It seems that most people are under the impression that you can keep peace without fighting. When you are dealing with people who are willing to reason, then you can work out a peaceful resolution. Most people have no concept of what life was like in Afghanistan before the Taliban was confronted and pushed out of many areas. It was a tyranical situation of those in power abusing whoever for whatever reason with no accountability to anyone. The bully ruled the roost. These were not reasonable people. The minority ruled through fear and provocation for their own benefit or their own percieved benefit. To rebuild this nation means protecting those cowed into fear from those who would re-establish that authoritarian hierarchy. We have the freedom to attend schools and to question our leaders. Why would we deny that right to others so that evil men can rule them?
2007-09-15 02:55:46 · 6 answers · asked by harbin022000 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Canada has troops there for the exact reason you stated. the Taliban simply wasn't going to stand down. Had they turned over Bin-Ladden and invasion would not have been necessary.........
2007-09-15 03:00:37 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't mean to sound cynical but the reason why Canada commited troops to Afghanistan was mainly as a sign of support to the United States after the September 11 incident. It was also for selfish reasons... typically whatever happens in America comes to Canada eventually. The United States went in because that was the nation that protected the terrorists that launched the attack. The Bush administration gave the Taliban a choice: turn over the Al-Quaeda leaders or war. They chose to ignore the demands so American troops invaded.
If the Taliban turned over Al-Quaeda there would have never been a invasion. It was necessary to the security of America and some Western nations (like Canada) believed that it was also in their interest for the same reason.
Freedom is wonderful as a byproduct of that invasion but I am sorry to say that that was not the purpose of the war. We don't purposefully wage war to liberate nations. If we did than we would have invaded a long time ago (and we gave money to that regime when it was fighting the Soviets many years ago and we knew what their ideaology was).
2007-09-15 10:15:04 · answer #2 · answered by cattledog 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Exactly as you say. The big push in came as a response to 9/11 but addressed problems and human rights violations that had been going on for years. To rebuild the country, the government, the security, the human rights will take more than a few months. Along with a security role, Canada also participates in training of police forces, etc. In the long term, it is to protect Canada and others from 'the evil' spreading. In the short term, it is to get Afghanistan back on its feet, a democratic government operating effectively, and security and human rights instated.
2007-09-15 10:18:38 · answer #3 · answered by Shine! 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This isn't so much a question as an editorial.
That said, however, I agree with you.
As far as I'm concerned we made a commitment to help liberate the country, like we did in Europe in WW2, and to shelter the people long enough for them to begin to build a nation which has the kind of rights and freedoms we enjoy, and to make their own choices about their ongoing national destiny.
From that point of view you can understand why I think we should stay there until the job is done, that we should support our troops and other personnel, and give them the best available tools to do the job.
And to give our thanks when our service people return home. They as individuals didn't choose to go there: we as a nation did.
2007-09-15 10:43:46 · answer #4 · answered by chris g 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What will happen when they will leave? Every city they leave gets taken over by drug lords....Opium from Afghanistan accounts for 91% of the worlds herion in 2006 while the troops are there, imagine afterwards. It looks to be a never ending battle.
2007-09-15 10:04:19 · answer #5 · answered by Edge Caliber 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps a 'willing coalition' is as willing ignorance: 2Peter 3.
Perhaps harper isn't "sharper", but twoedged: Hebrews 4:12
Perhaps what the coalition is protecting is the cocaine crop.
A simple solution would be to crop dust it all with Round Up.
Grace neither makes nor takes sides.
For sides wars have side effects: death.
His Grace cannot lie (law) nor die (law).
Law vs Law: Loser vs Loser, does both.
The GRACE of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.
2007-09-15 10:10:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋