• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Discussion of Canada's Role in AFG (merged)

   No matter what anybody says the fact remains that Karzai was picked by the west to lead Afghanistan even though he won an election he is still viewed as a Western puppet by the islamic world . A little known fact was that Karzai actually donated 50 000 dollars to the Taliban in 1994 , in fact Mullah Omar asked him to be there envoy to the UN . So how legitimate is the current government in Astan ? , better than what they had before but definately not squeaky clean . It is unfortunate that we feel the need to apply our beliefs to others without the thought that they may have a differant vision that may not be favorable to us .
 
Cannonfodder...so what if Karzai had contacts with the Taliban in 94......GW Bushs government gave the Taliban millions of $$$s in the spring of 2001 just a few months before 9/11...how about we should be in Afghanistan because after 30 years of invasive war(USSR) and civil-war this poor country and its people need help to regain some stability and peace so they can rebuild. How about forgetting rhetoric and justifications( fighting terrorism,taliban etc) and decideing we're there because its just the right thing to do?
Gene
 
Cannonfodder said:
   No matter what anybody says the fact remains that Karzai was picked by the west to lead Afghanistan even though he won an election he is still viewed as a Western puppet by the islamic world . A little known fact was that Karzai actually donated 50 000 dollars to the Taliban in 1994 , in fact Mullah Omar asked him to be there envoy to the UN . So how legitimate is the current government in Astan ? , better than what they had before but definately not squeaky clean . It is unfortunate that we feel the need to apply our beliefs to others without the thought that they may have a differant vision that may not be favorable to us .

Dude, back in the cold war, the Taliban were the good guys.  Everyone wanted to pile on Ivan the Red Commie dog, including the US.  Hindsite is always 20/20. 
What are you talking about with the vision and belief talk?  Does anyone really think that anybody has any "empire building" visions of A'stan?  Seriously, unless you are into rugged terrain and rock climbing, is there any redeeming quality to the area, other than it's strategic usefulness. 
I also would like to see a longer-than-two sentence justification for pulling out of A'stan and why it does not serve to fight terrorism to be there.
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Cannonfodder and J Gayson,
Methinks that you are being short-sighted in saying that it is not a fight on terror.
You may be partly correct in your assumption that it won't stop them from recruiting more scumbags, however, just like you and I, most people just want a chance at a real life, and if we can show the rest of the possible recruiting area's that we [ the west] can bring peace and economic stability to a region, well maybe they will think there is hope and therefore.......

No, I AM saying IT IS a fight on terror.

I have interpreted Cannonfodders remarks as Afghanistan to NOT be the SOLE solution to Terrorism.

Afghanistan definitely IS the fight on terror, howeverm I believe that it is not the ONLY fight on terror that is required to garner success.
 
Cannonfodder said:
    No matter what anybody says ....


.... you're not going to change your opinion or open up to a wider view, so perhaps this discussion thread has already outlived its usefulness.


Cannonfodder said:
...the fact remains that Karzai was picked by the west to lead Afghanistan even though he won an election he is still viewed as a Western puppet by the islamic world . A little known fact was that Karzai actually donated 50 000 dollars to the Taliban in 1994 , in fact Mullah Omar asked him to be there envoy to the UN . So how legitimate is the current government in Astan ?

Relevance?  Would you say this allegation disproves any validity to the mission in a global context?


Cannonfodder said:
..., better than what they had before but definately not squeaky clean .

Is not better a good thing, even if it's not "sqeaky clean"?


Cannonfodder said:
It is unfortunate that we feel the need to apply our beliefs to others without the thought that they may have a differant vision that may not be favorable to us .

How exactly are "we" applying "our beliefs"?  What beliefs are being oppressed?  The right to train and support terrorists?  Would you say that is a commonly held tenet of Afghani life?  It would appear to me that we make efforts to not offend the cultural beliefs of those in the countries we are in.

 
Bert said:
From my reading, your points are:
1.  Canadian involvement in Afghanistan will not prevent terrorism from happening;
2.  Terrorism is routed in many areas;
3.  Terrorism is one big jigsaw puzzle;
4.  More immigration conditions at home.
5.  Summary is questioning why Canada is in Afghanistan.

The current "war on terrorism" conflict is not unlike anything else that has happened in the last
2.5 million years of human history.  More recently, there are causes, effects, and consequences
affecting 19th and 20th historyin regards to Europe, the US, Russia, China, central Asia, old
empires, authoritarians, Afghanistan, warlords, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda
wannabees.  This sets the context, those who ignore geo-history are  doomed to repeat it.

Canadian involvement in Afghanistan is affected by the attacks performed by Al-Qaeda on
our allies, the cells and documented terrorist activities occurring through and within our borders,
threats made against our country by terrorist organizations (Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah directly),
and terrorist intimidation of Canadian interests  overseas.  Can it be argued that Canada is involved
whether we want to be or not?

Afghanistan was the major physical training region for Al-Qaeda for some time.  Taliban
support of Al-Qaeda is a fact.  Since the Taliban would not cease their support of Al-Qaeda in
the light of 9/11, the US/NATO had the means to take the fight to the region.

Canadian continuing involvement in Afganistan reduces the ability of old Taliban elements
returning to power, stops further physical support of Al-Qaeda in the region, and reduces
one area/support structure in which ourenemies can exploit.

The US and other countries are pressuring African, Middle East, Central Asian, and SE
Asian governmentsand NGOs/other from supporting AL-Qaeda through diplomacy, the UN, and
financial/military threats or incentives.

If Canada was to remove itself from Afghanistan, or countries of interest, the warlords and
Taliban authority figures with weapons would once again take power in the various AFG regions
and any rule of law or humanitarian undertaking developed would disappear.  Al-Qaeda would
gain further support and that is not in Canadian interests.

In another sense, global conflicts like this cannot be solved simply in one day.  Theres no easy
solution.  Most conflicts are based on actions, counteractions, strategy, consequences, that play
out until there is a conclusion.  Continuing involvement by countries in Afghanistan will allow the
establishment of the rule of law in the long term and eliminate the return of terrorist support.

As far as domestic Canadian policy affecting immigration, the charter of rights, and various
Acts, ...well...good luck with that.  Old country problems brought into Canada from first generation
immigrants and idealogical festering in cultural ghettos can be in conflict with Canadian laws and
main-stream social value.  I know a Chinese restaurant owner who served in the PLA
(or so he said).  He said if the US and Canada ever went to war against China, he wouldn't be on
our side.  I have no idea how much fact or bravado was in that statement.  However, it kinda
bothered me as this is IN Canada.  Despite this, I've seen this guy hand out food to hobos, help
people off the street, engage anyone in conversation, and seems like a decent enough guy,
even more than most.  Complicated issues that cannot be addressed in bi-polarized
discussions.  Good luck with that.


** Since typing this up, there were 23 replies to the thread.  Holy Cr*p! I have no idea whether
anything I've written is relevent anymore (or ever was so) but I've spent enough time that i'm not
deleting it so I'm clicking post...

I completely agree with you here, even on the immigration issue.

Sadly, our laws do protect the few of the many good immigrants that due come to our country.

The reason why I brought up immigration as an issue for Terrorism is this.

It is known that many Islamic Extremists have been recruited in mosks.  Most mosks are located at or near large Islamic communities.

It would be wrong to not allow those to practice Islam to not have mosks, after all that would like taking church away from Christians.

If however, Immigrants were told that they had to live in a geographic location chosen by the government for a set period of time, suddenly the rate that which large ethnic communties will drastically decrease if not stop.

Instead we now have many smaller communities spread throughout the country which would result in:

-Many more religious buildings to be built in Canada to maintain the same amount of buildings per community (hypothetically).

-This makes it harder for people to be recruited in Terrorism because it would take MORE recruiters to cover the country than a few large communities.

-Since the immigrants are sent throughout the country and not allowed to immediately move into communities of their choosing, they are forced to interact with Canadians that probably don't completely share many of these values.  This would likely result in more Immigrants more effectively integrating into our Canadian and Western culture and thus reducing anti western values within our country.  This hopefully would make it harder to recruit your average immigrant or even first generation Canadian.

-Also they would allow Canada to have more people in places that it needs them.  If the person or family completed say a 3 year term at the "place" they could have the option of moving where ever they want like any Canadian, but I'm willing to bet that at least some would decide to settle down in or near the location they were assigned (parents could gotten could jobs, kid might like his/her school, whatever.)

But, I think I've gone way off topic now.

[EDIT] spelling.
 
J. Gayson said:
If however, Immigrants were told that they had to live in a geographic location chosen by the government for a set period of time, suddenly the rate that which large ethnic communties will drastically decrease if not stop.
[EDIT] spelling.

Wow! Sort of like what we did with immigrated & naturalized Japanese Canadians during the second world war?  That was and is a black stain on this Country.  I realize that you didn't say to build giant pens to keep them in, but you may as well have.  "This is a free Country, but you have to live here, because we don't want terrorists and extremists contacting you to recruit you" This would be a huge sh!t sandwich if it happened. How would you ensure they stayed in the location chosen?  Would they have to carry papers? Horrible idea..............................
 
J. Gayson said:
If however, Immigrants were told that they had to live in a geographic location chosen by the government for a set period of time....
This makes it harder for people to be recruited in Terrorism because it would take MORE recruiters to cover the country ....
Since the immigrants are sent throughout the country and not allowed to immediately move into communities of their choosing, they are forced to interact with Canadians that probably don't completely share many of these values.  This would likely result in more Immigrants more effectively integrating into our Canadian and Western culture

I'm not going to address most of your issues because your whole post is way off the topic of why we are in Afghanistan. However, I feel obligated to jump in on your "integration theory."

One easy test for some proposals is how you would feel if it were applied to you. After all, these various "others" are human, so your reactions may be relevant, notwithstanding cultural differences.

I'm going to assume that, for arguments' sake, you are a white, anglo male, who has moved to a weird place called Toronto. Welcome. Anyone you know from the old country is living in Toronto. You have just received a notice from the Canadian government saying you must live in Upper Buffalo Hump Saskatchewan for, what did you say, 2 years. It's currently -25 degrees. You've been practicing your English, but UBH, Sask is a Ukrainian community (established back before the government started dictating with whom immigrants could congregate).

Because you don't speak Ukrainian, and you're "different," you have a tough time finding a job - - after all, you don't have that social network of your kindred spirits in TO's ethnic neighbourhoods. It's not merely a case of embracing western values; the good citizens of UBH Sask don't want you dating their daughters - - you're different and you're obviously lazy, since you don't have a job.

Are you remotely bitter now? Not just bitter cold, but, you know.... disgruntled....at the society around you? Do you need someone to come into a place of worship, or any other gathering place, to tell you that you're pissed off?

Do you really think such an "integration through segregation" plan would work if it were applied to you? Have you just not reduced the number of terrorist recruiters, since immigrants are now more predisposed to anger than before your plan went into effect?

Dictating where ethnic groupings of people will live has never worked before. The Jewish residents of the Warsaw Ghetto never said "oh, now i get it, I should like Nazism." I say that only because what you are proposing is pretty close to dictatorship.


ps: they're called "mosques."
 
People with jobs, education and a good place to live generally feel prosperous...

Prosperous peope are happy...

Happy people seldom blow things up...

My 2 cents.

Slim
 
If such a system were to be implemented, it would be obviously be done so for economic reasons before Canadian defence purposes.

Furthermore any government that implemented it for Terror reasons would lose their next election.

Also, immigrants would be sent to areas that are in serious need of labour for work.  I don't understand the problem with this, as placing an immigrant to work in a specific municipality is no different than an immigrant forced to be a dishwasher because his Engineering degree isn't recognized in Canada by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers.

Furthermore,

If I was an immigrant and forced to live in Sask so I could permanently reside in Canada I would be force to learn English.

I suppose that's better than being able to live in TO off the plane, move directly into an ethnic community that will "support you".  As long as you live there its possible to live and work without ever learning how to speak on of Canada's 2 OFFICIAL LANGUAGES.  If your able to survive comfortably without learning English in a community that supports you than really you may never have to get citizenship, or even pay taxes for that matter.

http://apmp.berkeley.edu/APMP/pubs/agworkvisa/canada111503.html

200,000 illegal immigrants toiling in Canada's underground economy?

Free health care without paying taxes?

This sort of reminds me of the illegal immigrant I met, who is a friend of a friend I go to school with.  This individual makes $30/h doing roofing jobs in the construction industry if I remember.  Imagine how much money in taxes could be collected off this fellow?  problem is, he lives in a certain Latino community in Toronto as is therefore able to get away with it.

I don't know how my so called "integration theory" can be compared to Nazi Germany.

Maybe I was asleep in history class but I distinctly remember the Jews being collected from their homes and placed into a ghetto.  I never said immigrants already established in Canada should be moved, nor do I understand how anyone could come to that conclusion.

Finally,

I'm willing to bet any immigrant that is moving to Canada to find a better job is willing to risk having to live somewhere in Alberta.  Moving across the Pacific Ocean in search of a better life in itself is a huge risk, so I'm sure any immigrant that accepted that risk might be willing to live in Alberta for awhile.

Who knows, maybe they might actually LIKE living in the prairies and decide to settle there.





 
Slim said:
People with jobs, education and a good place to live generally feel prosperous...

Prosperous peope are happy...

Happy people seldom blow things up...

My 2 cents.

Slim

True, but not all suicide bombers are poor and angry with the world.
 
J. Gayson said:
Also, imiigrants would be sent to areas that are in serious need of labour for work.  I don't understand the problem with this, as placing an immigrant to work in a specifc municipality is no different than an immigrant forced to be a dishwasher because his Engineering degree isn't recognized in Canada by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers.

If I was an immigrant and forced to live in sask so I could perminantly reside in Canada I would be force to learn English.

I'd be happy if someone forced you to learn English now, before your next post.
 
Thank you for reminding me to use the Spell Check function.

Though, I don't see how forgetting to use it in my last post would indicate that I don't know how to speak English.

My point stands though,

Assigning new immigrants areas to live for a couple of years would yield economic benefits, and at the same time allow for greater security for Canada against Terrorism.
 
J. Gayson said:
Also, immigrants would be sent to areas that are in serious need of labour for work.  I don't understand the problem with this, as placing an immigrant to work in a specific municipality is no different than an immigrant forced to be a dishwasher because his Engineering degree isn't recognized in Canada by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers.

Just out of curiosity, what areas of the country have a "negative" employment rate, where you see these masses of "labourers" being placed and gainfully employed?

Secondly, what about a professional whose credentials are recognized, will we send him/her to one of these "settlement camps" whether or not he/she can be employed there in their field?

J. Gayson said:
My point stands though,

Assigning new immigrants areas to live for a couple of years would yield economic benefits, and at the same time allow for greater security for Canada against Terrorism.

How would you see this immigration plan of yours being policed?  We don't control the movement of citizens or landed immigrants now, so would we then have to do so?  Since not all immigrants are visible minorities, would we have to issue national identity cards (there was lots of support in that thread) to everyone, or just to everyone in a "settlement camp" area and control all movement in and out of those counties?
 
 
  Getting back on topic , Afghanistan is a worthy cause however actions in Afghanistan do not prevent terrorist actions in the west . An aggressive assistance to restablish safety and security in a lawless land , not a war on terror or whatever they are selling it as . War on terror is a catch phrase that is way over used andis more often than not is misused . Al queda no longer has the robust training capabilities that it once had in Astan , now matter how you cut it  NATO actions will not stop terrorist attacks in the west . The embryos of future attacks are already in motion and no matter what actions are taken in Astan will ever prevent them .

  The fact is were all going to have to live with the possibility of terrorist attacks in the long term so if you rebuild Astan you might prevent Osama from setting up shop . Terrorists will take the path of least resistence , conducting training in Astan is risky so they will find places that are more friendly to there cause and offer sanctuary to them . He is the enemy but he is smart and to this date we [the west ] have reacted as he thought  we would . I dont offer any solutions but only a more radical unpredictable approach will offer the cessation of terrorist activities in the west .
 
Michael O'Leary said:
Just out of curiosity, what areas of the country have a "negative" employment rate, where you see these masses of "labourers" being placed and gainfully employed?

Anywhere there is coal or salt mines.

Michael O'Leary said:
How would you see this immigration plan of yours being policed?  We don't control the movement of citizens or landed immigrants now, so would we then have to do so?  Since not all immigrants are visible minorities, would we have to issue national identity cards (there was lots of support in that thread) to everyone, or just to everyone in a "settlement camp" area and control all movement in and out of those counties?

Explosive radio proximity collars.  Like on "The Running Man"
 
Cannonfodder said:
  Getting back on topic , Afghanistan is a worthy cause however actions in Afghanistan do not prevent terrorist actions in the west . An aggressive assistance to restablish safety and security in a lawless land , not a war on terror or whatever they are selling it as . War on terror is a catch phrase that is way over used andis more often than not is misused . Al queda no longer has the robust training capabilities that it once had in Astan , now matter how you cut it  NATO actions will not stop terrorist attacks in the west . The embryos of future attacks are already in motion and no matter what actions are taken in Astan will ever prevent them .

  The fact is were all going to have to live with the possibility of terrorist attacks in the long term so if you rebuild Astan you might prevent Osama from setting up shop . Terrorists will take the path of least resistence , conducting training in Astan is risky so they will find places that are more friendly to there cause and offer sanctuary to them . He is the enemy but he is smart and to this date we [the west ] have reacted as he thought  we would .

Neither will one patrol car stop all B&Es in a neighbourhood, but it's not a valid argument to cease patrolling.

Cannonfodder said:
I dont offer any solutions...

Thank you for that clear admission.

Cannonfodder said:
... but only a more radical unpredictable approach will offer the cessation of terrorist activities in the west .

I would think that Coalition operations to remove oppressive regimes that openly support the training of terrorists on their soil is a pretty radical approach.  An interesting side thread could possible be what could be the next order of "radical unpredictable approach" (that would remain supportable in a Coalition sense) once this drives the first level of support by such regimes underground.
 
    Granted your going to take losses on such a mission  , however you have to admit that the federal government has not been very forth coming  with mission parameters to the public . The public will only react to the information they are given so far that has not been much . All this talk of War on Terror , an overly honest  CDS and you have heaps of ammunition for the liberal slanted media . I think the CF and the federal government really needs to sell this mission to the Canadian public , people are reasonable , present  them with the facts with out the dramatic overtones and you should be able to sell this one more effectively .
 
Hey, maybe try selling it with a little humor!  From an email I just got...


Edited for inappropriate post....
 
J. Gayson said:
Assigning new immigrants areas to live for a couple of years would yield economic benefits, and at the same time allow for greater security for Canada against Terrorism.

Aside from what's already been said, your proposal would almost certainly be seen as a violation of the mobility rights that are outlined by the Charter.
 
Back
Top