We do not because that might thwart the powers that be and their propaganda efforts.. We apparently hired all the PR/News backroom folk that the US televsion networks canned once the Wa'aq war started to become unpopular..

We hear what the government wants us to hear. Not quite as bad as it is on commercial radio in the States, but it's bad nonetheless.

Our rural overlords don't want us to find out that we're losing ground quickly and have no real hope of "winning". As Gorthos said, reality conflicts with the spin cycle, so reality must be supressed.

Canada really has no option for homegrown news like the NPR. <i>Our</i> public radio is run by the Feds. Sheesh

I thought you were going to link to something good. They attacked some town. And killed ... 5000 people? a dog? they were greated as liberators? what?

So you support the expansion of Taliban influence in areas beyond their control or tradiional ethnic make-up? Is this the conservative O'Connor-esque plan that you are spinning? Seems all very 1915 to me.

Barbie says "war is hard".

INteresting bit in the Whig about the HMCS Halifax today which irks me a bit. The "war" we are losing is keeping us from patrolling our own shores...

Naval resources have been the subject of some scrutiny lately. In January, it was reported that most of Canada's fleet was docked because the navy had budget shortfalls.

HMCS Halifax was scheduled for a 35-day fisheries patrol off the Newfoundland coast but was delayed because there wasn't enough money to fuel the ship.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor pledged the extra $5 million needed to fuel the Halifax for the patrol, but critics say the Afghanistan mission is diverting military funds from naval operations.

the article in the Whig.

Ah, we're "losing" are we now Gorthos? Do you have some metric for that?

As always, there are no rhetorical comments. If you want to suggest otherwise, David, you provide your metrics first. Improve level of the argument.

OK, there are funny rhetorical comments.

Fair enough, I'm in a pissy mood. Not having the Taliban in power is a desirable thing, and we're currently in that state and maintaining it. Desirable, because we know what can come out of lawless areas controlled by funded terrorists with a hate on for the West, and desirable in an of itself because Afghans aren't animals who somehow deserve or haven't earned the right to live in a condition where human rights do not exist in any meaningful fashion. Yes, the Taliban are counter-attacking ... but as your article nicely fails to point out, this magnitude and significance is up for grabs; one suspects it's not that great because the NPR and CBC and Globe & Mail would be taking great lengths to tell us exactly how great it was if it were so. So to get back to what it would mean to be losing in any sort of meaningful, it means if we keep doing what we are doing, the current government will fall and the Taliban will retake power. Is there any indication of this? Yesterday in Toronto some gangs firebombed the house of someone who testified against them; this doesn't mean the rule of law is destined to fail in Toronto and I should start stockpiling food and weapons, it just means the world isn't a very nice place where everything wraps up nicely on page 423.

My computer clock says 9:22 and yours 11:20. I guess I'll split the difference.

PEI servers

<i>...as your article nicely fails to point out, this magnitude and significance is up for grabs; one suspects it's not that great because the NPR and CBC and Globe & Mail would be taking great lengths to tell us exactly how great it was if it were so...</i>

I am presuming the audio link at the story is the radio piece I heard but my recollection is that this is exactly what NPR is reporting and the CBC is not - that there is a new Taliban expansion that is going unchecked.

David
With all respect due (which is French for "with all the respect I think you are due in this regard").. Were we as a nation advocating sending our troops in to battle the Taliban pre-9/11 because of the same existing reasons you are giving? I didnlt hear much hue and cry for it in the media.. I certainly was however simply because I despise the idea of a fundamentalist government of any sort who treat others outside of their belief system as lesser.. My point was that, to quote a very friendly Canadian Sailor heading back on the ferry with me today after my tour of the Halifax, "you know, you need to take care of your own backyard first before you go pulling someone elses weeds"..

That poor sailor must be new. The system will drum all original thought out of his head. The grass in our backyard is so tall, it's getting hard to walk through.

I can't believe you have never met anyone in the service, Gord.

Eh? I work with a number of both current and retired grunts. Cannon fodder is meant to take orders without thought or question. Thus it has always been, so it shall always be. Military discipline depends on it.

There is a difference between brainwashing and discipline. I have never met a member of the military whose personal judgement was not separate from the honouring of his duty.

A former RSM that I know, now posted to DND headquarters phrased it thusly to me: "Now, I'm allowed to think for myself."

Gord, I was in the reserves back in the late 80s and a lot of my friends are still in (and ossifers to boot!) They may not be allowed to officially speak their minds while in uniform, but when not or even when in private or in the mess, they do, and quite voiciferously.

What difference does it matter whether it was being advocated before 9/11? 9/11 was a big deal and getting rid of the Taliban was a big deal and keeping them out of power ... a relatively easy task, as far as wars go ... is a big deal too. Canada has certainly deployed to lots of places in the past that we don't have any particular concerns in, and are probably a lot less tractable than Afghanistan.

If our "backyard" is our/your concern, well, this certainly can't be isolated from a 30 history of neglect of our military.

Al: I just read the article you linked to. I've certainly heard enough bad news about Afghanistan from CBC radio and from Global (yes I know) TV

David: my point being that the only reason Afghaninam was attacked was that Al Quaeda were holed up there. Until that point it was just a country on the other side of the world that although they blew up the occasional Buddha and treated women badly, they did keep the heroin under control.. so why bother interfering. Now we are just mopping up after the US which for my tax dollars isn't a good return on investment.

<p>
Then it's time the Canadian left has had the honesty to explicitly make the point which I think you're making -- that we're in a post-American, post-NATO, perhaps post-war period of humanity and it's time to explicitly cut the US loose: "if it's your fight, it's not ours" or perhaps "we don't fight unless we're attacked".

<p>
This post here ... paragraphs 11 to 15 mainly, ignoring the rest ... I think sum up for me what Canada's interests are in Afghanistan. I'll take the liberty of quoting the key bits here:

<blockquote style="font-style: italic">
<p>
Afghanistan is on the front lines of a war that has been grinding its bloody way through the Muslim masses of the world for some time now. It is a war being waged by theocratic and "secular" fascists against modernity, against democracy, against the Jews, against the emancipation of women, against the liberation of gay people, and against everything that we, as Canadian socialists, progressives, liberals and democrats, have ever loved and believed in and fought for.

<p>
The Taliban were and are as savage, cruel, misogynist, violent and cunning as any of the battalions the enemy has deployed, and the people of Afghanistan continue to suffer their depredations. Canada has been honoured with the privilege and the opportunity to be fighting this war on the side of the Afghan people, at the request of the Afghan people, shoulder to shoulder with the Afghan people.

</blockquote>

See, I understand that. My problem is not what we are doing but what we are not doing. I again note in my tax forms no place to opt into war bonds.