[QUOTE=Muffin]
The PM setting out that we will pull out in 2009 if NATO does not increase it’s participation is hardly a forthcoming pull out.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t that the scheduled pull out anyway?
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
For one thing, the Afghan government wants foreign troops there, …
[/QUOTE]
That is entirely meaningless. The Afghan govenrment at the time of the invasion certainly didn’t invite foreign troops. One could just as well say that we should be in Iraq because the Iraqi government wants us there.
[QUOTE=featherlou]
Let me make sure I’m understanding this - Canada is involved in fighting terrorists in Afghanistan as a direct result of the terrorist attacks on the US on Sept. 11, 2001. Rather than focus on the actual terrorists responsible for these attacks, the US military machine chose to split their forces between Afghanistan, where the terrorist were, and a concocted, illegal war in Iraq. Canada refused to participate in the illegal war in Iraq. Now the US Secretary of Defense is criticizing our participation in the war in the country where the US should have also been concentrating their military might?
[/QUOTE]
Pretty much, but you missed the part about also pissing on every other ally that was involved in Afghanistan but didn’t fall for the nonsense the US administration was dishing out about Iraq. The sad part about them deciding they’d taken enough shit from ingrates and going home is that your guys are now left neck-deep in it.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Rumsfeld. No “t” at the end.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but the ‘t’ gives the name a more Germanic, and therefore evil, aspect.
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
That is entirely meaningless. The Afghan govenrment at the time of the invasion certainly didn’t invite foreign troops. One could just as well say that we should be in Iraq because the Iraqi government wants us there.
[/QUOTE]
Come on. I was responding to a question about what made the continued presence of foreign troops legal. I said not a word about whether it is advisable. Go back and read marshmallow’s question again, reread my response, and think about it for two seconds. I’m sure you’ll find my answer was actually meaningful.
[QUOTE=Frank]
Isn’t that the scheduled pull out anyway?
[/QUOTE]
It was the expiry of our current commitment to Nato, already extended once last year by Parliament. Harper just won’t ask for an extention if neccessary unless…
Thanks for the further insights, guys. I am trying to understand what’s going on, and not just have a knee-jerk reaction that Canada is getting the short end of the stick for trying to do the right thing in a complicated situation. Although I suppose if you talked to Afghani people you’d get a completely different perspective on what is right in this situation.
Boyo Jim, we definitely are aware of the issue of American “friendly” fire.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Come on. I was responding to a question about what made the continued presence of foreign troops legal. I said not a word about whether it is advisable. Go back and read marshmallow’s question again, reread my response, and think about it for two seconds. I’m sure you’ll find my answer was actually meaningful.
[/QUOTE]
You are correct, especially because of the quotes around “legal”. Apologies.