babble home - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Foreign Affairs Minister MacKay shoots off his mouth

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Foreign Affairs Minister MacKay shoots off his mouth
Babbler # 4140

posted 10 May 2006 10:01 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Foreign Affairs Minister says Canada is "in for the long haul" in Afghanistan.

"The commitment is to finish the job," he said. "The commitment is not defined in terms of years, it's defined in terms of its success and we feel that progress is being made and we're here . . . to see that the work is going to be completed."

That's one way to avoid measureable yardsticks. We "feel" that "progress" is being made. What a cheerleader for poodle status for Canada in Afghanistan. I'm sure Dubya is grateful.

Interestingly, the governor of Kandahar province, Assadullah Khalid, who welcomed the words of Canada's Minster of poodle affairs, is also the very same governor who has had to replace a local commander who had been using the "War on Terror" as a cover for a blood feud akin to the Hatfields and McKoys. The presence of foreign troops is increasing such violence in Afghanistan. Bring the troops home.

War on Terror used as cover for Blood-feud killings

From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
Babbler # 7911

posted 10 May 2006 10:23 AM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nothing like a little "Rummy" up the backside to put the starch in one's shorts.

Perhaps McKay should have been honest and said: "we're doing the job of freeing up brave Americans to fight in Iraq and prepare for the invasion of Iran. We'll stay as long as they need us here, in Afghanistan, cleaning up this mess they made. Why? Because we're partners in freedom."

From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 4140

posted 10 May 2006 10:35 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It would actually be a useful exercise to review the "reasons" given in the recent "debate" in the Parliament on Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Canada's "Committment" in Afghanistan - Hansard

Useful ...because even Canadian Conservatives must squirm a little at the indignity of being turned into poodles. Hansard can show that squirming. And it's useful because it exposes the euphemisms and other techniques that are used to defend other policies that have about the same merit as the occupation of Afghanistan.

I see that the NDP critic has accompanied the Foreign Minister on his trip. Perhaps she'll have some interesting things to say upon her return. Does she think, for example, that Doctors Without Borders will be able to return any time soon? The paucity and extreme lack of reliable reporting on human rights in Afghanistan has been noted by organizations that specialize in human rights; just as the targetting of the hospital in Fallujah prior to the firefight in that Iraqi city made the counting of the Iraqi civilian dead virtually impossible.

[ 10 May 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
Babbler # 1299

posted 10 May 2006 10:41 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We can't bring the troops home. The Conservatives need them to stay there as a backdrop for their photo ops.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 4140

posted 10 May 2006 10:44 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe the Conservatives can be convinced to stay longer themselves. They could clear mines or something.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
Babbler # 1545

posted 10 May 2006 04:09 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A brief history of the US-Afghan War:

1997 - Project For A New American Century becomes public advocating US world domination including permanent military bases in the Middle East/South East Asia area.

PNAC principles

1998 - Rumsfeld and others urge President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

2000 - In a policy paper titled Rebuilding America's Defenses the PNAC puts forward the point that to more quickly achieve their goals:


....the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions.

Rebuilding America's Defenses

2000 - The PNAC crowd take control of government through voteing fraud and the appointment of George W. Bush as President of the US.

2001- Al Qaeda provides the catastrophic event that the PNAC is looking for to expedite their agenda.

2001 - The US whips up war fever over the 9-11 attacks and uses it to launch an invasion of Afghanistan and put the country into a war mode. It can be argued that this response is way in excess in proportion to the threat posed by Afghanistan. Dipolomatic avenues of solution are short circuited and opportunities refused by the US.

2001-2003 - The US uses the war fever created with the Afghanistan invasion to help prepare the country for the invasion of Iraq. Attempts are made to tie the Iraqi regime to 9-11 and with AQ and by extension the Taliban despite the fact that secular Iraq is opposed by the radical Islamists.

2003 - As with the case in Afghanistan diplomatic solutions are short circuited and avoided in the case of Iraq and the country is invaded based on false intelligence despite numerous warnings that there is no substance to the reasons being put forward to justify an invasion.

2006 - US forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in a number of surrounding countries as per the published objectives of the PNAC. As well, a number of countries have supplied troops to the US in both Iraq and Afghanistan to help the US further its goal of world domination, all rationalizations to the contrary aside.


So why is Canada involved? Simply to help the US and further the interests of Canada's economic elite who have more in common with the US and international elites than they do with Canadians and the interests of Canada as a sovereign state.

Helping Afghans create a better country and life are advertising slogans used to build public support and hoodwink the troops that have to pay the personal price of the adventure. Any programs purporting to achieve these goals are facades to cover up the main reason that Canada is involved.

From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008