Bit of a tangled web. The corrupt Mujahedeen Goverment 1992-6, supported by the US, included the likes of deputy foreign minister Hamid Karzai and quasi interior minister Abdul Sayaf. The latter is said to have operated training camps and welcomed Osama bin Laden to Afganistan. The Taliban formed 1996-2001 as a response to this corrupt government (and later upheld bin Ladens welcome). The present government headed by President Hamid Karzai, with Abdul Sayaf as a key advisor would like the Taliban to accept Afgan law. I am confused. Is one side better suited to govern. I seriously doubt it.
Re Cameron promises to double bonuses paid, What is (or where can I find) the rate of pay of our soldiers? Surely it would be a six digit salary to put your life on the line on a daily basis. This seems to be a fairly standard salary as per the published wages of government employees.
I can accept the fact that we are a nation at war. This means Canada will put men and women of our armed forces in harms way. Canada has a duty to these brave people to ensure they are well equipped, well trained, and have strong leadership. Furthermore, as an extension of this line of thinking one would assume our forces will in fact be engaged in armed conflict. This is surely why Canada has armed forces.During these difficult economic times is our government spending stimulus money on the above,ie, equipment, training etc.? Is it time to expand and build our forces? I am not suggesting we look at war as an economic plus. Just realities to consider.
For those of you who have not read the above mentioned Manley Report, it is available at Chapters Bookstores. I read it, and if I can condense my opinion, I don’t think it would pass as a grade 9 history paper. Supposition, and eloquent statements best characterize this document. We certainly owe the men and women of our armed forces a more comprehensive and realistic effort.
First I would like to acknowledge the fine work done by Andrea Evans regarding “photo of the day”. She provides us with many views and perspectives of Afghanistan.
The questions she raises along with her Nov. 27 photo are far reaching. It is a very fine line we walk when we consider invading a foreign state on the basis of human rights or similar violations. This is not to say that it is an absolute, ie, we should never act. However, should the world have invaded the U.S. during the 1950’s and 60’s ( M.L.King/ human rights) era? What of our dealings with our Indigenous Peoples? Not always a model for dealing with minorities.
The complexities of Canada’s decision to go to war in Afganistan does not change fundamental acts of war. Prisoners of war will be taken. Detainees will be sought. If the original plan relative to one or both these groups proves in adequate, or as per present discussions in the media, it is alledged that the plan of action may not have met Canadian or Internationally acceptable standards then a new plan of action should be pursued. Specifically if allegations of torture were true, relative to prisoners of war or detainees turned over to the Afghan Authority, international law, the Geneva Convention,and Conventions of War (not to mention our own sensibilities) should stimulate a revision of plan.
An intersting read relative to this debate is The Torture Papers, The Road To Abu Ghraib, Cambridge University Press. On a more personal note I believe this strikes at the heart of who we believe we are, and how this relates to creating societies based on freedoms and rights. We should never dismiss our responsibilities to uphold these ideals through convoluted legal/political arguements or the like.
I can only assume that once this practice was brought to light, appropriate action has resolved further Canadian involvement.
Photo Blog
February 6th, 2010 at 9:31 pmBit of a tangled web. The corrupt Mujahedeen Goverment 1992-6, supported by the US, included the likes of deputy foreign minister Hamid Karzai and quasi interior minister Abdul Sayaf. The latter is said to have operated training camps and welcomed Osama bin Laden to Afganistan. The Taliban formed 1996-2001 as a response to this corrupt government (and later upheld bin Ladens welcome). The present government headed by President Hamid Karzai, with Abdul Sayaf as a key advisor would like the Taliban to accept Afgan law. I am confused. Is one side better suited to govern. I seriously doubt it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What are our allies saying?
December 10th, 2009 at 1:19 pmRe Cameron promises to double bonuses paid, What is (or where can I find) the rate of pay of our soldiers? Surely it would be a six digit salary to put your life on the line on a daily basis. This seems to be a fairly standard salary as per the published wages of government employees.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
President Obama’s “extended surge” strategy: What does it all mean?
December 5th, 2009 at 2:24 pmI can accept the fact that we are a nation at war. This means Canada will put men and women of our armed forces in harms way. Canada has a duty to these brave people to ensure they are well equipped, well trained, and have strong leadership. Furthermore, as an extension of this line of thinking one would assume our forces will in fact be engaged in armed conflict. This is surely why Canada has armed forces.During these difficult economic times is our government spending stimulus money on the above,ie, equipment, training etc.? Is it time to expand and build our forces? I am not suggesting we look at war as an economic plus. Just realities to consider.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jack Granatstein: A New Manley Commission?
December 4th, 2009 at 2:57 amFor those of you who have not read the above mentioned Manley Report, it is available at Chapters Bookstores. I read it, and if I can condense my opinion, I don’t think it would pass as a grade 9 history paper. Supposition, and eloquent statements best characterize this document. We certainly owe the men and women of our armed forces a more comprehensive and realistic effort.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
November 29th, 2009 at 11:21 pmFirst I would like to acknowledge the fine work done by Andrea Evans regarding “photo of the day”. She provides us with many views and perspectives of Afghanistan.
The questions she raises along with her Nov. 27 photo are far reaching. It is a very fine line we walk when we consider invading a foreign state on the basis of human rights or similar violations. This is not to say that it is an absolute, ie, we should never act. However, should the world have invaded the U.S. during the 1950’s and 60’s ( M.L.King/ human rights) era? What of our dealings with our Indigenous Peoples? Not always a model for dealing with minorities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Photo of the Day: November 24, 2009
November 25th, 2009 at 11:54 pmThe complexities of Canada’s decision to go to war in Afganistan does not change fundamental acts of war. Prisoners of war will be taken. Detainees will be sought. If the original plan relative to one or both these groups proves in adequate, or as per present discussions in the media, it is alledged that the plan of action may not have met Canadian or Internationally acceptable standards then a new plan of action should be pursued. Specifically if allegations of torture were true, relative to prisoners of war or detainees turned over to the Afghan Authority, international law, the Geneva Convention,and Conventions of War (not to mention our own sensibilities) should stimulate a revision of plan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Photo of the Day: November 24, 2009
November 24th, 2009 at 10:49 pmAn intersting read relative to this debate is The Torture Papers, The Road To Abu Ghraib, Cambridge University Press. On a more personal note I believe this strikes at the heart of who we believe we are, and how this relates to creating societies based on freedoms and rights. We should never dismiss our responsibilities to uphold these ideals through convoluted legal/political arguements or the like.
I can only assume that once this practice was brought to light, appropriate action has resolved further Canadian involvement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0