Apolitical Staples

Well the Rev. clearly has no clue what the meaning of the word “imperialist” is.

Also if he thinks this is just an American War he should read this

http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?artID=581

You think that column is well thought out? I admit I didn’t read it but the section you posted is delusional. I’d say almost every statement in it is wrong. Perhaps your title was meant as sarcasm? I hope so.

You’re sadly mistaken, and so is Harper, if you think that there won’t be a debate about this in Parliament. Harper does not get to decide what is or isn’t debated. Just ask the Liberals if they wanted a debate about corruption during the last session, if you don’t believe that.

As for supporting our mission in Afghanistan, I for one won’t support it until I know what exactly it is I’m supporting. Our mission and role in that country has become muddled and our objective vague. Bringing peeance and freeance to the people of Afghanistan is not an objective; it’s empty rhetoric.

Unless the government can come up with a clear explanation for why we’re there, how much blood and treasure it’s going to cost and whether or not there’s a reasonable chance our objective can be met, more and more people will begin to question it. And Harper won’t be able to hide behind empty platitudes. That isn’t working for Bush any longer and Canadians won’t tolerate it half as long as Americans did.

I say, if Layton is dumb enough to advocate changing the mission in mid-stream let him. He will lose the argument.

Better fighting there than here. But reading these anti-war quacks shows that we are becoming more and more a nation of gutless wimps.

Here is why Canada and others are in Afghanistan for those to dumb or lazy to look it up themselves. mclelland I’m looking in your direction. http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/1386%20(2001)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC

The top guy on the Rev’s Advisory Board is Mel Hertig, a renowned American hater; ‘nuff said.

As to the need for a debate on the Afgan mission, it’s not the mission that is muddled; it’s the Canadians that are muddled.

However Canadians received no info from PMPM and given the distortion of the CBC and George Clooney movies (those damned Americans), we clearly have a propaganda war at home. So let the debate begin.

We will be in this War against Islamofascism for decades, just like the Cold War. Only this time the enemy (which Ottawa still hasn’t even named) is in our midst. Let’s get on with it. Peter Mackay will either become a real man around the House or otherwise. But I agree with Greg, Layton will lose this.

Well, then, what is the mission? There are not enough troops (from NATO or anyone else) to allow the kind of security required to stabilize Afghanistan. The goal should be to kill Bin Laden and the Taliban leadership, then make it clear to the warlords that are now running the country that if they permit these creeps back in, THEY will get a few cruise missle up their arses.

I think you and I are in agreement Sinister Greg.

The more I think about the Middle East, the less I think that Canadians, Americans, or any other non Middle Eastern country has any business sending troops there. And it’s not just because the objectives are muddled and vague. The causes and motivations for being there just don’t make sense.

Canadians are in Afghanistan because our allies the Americans were attacked by Osama bin Laden who was operating from there. Osama attacked America because they are propping up his enemies in the Saudi civil war. America is propping up the Saudi government because they want to get oil cheaper than their military and commercial rivals. But because America is not getting anything remotely resembling a “deal” on Saudi oil, after the cost of military intervention in the Middle East is counted, there is really no reason to support the Saudis and antagonize the Saudis’ internal enemies, and there is no reason for there to be a War on Terror. There would still be riots, bombings and murders committed by Islamic terrorists in socialist countries like Europe, but that is fundamentally a problem with socialism and not an inevitable clash of religion or civilizations. Israel is a sideshow and without the severely aggravating factor of oil politics in places like Arabia, Iraq and Iran, there is no way this would ever become a powderkeg that threatens the rest of the world.

Congressman Ron Paul made an excellent speech recently in which he traced the economic roots of the wrong-headed US policies to dollar hegemony. It’s a bit of a long read, but you could learn more about international politics and economics from reading this one speech than from reading a year’s worth of blogs. Or newspapers.

Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind-boggling [i.e. going off the gold standard], elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence “backed” the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished.

I like the reference to another American “dirty” war.

We should have left the Taliban in control of Afghanistan. The terrorist training camps, exporting fanatical killers to the West. The public stonings for such moral wrongs as a woman showing her leg. The daily executions in the soccer stadium. Banning women from any meaningful participation in society. Roaming bands of morality police, dishing out summary punishment, including cutting off hands. Societal institutions that brought the country back to the stone age.

Yes, letting all that continue would have been much “cleaner.”

Justzumgai,

You appear to be extremely ignorant.

Socialism??

Radical Islam attacks the West for what it believes (or doesn’t believe - Islamic rule), not for what it does.

But don’t trust me, just listen to their own words when they call for our (infidels) deaths.

Justzumgai, I guess the 24 Canadians that died on 9/11 don’t count? Or the British? & other nationals that died? Just some people who had no business dealing with the “dirty American(s)”?

I guess the next time a country that has overthrown an oppressive regime & needs help keeping them out (Darfur comes to mind), we should just say “sorry, call us when they’re gone & we’ll come then”?

Maybe you should consider moving to Europe.

Achmud, the words calling for our deaths seem to be spoken in mosques in both Europe and in Canada, but in Canada there are no riots and religious murders. While an aggravating circumstance, it is clear that the hateful preaching of imams is not the major cause of Europe’s problems. Instead, look to the extremely high rates of unemployment among Islamic Europeans. People with jobs have no interest in staying up all night burning cars and raping the daughters of infidels. The widespread unemployment in Europe, especially among immigrants, is 100% the fault of socialist policies.

Candace, I neither praised Europe nor called Americans “dirty”. You have said nothing to refute my main premises, namely: (1) the objectives of the war in Afghanistan are muddled and vague; and (2) the central cause of the War on Terror, of which the Afghan campaign is a part, is the attempt by the USA to prop up or oppose the various Middle Eastern factions in the mistaken belief that this would lead to greater availability of petroleum.