mean removing the US and Canada from NATO, but under those circumstances wouldn't NATO effectively cease to exist? And what impact do you think such a move would have on Afghanistan?
Your assumption that the violence in Afghanistan is driven by "resistance to foreign occupation", rather than, say, by the desire of a combination of Taliban/AQ/militant Pashtun Islamists to seize power for their own benefit, seems somewhat wanting in justification. What makes that assumption any more valid than the identification of the attackers of foreign troops as Taliban or AQ? Aren't you simply imposing a paradigm that suits your own particular ideological preference?
Submitted on Sat, 2007-07-28 09:06
reply War in Afghanistan
[quote]I'd personally say that Afghanistan has been handled rather badly(steverogers)[/quote] I don't think as many mistakes have been made in Afghanistan as in Iraq. Lets not forget the awesome fighting capacity of Afghanis who were capable of defeating the Russian army. Well equipped and well financed they can take on a modern, western military. If you add to that the religious fanaticism, the support by al-Qaeda, and the possibility of retreeting and rearming in Pakistan safe havens, they can force a stalemate as we have now. And on top of that you have the frustration of so called allies who refuse to help in fighting, are proposing peace talks (with terrorists!), and threatening a pull back of their <i>peacekeepers</i> to mollify left wing politicians at home. If the Russians have been beaten by Sting missiles, Allied forces risk being defeated by left-wing missiles.
Submitted on Fri, 2007-07-27 14:08
reply Iraq was the mistake in Afghanistan
I don't think as many mistakes have been made in Afghanistan as in Iraq.
I think Iraq was the mistake in Afghanistan. Once the Iraq war started, Afghanistan became a sideshow, deprived of troops, resources, and attention. Afghanistan was never going to be easy to manage, but it would have been a lot easier if it had been on top of the priority list.
Lets not forget the awesome fighting capacity of Afghanis who were capable of defeating the Russian army. Well equipped and well financed they can take on a modern, western military.
I see no evidence to suggest that NATO forces are fighting "The Afghanis", or anything more than a small subset thereof. NATO forces in their current numbers don't really qualify as a "modern, western army", either. Modern and Western, maybe, but 37,000 soldiers, large numbers of which are in secured areas and not available for combat, hardly qualify as an army.
Submitted on Sat, 2007-07-28 09:18
reply Leftists and terrorists
These are terms frequently resorted to by the lazy-minded. It's simply commonsense to include the views of those who represent the opposition to foreign intervention, in any conversation about the future of Afghanistan. Nor is there any objective definition of 'terrorism' which refers to resistance to foreign intervention, as such.
Submitted on Fri, 2007-07-27 14:18
reply Compelled:
to drive or urge
Compelled: to drive or urge forcefully or irresistiblyto cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure Webster's Dictionary The idea that Canada hasn't been 'urged' forcefully by their American friends, or that there hasn't been diplomatic pressure applied is laughable. You really should relax Steven, I'm not attacking your homeland, so there's really no need to become defensive to the point of being absurd, I'm mearly stating a fact.
Submitted on Fri, 2007-07-27 19:15
reply Missing a distinction here...
The idea that Canada hasn't been 'urged' forcefully by their American friends, or that there hasn't been diplomatic pressure applied is laughable.
Do you really see no distinction between the verb "to urge" and the verb "to compel"?
Suppose Canada declined to send troops, or decided to withdraw them, or to leave a token force. What do you think would happen? Do you figure they'd be expelled form NATO? Would the Americans retaliate?
You really should relax Steven, I'm not attacking your homeland
No, you're suggesting that Canada was "compelled" to send troops to Afghanistan, but producing no convincing evidence to support the suggestion.
Submitted on Sat, 2007-07-28 09:23
reply Also Steven,
Who said anything about leaving Afghanistan so peace will take place there? Really, you're becoming as obtuse as Robert.
Submitted on Fri, 2007-07-27 19:17
reply Who are the resistance?
They are the people shooting at the foreign troops and their Afghan allies. Any resolution of such situations, as history tells us, involves the inclusion of such forces in a settlement of the conflict.
The reform of NATO to exclude, the now troublesome American connection, would require the departure of the US and Canada and the renaming of the organizations as the European Defence Organization.
Submitted on Sat, 2007-07-28 13:01
reply ??
They are the people shooting at the foreign troops and their Afghan allies. Any resolution of such situations, as history tells us, involves the inclusion of such forces in a settlement of the conflict.
With whom, specifically, do you propose to negotiate, and on what terms?
The reform of NATO to exclude, the now troublesome American connection, would require the departure of the US and Canada and the renaming of the organizations as the European Defence Organization.
How do you suppose such a change would affect Afghanistan? Hardly at all, I would guess. The continental Europeans would run away - it's what they do. The Americans, Canadians, and Brits would remain, and have to send more troops.
Can you propose any even remotely plausible outcome of withdrawal from Afghanistan that isn't worse - for both the Afghans and everyone else - than staying in? If ISAF goes away, what happens? Anarchy, then, likely, a restoration of the Taliban or something analogous. AQ gets a new safe haven. Sooner or later there's another major terror attack, and troops have to go back in.
The combination of Afghanistan and Pakistan's NWFP represents a real and major problem, and it's not going to stay local. Nobody has any very good solution at this point, but the notion that running away and depositing our heads collectively in the sand is going to help seems quite delusional to me.
Submitted on Sat, 2007-07-28 23:33
reply War in Afghanistan
I believe Iraq had to be secured before launching the war in Afghanistan. The problem, as it turned out, was the failure, for many reasons, to secure Iraq, yet. The world is divided in real allies of Americans (eg.British, Canadians, Dutch) who are always ready to give a hand to the US every time they think the cause is just; in false allies (eg. French, Germans,Italians), whose foreign policy changes with the political wind (eg. Chirac vetoed the US intervention in Iraq, Sarkozy might change the engagement rules of French troops in Afghanistan); and, of course, enemies (Russia, China, Iran). The fighting in Afghanistan is done by Afghani madrassa students helped by Arabs coming from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, and by Pakistanis coming from the border regions (Waziristan etc). They are uninvitable to a peace conference (as proposed by the former communist, Italian foreign minister Massimo D'Alema) because the only thing they absolutely want cannot be given to them: Licence to reestablish the Sharia law.
Submitted on Sat, 2007-07-28 13:52
reply ?
I believe Iraq had to be secured before launching the war in Afghanistan.
Why? You do recall that the Afghan operation was launched well before the Iraq war. And unlike the Iraq war, there were real and imperative reasons for removing the Taliban from power.
I don't think it was ever going to be possible to "secure" Iraq, and I think that the effort and resources diverted to that pre-lost cause did a lot of damage in Afghanistan.
Of course any effort to develop a functioning and even partially representative government in Afghanistan was realistically going to take decades, and it was a given that there would be resisistance, from those who had lost power and wanted it back, from the criminal gang of terrorists that would like their safe haven restored, and from warlords who prefer anarchy to functioning government. The need for a military presence - one willing to fight, not simply to be present - was inevitable from the start, and it was inevitable that there were going to be casualties.
The casualty toll in Afghanistan remains relatively small, compared to Iraq, diminutive compared to the days of the Russians. There is little to suggest organized military resistance; the fighting consists largely of terror bombings directed at civilians, IEDs, and scattered ambushes. Neither is there anything to suggest that any plurality of Afghans wants the existing government to be replaced by the Taliban. It's by no means a lost cause, though it does need a great deal more effort, attention, and money. Patience, too: anyone expecting a resolution in a time scale measured in something less than decades is daydreaming.
Submitted on Sat, 2007-07-28 23:26
reply Sharia law
Of course, in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Sharia Law does, in fact, operate, to the extent that law operates in Afghanistan at all. Lordly imperialists who would prevent the installation of Islamic law are too late.
Submitted on Sat, 2007-07-28 22:06
reply Cowardly Europeans
Not wishing to sacrifice troops in the service of American imperialism is good politics and good sense. The obligations of NATO membership have been met by commitment by some and token gestures by most. Winding up NATO and re-establishing it as the European Defence Organization would open the way for the development of strategies that were not led by the demands of US imperialism.
Submitted on Sun, 2007-07-29 09:27
reply Not wishing to sacrifice
<i>Not wishing to sacrifice troops in the service of American imperialism is good politics and good sense</i> You've yet to demonstrate how the troops in Afghanistan are "in the service of American imperialism". Europe has a number of excellent reasons to want to see groups like AQ denied a safe haven in Afghanistan. <i>Winding up NATO and re-establishing it as the European Defence Organization would open the way for the development of strategies that were not led by the demands of US imperialism.</i> Would such a force have the will or capacity to act? Perhaps you could articulate some of the strategies you have in mind...
Submitted on Sun, 2007-07-29 10:33
reply Strategies
I'm not offering myself as an adviser to the putative European Defence Organization. I assume it would develop strategies in the interests of Europe rather than of American imperialism.
Submitted on Sun, 2007-07-29 10:50
reply Lame
<i>I assume it would develop strategies in the interests of Europe rather than of American imperialism.</i> Ok, so you can't demonstrate that "American Imperialism" exists at all, still less that this hypothetical construct has any impact in Afghanistan. You suggest that there is some divergence in European and American interests in Afghanistan, but you don't seem willing to specify what exactly these interests are, or where the divergence lies. Do you even know what you are trying to say? If so, please say it. Clearly, if you will. Just for a change.
Submitted on Sun, 2007-07-29 12:15
reply Clearly
It's staring you in the face. If you choose the faux-naif or complete ignoramus path, bad cess to you.
Submitted on Sun, 2007-07-29 14:43
reply As expected...
...you don't know what you're trying to say. Hardly surprising.
Submitted on Mon, 2007-07-30 01:33
reply What is being said
A European Defence Organization to replace NATO would be in a position to develop strategies in the interests of Europe rather than the United States. A presumption that what is good for the United States is good for Europe is not one I would make. The invasion of Afghanistan by the United States was carried out in revenge for 9/11. Continued killing of all and sundry by aerial bombardment is not a positive strategy and European countries would do well to distance themselves from it.
Submitted on Mon, 2007-07-30 11:11
reply What is being said? Not much.
[quote]A European Defence Organization to replace NATO would be in a position to develop strategies in the interests of Europe rather than the United States.[/quote]
Well, of course, but you have yet to demonstrate any significant divergence of such interests in Afghanistan, or proposed any alternative strategy that might protect a hypothetically unique "European Interest"
There's also the question of whether, given the military reticence of the EU, such a union would actually be able to implement any strategy it developed.
[quote]The invasion of Afghanistan by the United States was carried out in revenge for 9/11. [/quote]
Why would you say it was an act of revenge? The parties responsible for 9/11 were taking shelter in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. The invasion was undertaken to remove a terrorist safe haven and, ideally, to apprehand the leaders of the group and prevent further attacks. Not all these objectives were met, but that doesn't make it an act of revenge. Osama declared war, and that's what he got. Mullah Omar et al had the opportunity to distance themselves from Osama, failed to take it, and they got it too.
[quote] Continued killing of all and sundry by aerial bombardment is not a positive strategy and European countries would do well to distance themselves from it.[/quote]
That wouldn't be a positive strategy, but since nobody has adopted that strategy, it's a bit of a straw man.
Submitted on Thu, 2007-08-02 11:45
reply ['you're suggesting that
['you're suggesting that Canada was "compelled" to send troops to Afghanistan, but producing no convincing evidence to support the suggestion.']Steven
Steven, I'm sorry, proof of what? That international diplomacy can, and does, include techniques designed to pressure, threaten, and even intimidate other countries? You don't honestly think the US government simply said 'please, pretty please...' when asking for NATO troops for Afghanistan do you? Oh wait, maybe you do. Anyways, seems fairly basic to me, I'm not sure what possible motive you have for objecting to this line of thinking other than to be disagreeable.
['Do you figure they'd be expelled form NATO? Would the Americans retaliate?']
You're displaying a profound amount of ignorance for someone that supposedly writes intelligently about international issues for a living, though perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. Anyways, the relationship between the US and Canada is more subtle than that, the biggest threat to Canada is being marginalized by the US. If Canada, already not having sent troops to Iraq, decided not to send troops to Afghanistan the US government would have most likely marginalized Canada even more. Considering our economic livelihood depends on the US this could have had disastrous consequences and wasn't a risk we could have taken.
Submitted on Mon, 2007-07-30 15:32
reply Canada-US Relationship
[quote]....the relationship between the US and Canada is more subtle than that, the biggest threat to Canada is being marginalized by the US.(chris9234)[/quote]
I am afraid your understanding of Canada-US relationship is warped. Canada has never been an American colony, and her political attitude towards the southern neighbour has always been a reflection of the Party in power at the moment. A few examples. Pierre Elliot Trudeau and his liberal Party was very independent from the US, recognizing The People's Republic of China (to the great fury of Nixon), and remaining a very good friend of Castro And Cuba. The Conservative Brian Mulroney was a buddy of Reagan and Canada participated in the Gulf War.Economically Canada and the US(and Mexico) are linked through NAFTA, and depend very much one from the other: Canadian Oil, Gas, Electricity, Wood and Paper etc are essential for the American economy.
So, your suggestion that Canada should behave or Uncle Sam would punish her is just baloney.
Submitted on Wed, 2007-08-01 14:22
reply Mr. delusional...
['So, your suggestion that Canada should behave or Uncle Sam would punish her is just baloney.' ]
Roberto, It isn't about 'behaving', it's about recognizing political and economic realities. Yes, some Canadian resources are essential to the American economy, but the Canadian economy would come crashing to our feet were the Americans to simply take a harsher position on boarder security, and that's reality.
I'd even bet that out of Brendan, you and me, two of us somehow depend on Americans purchasing our goods or services in order for us to make a living. Now, some advice, you seriously need to take yourself, and Canada, less seriously, you think we're in Afghanistan because we're morally superior people, and now you ridiculously think American consumers somehow wouldn't be able to live without us. Trust me, they could live without us, but there's no way in hell we could live without them, sorry for bursting another of you delusional bubbles.
Submitted on Wed, 2007-08-01 14:47
reply War in Afghanistan
[quote] Now, some advice, you seriously need to take yourself, and Canada, less seriously, you think we're in Afghanistan because we're morally superior people, and now you ridiculously think American consumers somehow wouldn't be able to live without us.(chris) [/quote]
It is not a question of moral superiority, but, probably due to History, social cohesiveness and generally decent behaviour, Canadians, rightly or wrongly, have acquired a reputation of being nice people. They commit less crimes, are more law abiding and socially responsible. For all these reasons they have been asked many times to act as peace makers and/or keepers. Lester B. Pearson, General D'Allaire, Louise Arbour etc are a few examples of Canadians who have performed international duties. We are not a superpower, a former colonial Nation, an aggressive, militaristic State. When we have contributed to any war it's because we thought it was for a just cause, unless you prove me wrong.
As for the economic advantages resulting from Canada-US exchanges, I think there are mores chances for the US to invade and annex Canada for all its goodies then sever all relationships to spite her nose.
Submitted on Thu, 2007-08-02 13:32
reply Really?
<i>you ridiculously think American consumers somehow wouldn't be able to live without us. Trust me, they could live without us, but there's no way in hell we could live without them</i> Is that really true? We hear all sorts of talk about how the Saudis have the US by the short hairs, but the US imports more oil from Canada than it does from Saudi Arabia, along with quantities of natural gas and electricity. There's not much that Canada sells to the US that couldn't be sold elsewhere, and not much that Canada buys from the US that couldn't be bought elsewhere, but the US would have a hard time replacing some of what it's used to buying from Canada. I''m not saying a trade war is probable or desirable, but it's likely the US would hurt more and faster. You've yet to explain in what sense Canada is "marginal", or why you think that Canada has been or could be "marginalized by the US". Neither have you produced any evidence to support the suggestion that Canada was coerced or compelled to send troops to Afghanistan.
Submitted on Thu, 2007-08-02 11:34
reply Steven, Wow, you're
Steven,
Wow, you're displaying a real ignorance on this issue. The economic engine is in Ontario, and it isn't oil or gas that we're selling to America, its manufactured products. Tell me Einstein, do you think billions of manufactured parts manufactured in Ontario, many by American companies, have to be made here? As well, did you realize that all that oil in Alberta is actually hurting the Ontarian economy by driving tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs out of Ontario because of higher inflation, higher interest rates, and a higher dollar?
Perhaps you ought to educate your self a little better on this subject prior to sticking your nose in it.
EDITED
Submitted on Thu, 2007-08-02 12:51
reply Alberta vs Ontario is their problem...
... but the fact remains that the US imports more of its oil from Canada than from any other source, which would give Canada a very potent weapon in any serious dispute. It might well be a sort of economic mutual assured destruction, but still, the balance of power is by no means unequal. The US would have a rather difficult time replacing 1.8 million bpd of oil imports. That of course is entirely imaginary, since there isn't any trade war, and wouldn't be, even if Canada pulled its forces out of Afghanistan. Some words might fly, but little more. I'm still not seeing any evidence or reasoning to suggest that Canada was coerced or compelled to send forces to Afganistan, or that Canada has been or is likely to be economically marginalized by the US.
Submitted on Thu, 2007-08-02 13:42
reply Sorry Robert, but just
Sorry Robert, but just causes don't have a time limit, we're out of Afghanistan in 2009 (or assigned another task away from the fighting), and that’s simply the truth. Canadians like you can talk all you want about the justness of the cause, but when our soldiers move on and Afghanistan is still a bloody mess I'm going to be very interested in hearing your excuses.
Submitted on Thu, 2007-08-02 13:56
reply Steven,
First, I never
Steven,
First, I never said Canada was coerced by the US to send troops to Afghanistan so stop implying I did, it's dishonest ok, thanks. Secondly, even you have suggested that Canada was compelled to send troops to Afghanistan so I don't really understand why you would want me to offer you proof for something you already believe.
['Canadians may choose to "honor their commitments" to NATO, but it's still their choice.']
Honoring commitments is a compelling reason I agree, but so is supporting your friends and allies in order to maintain that friendship and alliance.
As for the economically marginalized, there is a great concern here about the closing of the American boarders due to security reasons, and just as some Americans gained from a ban on Canadian cattle there are many Americans that would love to see tighter controls at the boarder as they would benefit from it. Many companies are here only because of the skilled labor force and the low manufacturing costs even though they sell 95% of their product in the US. What would those companies do if it suddenly became difficult to move their product into the US market?
One of my clients is the USPS and unknown to most Canadians a little law came into effect this month making it illegal for American postal software to be sold or transported outside the US, making it problematic for Canadian mailing companies to send mail to the US. This is directly impacting printing, mailing, and shipping companies, and it's all being done in the name of security, but you won't find anyone that knows how. The point, however, is that one little change by the US government has a big impact on peoples lives here and most people haven't a clue.
Submitted on Thu, 2007-08-02 14:35
reply ??
Chris, are you saying that the Canadian Government saw compelling reasons to send troops to Afghanistan, or that the US compelled the Canadian Government to send troops to Afghanistan? There is a difference.
I don't see any realistic risk that the US would prevent the flow of goods across the border because of any Canadian policy. Sure, there have been trade issues, over wood and meat, but there always are, that's just part of the normal give and take between countries. It's not like the US is going to try to bankrupt Canada if the Canadians don't follow US foreign policy.
One of my clients is the USPS and unknown to most Canadians a little law came into effect this month making it illegal for American postal software to be sold or transported outside the US, making it problematic for Canadian mailing companies to send mail to the US.
How strange. Nobody here seems to be having any problem at all sending mail to the US...
Submitted on Sat, 2007-08-11 23:31
reply Results of American policy
Europeans have no interest in widening the humanitarian disaster or increasing terrorism and the threat of terrorism. Americans who attribute a distaste for war to 'cowardice' have yet to experience millions of dead on their own soil. The head of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Kabul underlines, in very restrained terms, the impact of the invasion and continuing military action. [quote] It has never been easy to predict how Afghanistan's "humanitarian situation" will change. There are numerous shifts in the landscape at present including: increased and more geographically dispersed insurgency action, talk of negotiation between the government and armed opposition, and an increasing degree of dissatisfaction with some international forces due to high numbers of civilian casualties.[/quote]
Submitted on Fri, 2007-08-03 15:30
reply Is there a point to this?
<i>Europeans have no interest in widening the humanitarian disaster or increasing terrorism and the threat of terrorism.</i> Europeans also apparently have no interest in trying to bring a functioning government to Afghanistan. That's not something that will be accomplished without some degree of military confrontation with those who prefer anarchy or medieval theocracy. It is sonething that will take decades to accomplish, and it will not be easy. That was a given from the start. I note that your quote from the Red Cross official declines to compare conditions in Afghanistan today with those prevailing before the invasion. Are you suggesting that Afghanistan would be better off with the Taliban still in power?
Submitted on Sat, 2007-08-11 23:24
reply Where's his evidence?
[quote] steverogers, 2 August: the balance of power is by no means unequal. [/quote]
Is this guy denying the overwhelming superiority of the United States over Canada?!!! Where is his evidence?
[quote] stevenrogers, 11 August: It is sonething that will take decades to accomplish, and it will not be easy.[/quote]
You expect a fifty year commitment by the United States?!!! Half a century?!!!! Are you mad?!!!!!
The bullyism of the Americans is a given in international politics. Even their friends - the French, the Italians, the Germans, the Japanese, the Canadians, are periodically subjected to it. Changing this reality would be more responsible, and more honorable for the United States, than denying it.
Submitted on Sun, 2007-08-12 06:00
reply US-Canadian interdependence
This discussion is about "who needs who" more and it is clear that Canada needs to US more than the US needs Canada. "81% of exports and 67% of imports for Canada, and 23% of exports and 17% of imports for the United States" - Wikipedia. When it comes to wielding political pressure, the US has an edge. However it is in nobody's interest to take this to any final conclusion. This would be economic madness. The US is currently obsessed with security and increased restrictions on the relatively open arrangements with Canada were bound to be tightened. I don't think anything more than the obvious should be read into this. As for the contribution to ISAP forces in Afghanistan, the UK and Canada are the main contributors to the much larger US effort and have been willing to take on the higher risk operations. As terrible as it is to see the continuing casualty figures, I think that it would be wrong not take a unified view in supporting the actions taken by ISAP, led by the US, in this case. Also, some contributing nations are simply not set up to be able to provide adequate and coordinated frontline support, and others have only marginal internal political backing for being involved at all. Whilst this does make contribution unequal, it is better than having none at all. There has been some criticism of Germany, France and Spain here, but I note that they have had quite a high casualty rate so this is not wholly justified. I think shouting about who is doing the harder jobs is politically divisive and is best avaoided.
Submitted on Sun, 2007-08-12 10:17
reply figures don't tell the whole story
Percentage of imports doesn't mean that much. Canada is the largest source of oil imports for the US, and if that oil was ever cut off the impact on the US economy would be catstrophic. Pretty much a non-issue really, since a trade war is pretty unlikely... particularly since it would be a case of economic mutual assured destruction.
Submitted on Sun, 2007-08-12 13:22
reply [QUOTE]Pretty much a
[quote]Pretty much a non-issue really, since a trade war is pretty unlikely[/quote]
So long as Canada accepts the dominance of the United States.
You have failed to link us to evidence for your statement that the balance of power between Canada and the USA "is by no means unequal."
Submitted on Mon, 2007-08-13 07:01
reply You have failed to link us to evidence...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Canada/Background.html <i>Almost all of Canada’s energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.</i> That's called a trump card: even if the other guy has more and bigger cards, the trump card still wins. The US is certainly not going to let minor geopolitical disagreements disturb its energy supplies. <i>"So long as Canada accepts the dominance of the United States."</i> You have failed to link us to any evidence to suggest that Canada does accept "the dominance of the United States". Neither have you produced any evidence to suggest that the US is reluctant to trade with countries that do not follow its will. The opposite is of course true. The French, for example, take visible delight in opposing the US in virtually everything, yet trade between the US and France continues undisturbed. The Chinese can hardly be said to "accept US dominance", but trade and investment roll happily along. As long as everybody's making money, nobody's going to let minor passing political trifles interrupt the business of business. If Canada pulled its troops out of Afghanistan tomorrow, words might pass back and forth but the economic consequences would be nil. It's not a boat anybody's going to rock.
Submitted on Mon, 2007-08-13 12:38
reply Quote:That's called a trump
[quote]That's called a trump card: even if the other guy has more and bigger cards, the trump card still wins. The US is certainly not going to let minor geopolitical disagreements disturb its energy supplies (stevenrogers)[/quote]
That's called an opinion. Stevenroger's opinions do not trump geopolitical realities. And how this guy likes shifting the terms of a debate, when his sophistry is exposed. No one is claiming the USA punishes countries for minor disagreements. If Canada ceased to accept American dominance, minor differences would become major differences and no one gifted with intellectual integrity denies America in those cases retaliates.
[quote] Neither have you produced any evidence to suggest that the US is reluctant to trade with countries that do not follow its will. (stevenrogers)[/quote]
What is stevenrogers favorite brand of liquor? He should not drink so much of it. Does the USA not have trade embargos with Cuba? With Iran? Did the USA not have a trade embargo with Iraq, in between the two Bush wars?!!!!
You have failed to link us to evidence the USA is willing to trade with these countries, unless they alter their foreign policies.
You have failed to provide us with evidence that Canada is a threat to any national security interests of the United States.
Submitted on Mon, 2007-08-13 14:40
reply What on earth, if anything, are you talking about?
The percentage of US energy imports sourced from Canada is not an opinion; neither is the dependence of the US economy on imported energy or the difficulty the US would have in replacing those imports from other sources. The allegation that this dependence would make the US reluctant to disturb trade relations with Canada is of course an opinion, but it' |
