Isn’t that the scheduled pull out anyway?
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.
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.
Yeah, but the ‘t’ gives the name a more Germanic, and therefore evil, aspect.
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.
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.
You are correct, especially because of the quotes around “legal”. Apologies.