CAP Demands Canadian Troops OUT OF AFGHANISTAN!

Posted on Thursday, May 18 at 00:00 by whelan costen
According to the Canadian Peace Alliance, “ The Canadian Peace Alliance is concerned at the suddenness of this announcement. It is designed to confirm the ongoing Afghan mission before many Canadians have been able to fully assess the issues surrounding our role there. Many Canadians still believe that we are doing reconstruction work in Afghanistan. The facts in this case have been hidden. CIDA has pulled its reconstruction team out of Afghanistan and rebuilding is at a halt. It is also deliberately confusing to have the Prime Minister saying that we are there for reconstruction while generals admit that our role is to kill.” CAP is equally concerned with the drastic measures to further our involvement without a mandate from the people of Canada to do so. Canadians are being asked to support our troops, without fully understanding the truth behind our involvement. It goes without saying that we support our troops, but we do not support the mission. They are two entirely different points. We the people are expected to fund these wars, sacrifice our children and yet have no information, no input and no accountability from our elected government. This is an insult to Canadians! Today’s government is sinking us deeper into this corporate military agenda, while at the same time whitewashing the sacrifice, by not even lowering the flags in Ottawa when our youth pay the ultimate price with their lives. The media is cooperating by not reporting the real news and not showing Canadians the body bags as they return to Canada. What utter disrespect for the families and the soldiers! How are the Canadian people suppose to be consulted or informed if media has become spokesperson for a political agenda instead of respecting our right to free press. According to Polaris Institute we have reduced our commitment to UN Peacekeeping. While we’ve increased our commitment, with troops and $4.146 Billion (since September 11,2001) on military operations in or related to Afghanistan. This is a complete disgrace to the people of Canada, as well as the people suffering in Darfur, that desperately need our Canadian commitment to peacekeeping. Facts surrounding the Afghanistan mission, the invasion of Iraq and the investigation of 911 are murky at best. Our own stability and place in the Global community is being threatened by our willingness to follow blindly into the blood baths waged in the name of ‘a war on terror’. Our ignorance may be bliss to some, but the price is far too great for others! The people of Afghanistan want peace. The corporate military machine wants oil. All peace-seeking people the world over are being sacrificed by this global agenda. Clearly the occupation of Afghanistan is creating more violence. Bigger guns and more troops will not create peace. The only choice is to call for the troops to be removed. CAP echoes the sentiments expressed within this quote, “We now have to deal, in the United States, with the unholy reign of G.W.Bush supported by the oil and money and armaments interests. They have created a degree of instability in the world between NorthWest and SouthEast that is worse than the cold war. The ubiquitous "War on Terror" - which resulted from the 9/11 disaster - which resulted from U.S. interference in Arabian/Muslim affairs - has led to the U.S. Patriot Act I and II, torture of prisoners and suppression of Habeus Corpus and Civil Rights. The Chretien Government did have the balls to refuse to overtly join the "Coalition of the Willing" but it caved on the negotiation for a North American Union. I don’t know if this surrender to U.S. policies was due to being bought, or to a hope of protecting the Canadian economy from repercussions if we disobeyed, or an expectation of reaping some of the spoils from the putative U.S. domination of the world, or from outright threats and bullying. But it was being done under the table without any analysis by the media and now Mr. Harper can't wait to complete the "deep integration" promised for 2010.” Derek Skinner, 81 year old Canadian Patriot Although the above quote was in relation to why Mr. Skinner is refusing to submit to the Lockheed Martin hardware/software-Canadian Census, it reflects many Canadians’ views on what has happened to our country. (See the full article on CAP website) CAP fully supports our troops, as they have sworn an oath to give up their freedoms, so that we might have ours. Ours are also on the line, as noted above and in more detail on CAP’s website. These young men and women will follow orders and go where they are sent. That is as it should be, however it is our role, both civilians and politicians to fully debate, discuss and ensure that wherever they are sent, it is under Canadian command. Our military should be a reflection of our values as a peace-seeking country. A sovereign nation does not take its marching orders from a foreign power! We are calling for all Canadians to demand Canada’s troops out of Afghanistan now and refuse any extension of this mission! We must ask ourselves, ‘do we have a democracy in Canada’? If so then let us employ it. If not then we must ask ourselves, ‘why not and do we want a democracy’? An authentic democracy requires the involvement of the people and cannot exist unless the people take responsibility for it. The world is in turmoil, the media is not investigating, nor reporting the full extent of Canada’s involvement nor of the threat posed to us through ‘deep integration’. Last month the Toronto Star had an interesting article by Michael Byers, I quote, “Bi-National Planning Group… Their professed goal is to improve co-operation between the Canadian and U.S. militaries, the better to defend both countries. Yet a close reading of their final report released last month, reveals that their actual intent ¬ or at least the intent of the politicians who set their mandate ¬ is far from benign. They seek nothing less than the complete integration of Canada's military, security and foreign policy into the decision-making and operating systems of the U.S.” Reference: http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/temp/articles/The_Signing_of_an_Enhanced_NORAD_is_Continental_Integration_by_Stealth.asp The writing is on the wall. Canadians must speak now before we lose our voice! Every elected MP must be accountable to Canadians on this issue. The lives of our youth are on the line and for their sake, we must decide if the price of their blood is worth it! Once their life is lost and they lay in the cold hard ground, your voice and mine will not give them or their families any consolation. Join us and speak now! Most Canadians believe war could end tomorrow if there was the political will do to so – but instead we stand idly by while old men with big egos, beat their chests and young men and women are used as pawns to satisfy this insatiable lust for power! -30- Contact info: Catherine Whelan Costen, Canadian Action Party, President Email: cathpublish@wildroseinternet.ca Ph: 403-660-0449 Canadian Action Party/ Parti Action Canadienne Leader, Constance (Connie) Fogal Telephone (604) 872 2128 home; Fax: (604) 872 1504 E-mail: conniefogal@telus.net #385- 916 West Broadway, Vancouver B.C. V5Z1K7 Tel: (604) 708-3372;Fax: (604) 872 1504; www.canadianactionparty.ca

Note: http://www.canadianacti... www.canadianactionparty.ca

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Thu May 18, 2006 2:49 pm
    Maybe you should ask the opinion of someone who has been there or has a vested interest in our being there. Here's your chance... the Globe and Mail is holding an online Q&A with the Afghan ambassador to Canada today. <br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060516.wliveafghan0518/BNStory/specialComment/home">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060516.wliveafghan0518/BNStory/specialComment/home</a><br />
    <br />
    But if you prefer to get what our soldiers on the ground are saying, I'll refer you to the following link.<br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060518.wsoldiers0518/BNStory/Front">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060518.wsoldiers0518/BNStory/Front</a><br />
    <br />
    As for the "no debate" line... please... first deployment was unanimously supported by all parties and that was straight up combat (that combat would include Operation Annaconda where our snipers covered the US troops)... there were no peacekeeping overtones. Harper has put this to TWO debates now (how many debates did the Liberals call again?)... and both passed.

  2. by RPW
    Thu May 18, 2006 2:59 pm
    Doesn't seem to be much debate on this <b>FROM THE PEOPLE</b>. Only from our so-called "representatives" who, (as has been more than amply shown) may or may not actually represent the views of their constituents. How can parliamentary debate pass when the polls plainly show <b>THE PEOPLE</b> do not support a combat mission in Afghanistan?<p>---<br>RickW

  3. Thu May 18, 2006 3:08 pm
    The polls have been going up and down for the past 5 years. Initially, more than 80% supported deployment. That dipped toward the latest election where it was 50-50. When we started taking casualties it dropped into the mid 40% approval, but went above 50 again when Harper did his photo op. Recently polls have dropped again.

    Should we hold debates every time some polster comes out with numbers? Should we pull our soldiers out every time the support drops and then put them back in when it goes back up? Fortunately, some of our members see beyond the immediate political gain.

    Right now, support for a Darfur mission is high. Before too long, if we were there and taking casualties, that support would drop again and the lefty vultures would be screaming about protecting big oil in southern Sudan again.

  4. Thu May 18, 2006 3:15 pm
    RPW - define exactly what is a debate BY THE PEOPLE. Would that not be what the papers have been doing, the editorials, the (pitifully attended) protests? What do you want? A series of town halls? Would that work for you? We have been debating this for FIVE YEARS. What possible new info can come up? There seems to be about 20% of the population whose opinion is flexible (the swing votes in the polls ranging from 40% to 60% support). The other 80% of us have their positions fixed.

    People on my side say the reasons are clear, the mission defined and the goal noble. On yours, the reasons are murky or linked with American Imperialism and the goals are deceitful. No amount of debate between you or I is going to remove either of us from our entrenched positions.

  5. by DL
    Thu May 18, 2006 3:18 pm
    If the Afghan ambassador and our troops on the ground support the extended mission, (biiig shock there, by the way)then Canada should just "shut up". Just let Canadians know where to send their cheques and how much it will cost that should be all the talking we need to do.

  6. Thu May 18, 2006 3:56 pm
    A couple of points. First of all, our representatives, albiet under a bit of time pressue, voted 149 - 145 in favour of extending the mission. That's pretty close to the nearly 50 - 50 split of Canadian opinion on this issue, so I have to disagree that we aren't being represented on this issue by our MPs.

    Afghanistan has been destroyed, and somebody has to do something to help them. That being said, should it be us? We are there for many reasons, some say to rebuild, some say to protect the oil pipeline that the Americans are building. Regardless, the reason the country needs to be rebuilt in the first place (aside from the destruction brought about by the Taliban and the Russians) is that the US didn't finish it's job, and instead went off on it's illegal war in Iraq. I'm a bit uneasy with our country cleaning up their mess so that they can go create an even worse disaster.

    Secondly, I do not think this war is being presented to us based on it's merits. Steven Harper, Peter MaKay, and company are now using the exact same tactics the US government has relied on to browbeat it's people into war: staged photo ops in the war zone wearing combat gear, and blatant appeals to vague notions of patriotism and duty, without any real details on exactly what projects and missions we are engaged in there. The US experience has given us the benefit of hindsight: we can see now why they used those tactics to sell the Iraq war: because they were lying, and continue to lie, about the purpose of that war. We should be treading very carefully here, and somebody needs to do some serious investigative reporting to bring us some real facts about this Afghanistan mission before anybody can truely support it. If there is any possibility that this is not about helping desperate people rebuilt their lives then we need to know.

    Finally, this is my general argument against armed intervention. Military operations are unbelievably expensive. What would happen if that money was channeled instead into genuine reconstruction efforts? The remnants of the Taliban would have no political traction at all if the people were not so needy.

  7. Thu May 18, 2006 4:28 pm
    NGO's don't operate much in the Kandahar region because they'd get killed by Taliban. Without the expensive armed interference, there would be no reconstruction possible. Security has to come before any reconstruction can take place. Kabul is making strides forward, but due to the security concerns, the outlying countryside is stalled.

    Look at the example of Bosnia... unitl the shooting stops, reconstruction cannot begin. Much of Afghanistan is still in the intermittent shooting phase. Once the security situation is stabilized, only then can the NGO's and real reconstruction move ahead.

  8. Thu May 18, 2006 4:34 pm
    Who said anything about shutting up? I provided you a link to question someone who has a specific viewpoint (and a very valid expert on the entire subject). So that you can join in and actively become part of the issue (you know, the whole public debate thing). How did that get turned into anyone trying to shut down the debate?

    I'm beginning to think that you don't believe debate occurs until everyone sees it your way. Sounds more like you advocate tyrany.

  9. by Jeff
    Thu May 18, 2006 7:03 pm
    Michael Scott gets my endorsement for Poster of the Year. It's fictitious award I just created in my mind.

    Michael: You are fantastic. Polite, factual, engaging, informative and generally spot on. Vivelecanada is better for your presence. After work I will hoist a Tuborg (tastes like freedom!) to you, my good man. Keep it up.

  10. by avatar Dino
    Thu May 18, 2006 7:34 pm
    Look at how quick they put this to a vote. We the people got to have no say at all(as usual.) Hopefully in the next election this will be an issue same with NAFTA. I wish Canada could go back to being how it used to be decades ago when our prime ministers would make decisions in the interest of Canada not to simply please America.

  11. by RPW
    Fri May 19, 2006 12:45 am
    <blockquote>We have been debating this for FIVE YEARS.</blockquote> Strange, but no one has asked me or anyone I know to take part in a formal debate on anything, least of all whether Canadians should be supporting the various warlords in Afghanistan, and the internecine warfare the latter have been conducting, while the West tries to put some kind of happy face on the whole affair. <p>And you cannot tell me that the Canadian government cannot listen to each and every Canadain on this and any other subject of national importance, if it can require each and everyone of us to fill out some completely meaningless census form, or face fines and imprisonment for not doing so.</p> To paraphrase, war is far too important to be left to the politicians. They, to a person, will ensure that they will never throw themselves in harm's way, the way they expect others' to. <p>While the Taliban was in power, people could (literally) walk in safety from one end of the country to the other. Now they cannot.</p> While the Taliban was in power, the opium poppy was successfully banned as a crop. Now it is not. <p>While the Taliban was in power, there was stability (however harsh) in the country. Now there is not.</p> And it seems that there is as much evidence that bin laden has been in <b>Pakistan</b>, as he was in Afghanistan all along. But we invaded Afghanistan, and Pakistan we did not. <p>We are there under false pretenses, making it up as we go along, and our military is much better than to be used for some murky political agenda.</p> <p>---<br>RickW

  12. Fri May 19, 2006 2:14 pm
    (destruction brought about by the Taliban and the Russians)

    It's almost as if the Americans had no part in the destruction of this country. Are we to assume the Americans were not part of the cold war. Their anti-communist stance took them to many regions of the world to fight the "Commies" on foreign soil. They were protecting their own country in Viet Nam as well. They were only in Afghanistan because the Soviet were. They were never there for the benefit of that countries citizens. They still aren't and Canada is playing no role other then attempting to get brownie points with them. Perhaps the worlds anti-American sentiment, is the major reason why Canadian citizens aren't convinced of why Canada is there.

    ---
    Expect little from life and get more from it.

  13. by DL
    Fri May 19, 2006 2:23 pm
    "Who said anything about shutting up?"
    "I'm beginning to think that you don't believe debate occurs until everyone sees it your way. Sounds more like you advocate tyrany."

    I'm making a distinction between real debate where the public have time and opportunity for input, and window dressing. Did I miss the time allotted or opportunity given for input?
    A referendum would show in more absolute terms just what Canadians really want. Would you like to see a referendum on the question of extending the Afghan mission? A bonus question would be if we should bring the troops home now? Would you support that?
    The "debate" was an exercise in PR. From here on Harper can claim the matter was debated and people in favor of the mission can trumpet that all the t's were crossed and i's dotted. Unsaid but implied is the message: "so shut up what have you to complain about". Since Harper got in Canada has turned into a ugly cariacture of O'reilly of faux news fame, IMHO of course.
    It is a pity that you cannot differentiate between real debate with real public input and the pretend democracy substitute Harper offered Canada this week. Perhaps pretend democracy is OK as long as the outcome supports your opinion.

  14. by RPW
    Fri May 19, 2006 3:29 pm
    "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war."

    -William Randolph Hearst

    ---
    RickW



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news