The Shotgun Blog
« South Park and the Standard get it -- why don't the media and Chapters-Indigo get it? | Main | Q: Who was happy to see the Dems win? »
Friday, November 10, 2006
Out of Bosnia now
CBC: Fewer Canadians 'strongly approve' of Afghan mission: survey
Overall, 50 per cent of Canadians asked in November expressed some degree of approval, that is, they either "somewhat approve" or "strongly approve" of Canada's participation in Afghanistan.
CBC: NATO to focus on reconstruction in Afghanistan: Dutch general
Asked how long NATO troops will be in southern Afghanistan, Van Loon referred to the NATO mission in Bosnia, saying he thinks it will take years of involvement to bring stability to the country.
Jan 25, 1994, Vancouver Sun: Most Canadians want troops out of Bosnia
Nearly six in 10 respondents said Canada's mission in Bosnia is too risky and should be ended in April. Slightly more than one-third said Canada should renew its commitment. Nine per cent weren't sure.
First deployment in Bosnia: April 1992
End of Operation PALLADIUM: November 2004
Posted by Kevin Steel on November 10, 2006 in International Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834f99a8c69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Out of Bosnia now:
Comments
Our involvement particularly in Afghanistan is to resist the global advance of a radical ideology. Some good news this morning from the Supreme Court:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=04fd4e84-3d48-48b3-9340-adfdb4769096&k=33017
This is something completely unrelated to the military missions in question, however it is part of the global resistance to the radical ideology.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-11-10 7:42:57 AM
Tomorrow is November 11, Rememberance Day.
I would like to remind the people of Ontario to NOT use their war memorials as toilets.
If it happens again, every war memorial in Ontario, including the national one in Ottawa, should be boarded up for 2 years to punish you people for your disgraceful actions.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-11-10 8:02:41 AM
As Gen. Lewis McKenzie has pointed out several times, NATO made a mistake in the Bosnia conflict by attacking the wrong side.
Now, they have to protect the population they attacked from the jihadists they protected.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-10 8:50:17 AM
It continues to mystefy me that so many Canadians can agree that we did not do enough to help the people of Rwanda in their hour of need, but they cannot see that withdrawal from Afghanistan would be to similarly abandon the people of Afghanistan. If it takes twelve years, then so be it. It's the right call.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-11-10 8:58:07 AM
My goodness SYF,
Are you implying the first porn star of the oral office and his liberal lap dog Johnny Crouton were actually able to make such a horrendous mistake?
Shocking!!
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-11-10 9:02:10 AM
blue:
Yep.
As far as Aghanistan goes, Slick Willy had a chance to take out Osama during his term, but sat on the fence.
Now, he comes up to Canada and supports our efforts to eradicate the Taliban. What a jackass!
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-10 9:09:13 AM
I do not believe the "CBC Poll" is an accurate reflection on Canadian'opinions or attitudes towards the Afghanistan NATO committment. The largest establishments for the CF are here in NB and Nova Scotia, have been for many decades. But the coffee crowd at the News Stand down the street have no opinons about the Afghanistan committment what ever. In fact I would wager that not one could identify a single Canadian Regiment in Afghanistan
and the local media is almost as out of touch as they are.
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-11-10 9:12:37 AM
One more news link to add to Kevin's: NATO MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN AFGHANISTAN
"Five years after the ousting of the Taliban, the country is making progress in democracy, education, health care and equality, writes NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer"
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1163112609373&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-11-10 9:25:27 AM
SYF,
Agreed, my comment was made with tongue firmly in cheek. ;>)
Mark Logan,
It is called selective outrage, until the loving, caring, tolerant, equal rights for everyone left understands genocide, whether it is Iraqis under Saddam, Koreans under Kim Jong, the Sudanese in Darfur, anyone living under repression, in all corners of the world, need help in their fight, and get behind the only country who has historically had the knad's to take on these despots, that of course being the US, usually under Republican presidents, than the slaughter of innocents will continue.
Simple isn't it? So instead of undermining and running their mouths about that country perhaps people, Canadians for instants, should get a clue and get behind the only country fighting, at great cost in life and liberty, for the liberation of repressed people.
Instead people seem to take great pleasure in pointing fingers at them and calling them the real terrorists. Pretty sad when you think about it isn't it?
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-11-10 9:34:42 AM
Jack: Who would believe a CBC poll on anything?
If the people of this country don't want to fight the evil sprouted from radical Islam at it's source, what's their solution? Fight it here? We have such people on our soil due to stupid immigration, do we want to embolden them?
If we allow them victory in Afghanistan by quitting and giving the people back to the brutality of the Taliban scumbags we embolden them to go on to more acts of terror.
If ever we needed to stay the course, it's now.
Those who have given their lives for this cause must not have died in vane.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-10 9:49:04 AM
Liz:
It's really up to the Afghani women to make sure the Taliban does not return, isn't it?
We can rage all day about radical Islam, but whatever we say will fall on deaf ears in those still living in the glory of the seventh century.
That's why Canada needs to continue building and guarding schools catering to girls in Afghanistan ... it is the key to modernizing.
That, and shutting off the Pakistan border.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-10 10:15:28 AM
PM Harper and his Government must deal with a hostile Media on a daily basis, but in order for the full liberation of Afghanistan to be accomplished, the will of the Electorate must be focused on it, which means to me the Government must give added
importance and wider distribution to it's message
- during World War II, the public was motivated to support the War which was defined as a Great Crusade
and led into vast Canada Saving's Bond Drives to "raise money for liberation" Captain Ronald Regan USAAC came to Halifax NS to support one big drive
in 1944. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-11-10 10:37:36 AM
SYF: Right, but, how strong are the Afghani women going to be? How strong will they be allowed to become, after all, they were/are treated worse than animals, stoned and beheaded for trifling reasons?
It will take a bit of catching up from seventh century to something closer to the twenty-first.
We do know what has to be done, it may take a bit longer to accomplish those objectives hopefully we will prevail against all odds including the oddball Lefturd ideologues among us.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-10 11:10:50 AM
Liz,
Have faith, any of these women I have seen interviewed, whether it be from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or any repressed Muslim country seem very motivated, and very strong.
Once they have the taste of freedom I don't think there will be any stopping them. Although it has been much maligned Bush's doctrine of spreading freedom is the correct and noble cause.
Will it be easy, of course not, there will be many struggles, of course. That is why it is so important to stay the course and remain there, to pull out would be a disaster and would kill any hope these people, in particular the women, have, or will ever have. To abandon them would be nothing short of ruthless.
These people who talk of "deadlines", or "timelines" for pulling out, are nothing short of despicable. This will be a long, but very necessary struggle.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-11-10 12:01:57 PM
Spoke with a buddy of mine who was in the army for almost 10 years, he was in some rather nasty spots in the 90s (including Bosnia).
His remark on this? If Afghanistan should succeed they would need at least 40K troops there.
Adding to this, I also think it would require a two generational committment, this means at least 20 - 25 years of constant military presence in Afhanistan (and most likely Pakistan) in order to (maybe) successful implement democracy and a western style system there.
Does Canada (and the rest of the West) have the pockets and gut to do this?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-11-10 12:35:26 PM
Snowrunner: What's your option? Surrender to evil and deal with terrorism on a reactionary basis?
It's not can we, we must, for all the right reasons.
However we may have to apply more power, so be it, there's a lot at stake not only for Afghanis but for the rest of the free world.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-10 12:50:45 PM
Terrorism has and always WILL exist. It is not something that will be resolved by military might.
If we assume right now that we will committ ourselves to Afghanistan for the next 30 years (to pick a number) and actually succeed in making it a democratic society the ones we tried to oust will have moved somewhere else OR someone completely new is going to crop up.
"Fighting" terrorism means to be aware of what is going on in the world doing good police work. It does not mean to invade countries for the wrong reasons in the false hope that this wills top terrorism. It will not.
Other "wars" that can't be won:
- The war on drugs
- The war on crime
- The war on [insert favourite pet peeve here]
Humans always had these issues and we will always have them. We CANNOT avoid them, what we can do is lessen the impact.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-11-10 1:38:15 PM
Snowy:
I'm surprised you didn't include the war on stupidity.
But then, I can understand you wouldn't want to hurt your feelings.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-10 1:43:44 PM
SYF,
Ah, as usually s/he has nothing more to say so s/he gets personal.
Bummer really, occasionally it almost seems like you think before you type, but then the insults start flying again and it is clear that you are just a very scared person.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-11-10 1:44:59 PM
Snowy:
The only thing I'm frightened of is your brain.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-10 1:46:31 PM
SYF,
Not too surprising, considering that you never seem to have a non insulting remark to any of my arguments.
Grow up, read a book some time, look in the mirror. Maybe then you will be less frightened.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-11-10 1:52:19 PM
Snowy:
If you can't take it, you can always leave.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-10 1:56:13 PM
deepblue,
"It is called selective outrage...."
I don't think so. I think the problem is that people get more outraged by the actual than the possible (or even the very likely, but not actual yet). Thus people did not get all that bothered by Rwanda until it was far too late to stop the genocide. And now in Afghanistan it is easier for people to see the actual deaths of Canadian soldiers and not see the very likely severe hardship (to say the least) for average Afghans should our troops pull out.
In fact, the problem is nothing new. At the start of WWII there were many people who saw entering that war as one that would result in lots of dead soldiers, but did not see what horrors the Nazis would impose. But, of course, sometimes the "lets no go in there" crowd get it right. On Iraq, a strong case can be made that things are far worse now for everyone - Iraqis, the mid-east and westerners - than if the invasion had not happened. But with Afghanistan, the same is not true.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-11-10 1:57:22 PM
Snow,
Are you aware of just how long Canada was in Germany?
And that was more than thirty years AND a success.
Of course, you are fully within your rights to disagree (idiot!).
99% of Canadians could not tell you where our troops are, at any given point in time, with even 50% acuracy. And, they would provide you with that resounding failure in knowledge, reliably, 99% of the time, in a random sample.
If they were given a survey and asked whether Canadian troops should leave Somalia, the same percentage that believes that Canadians should leave Afghanistan, would be evident in the response. And, if you had the ability to do correlation, you would also see that the same folks would vote on both.
Why?
Because most Canadians, are unbelievably ignorant when it comes to knowing anything about what our forces are doing or are not doing.
They are that way because most people in Canada are NOT in the slightest bit interested.
They are interested in the lattest cd, mp3, rock group, what Mcjaeger said on MTV last night, the best cable or satelite to get for television, and where to get the best deals on hoodies.
And back to Somalia, most could not tell you the month, the year, the decade or the Century in which Canada may or may not have left Somalia.
If given a survey of whether or not Somalia was in Africa, Midle East, Orient, Asia, Central America or South America, most would fail miserably.
This is not to say that Canadians are any different from other nations, as more than 50% of the rest of the world could not show you Canada on a map of the world. And that information about how ignorant people are, is what Mercer exploits all the time.
And, as for insults, you have hurled your fair share about this site, on more than one occassion. Having said that, your memory is as fickle as the next person's, and I bet you would have a miserable time thinking about where you left those insults you hurled at us western folks, in regards to what we know about maps of the world.
I would say that more of the western folks, or right wing folks here on this site, have a better grasp of atlas than 99% of the folks who agree with your position on most issues.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-11-10 2:38:20 PM
There you go again, trying to justify one but not the other, things would arguably be much better in Iraq if the world had correctly got behind the liberation rather than be divided. By showing weakness it has given life to the enemy, particularly Iran who is now sponsoring most of the terror in Iraq.
Just because it is not going well does not mean it was the wrong thing to do. That is ridiculous.
Genocide is genocide, and Saddam was one of the clear leaders in the world of that. In a clear thinking world it should not even be a question whether dictators, tyrants or repressive governments are taken out, it is when.
I could easily get behind an occupation and cleaning up in Darfur, or anywhere else for that matter, but not when I see the incredible stupidity and double standards applied to the Iraq liberation, and the bastardization of the man and the country who led it.
It is beyond belief to watch the world postulate about that choice and the aftermath. As well as sickening.
By the way, remind me again who made the choice and did the heavy lifting in the liberation in Afghanistan?
How many of their own people were the Taliban killing? Saddam was a far worse killer of his own people yet you can justify taking on Afghanistan but not Iraq?
Your either for liberation, freedom and hopefully peace for all or you are not. I know which side I am on, do you?
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-11-10 2:43:21 PM
the above was in response to Mark Logan....
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-11-10 2:44:42 PM
Just so everybody knows, Set You Free is in favour of mass genocide. Just thought I should mention that.
Posted by: Stones | 2006-11-10 2:54:47 PM
Snow,
And one more thing on wars.
It appears that since humans gravitate towards making bad choices, that we should all lie down and give up.
I say, that is the defeatist position, and one of the main reasons why we should never permit Liberals, such as yourself, back in power.
If we went along with your diatribe, we would never work towards getting the mentally ill off the streets; we would never address drug addiction; we would never address teen prostitution; we would never address unwanted teen pregnancies; we would never...never...never...and the list would go on and on ten times time immemorial.
It would be like saying, 'oh dear, we are being attacked by terrorists...so better cow now, stick are tushkas into the air, and submit ourselves. What the heck, halal and sharia could not be all that bad?... the sooner we submit, the sooner all this war stuff will all be over'.
Since the Liberals were last in power, it has been an uphill battle to address the massive amounts of problems they generated in our society.
Take homelessness for example.
It is not just about building more places for people to live, although that is part of the problem. The other evening I was downtown, and there was a gang of young people, running around toting their sleeping bags. No, they were not real travelers, they had these garbage bags, with their sleeping bags hanging out. They were obviousely as high as kites, and the language that was coming out of their mouths was a shame. People gave them a wide birth, as it was evident they were out to do no good. Their laughter and cackling reminded me more of the sound made by hyenas rather than human beings. Even Orangutans would have given them a wide birth. They boasted about how long they could live off the local foodbank, and laughed about their high and that girl in the foodbank, and worse. And there are hundreds and thousands of youth who have been permitted to live like this, on our streets, to consume all manner of that which will destroy their brains, and ruin their lives, as well as the lives of their families, and effect badly our communities, for decades to come. It is truly tragic, and all that could have been prevented through an adequate program, as you refer to, as a war on drugs. Sure, people will always fall through cracks, as that is human nature, and nothing is perfect, BUT, the fact that that is so, does not mean we should ignore the reality that we must fight against drug abuse, and all the ills that go along with it.
If those boys were your kids, I doubt you would take the high horse route that you do. But fact is, they are somebody's sons, and it is a crying shame that our society has nothig but the streets, for them to clamour about, high, with no purpose, and a drain on society, while ruining their futures. Furthermore, while their futures are being ruined, so is the next generation, as it is they who will be, if not alreadfy, the fathers of tomorrow.
So, you can either take Set You Free's advice, and go find somewhere else to spread your shameful attitude, orface the facts, that war on terror, war on drugs, war on bad behaviour, is the right war with the right battles to engage in. And fighting against stopping that is a fool's position.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-11-10 2:55:12 PM
Stones:
Only if you are the mass.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-10 2:57:07 PM
Stones,
Just to let you know, he is not alone.
Only on completely useful idiots like you though...
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-11-10 2:59:34 PM
Seems to me we have taken on more than we can chew. The idea is commendable but impractical.
There is no viable international agency which has a mandate to address the injustices occurring within individual sovereign nations.
The evil abounding throughout the world is of such magnitude that the entire human race has lost its collective will to eradicate it by any available means.
Posted by: Frico | 2006-11-10 6:57:57 PM
our military, no military can do its job or fulfull its mission but daily public opinion polls. it can only do its job, when it has political leaders that have the principles and long term insight to do the right thing no matter how unpopular in the short term. otherwise we would have lunatics like the ndp running things. its disgraceful one day before nov. 11 that the ndp is raising a stink about new artillery pieces and ammunition being bought to help our troops. perhaps they would have the money spent on flowers to be handed out by the troops to jacks new friends over there.
Posted by: john a. | 2006-11-10 7:38:24 PM
What odds that one Canadian in 500 remembers the rather recent mission on the Ethiopian/Eritrean border?
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Operations/eclipse_e.asp
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2006-11-10 8:01:26 PM
Snowy said:
"Terrorism has and always WILL exist. It is not something that will be resolved by military might."
Slavery has and always WILL exist. It is not something that will be resolved by military might.
The Barbary Pirates have and always WILL exist. It is not something that will be resolved by military might.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-11 11:26:45 AM
1. Slavery still does exist in parts of the world and it was not resolved by military might. If you refer to the american civil war I know that it is popular myth with the rights that it was fought over slavery. Guess that reads a lot better than the real reasons: Power and Resources.
Slavery ended when it was mandated, at least officially, then was replaced by outright segregation and racism that even a Rosa Parks with her heroic effort was not able to change as it still exists (especially in the south) to a lesser degree.
So no, military might did not end slavery.
2. Pirates still exist up until today, talk to Lloyds of London and ask them how often they have to pay for ships being highjacked on the open sea etc. That a specific "breed" of pirates may have been squashed may be to true but does not change what I have said.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-11-11 12:46:12 PM
Snowy,
Slavery ended in North America and Britain where they USED military might to end it?
The Barbary Pirates are no longer around...again, Jefferson and the Americans used military might to end them.
Perhaps if the rest of the world used it, it would no longer be around in those places where you point to its continued existence.
Terrorism delendus est.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-11 12:50:18 PM
H2,
read up on the history. The civil war was not the reason for the end of slavery, it was a by product of it. But just because it started happening at the same time does not mean it had the same reasons.
As for your Pirates. READ my sentence again, then TRY to understand what I actually wrote.
It does not MATTER if the Barbary pirates don't exist anymore, there are now others.
To use your example: The police arrests a burglar, does that now mean there will be no more break ins? If not, why not?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-11-11 12:54:18 PM
"Snowy,
"read up on the history. The civil war was not the reason for the end of slavery, it was a by product of it. But just because it started happening at the same time does not mean it had the same reasons. "
Who said anything about reasons. I mentioned effects.
"To use your example: The police arrests a burglar, does that now mean there will be no more break ins? If not, why not?"
Changing subjects are we? So should we revoke laws against burglary because we can't defeat it in its entirety? Would burglary then increase or decrease as a result of said revocation?
If not, why not?
"It does not MATTER if the Barbary pirates don't exist anymore, there are now others."
Not bothering US shipping for the most part.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-11 1:06:24 PM
I said:
"Slavery ended in North America and Britain where they USED military might to end it?"
Snowy responded:
"read up on the history. The civil war was not the reason for the end of slavery, it was a by product of it. "
AND
Snowy said (elsewhere):
" Having said that. What the right and Neo-Cons don't seem to understand is that societies are NOT changed by military might. Societies change because the people IN these societies want these changes. It is a slow and long enduring process that does not happen over night."
Does anyone else see the contradiction?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-11 5:21:59 PM
H2,
this is not a contradiction if you don't see the world in black and white.
Just because there was a war does not mean that it will / has ended slavery.
That a war can change society is nothing new, but to attribute the abolishion of slavery only to the civil war may fit your justification to go to war everywhere in the world, but it is just not true.
Obviously any war has an effect on society, but as Iraq is proving it does not mean it is going to be a GOOD effect.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-11-11 8:46:48 PM
Snowy,
You are moving the goalposts. You said they are "NOT" changed. You did not mention any directions (ie. Good)...until now.
Slavery ended where the battle took place...ie. by military might.
I will agree that there may be other ways to accomplish the same goal.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-11 10:17:07 PM
H2,
Correlation does not imply Causality. Please, show me the causality between the civil war and the ending of slavery. This has happened long enough ago, I am sure you can find a few studies that have looked at the correlation and can proof the causality.
My remark about "Good results" was aimed at wars in general, not at the civil war that according to you was fought to end slavery.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-11-12 11:28:29 AM
Snowy
"Please, show me the causality between the civil war and the ending of slavery. "
13th Amendment of the US Constitution.
"In 1863, President Lincoln issued an Emancipation
Proclamation\1\ declaring, based on his WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR powers, that within named
States and parts of States in rebellion against the United States ``all
persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of
States, are, and henceforward shall be free;"
Close enough? I thought not!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-13 5:46:12 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.