- I just want to know if this Harper 'training mission' wouldn't include F-35's by any chance.

Posted: 10:57 AM on November 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mission-beyond-2011-will-send-950-soldiers-across-afghanistan/article1800204/
Mission beyond 2011 will send 950 soldiers across Afghanistan
Campbell Clark
Ottawa— From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Nov. 15, 2010 9:29PM EST
Last updated Tuesday, Nov. 16, 2010 8:17AM EST

I am not sure a vote will achieve much, given Harper's track record.

But open, transparent discussion and debate where Harper reveals to the people just exactly what he has in mind is vital. It is Canada that is fighting in Afghanistan, not the Conservative Party. It is Canadians that must bear arms,not Harper, MacKay or any of the other con's.

". . . none of the troops will be posted in mentoring operations that would require them to accompany Afghan army personnel on combat operations"

When Harper said in early January:

"we will not be undertaking any activities that require any kind of military presence, other than the odd guard guarding an embassy"(OttawaCitizen, 7 Jan.'10)

I strongly suspect Harper knew at that time he would be announcing, if he, Harper, has anything to do with it, that Canadians troops would be remaining.

He is saying now it is training inside the wire.

But, as we shall see, this 'wire', along with our credulousness, will be stretched until it simply disappears and our participation becomes indistinguishable from the type of role we have now - much to the satisfaction of the US and other NATO participants.

Certainly, everyone, in Canada, and elsewhere, looked at his track record, his hawkish approach to Afghanistan and his general right-wing extremist ideology combined with 4 years of misleading, obscuring, obstructing and obfuscation - in a word "Con'ing Canadians" - and concluded that when push came to shove, he would keep a significant military presence in Afghanistan, despite he was saying the opposite.

(So, if someone knows they are being mislead, can it be said they are, in actuality, being mislead.

This continued and extensive misleading, is, of course, a manifestation of the Flanagan Fundamental Principle of Con'ism as applied by Harper:

“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible")

Any continued participation in Afghanistan ought to be aimed at economic development.

The recent news that there is approx $1 trillion in minerals affords a real opportunity to help in rebuilding Afghanistan - vis.:

"The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe."
(NYT, 13 Jun.'10)

Given Canada's long history and expertise in mining certainly we can assist them in this regard. It may even supplant their current cash crop - poppies.

It would also tend to loosen the grip by the Taliban since they obtain a considerable amount of their funding from the poppy crops and it is easy for them to 'interact with' farmers. However, it is hard to see them exerting much direct influence in the mining industry and if they "beat their IED's into Caterpillars", that can't be a be bad thing, can it.

Also, if Canada leaves Afghanistan other countries will step in and give assistance - in developing its resources.


Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html