[llama66]

I've done my reading,
From NATO:
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

Article 3

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Article 4

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6 (1)

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

[llama66]

If we don't see this through, we risk turning Afghanistan into more of a hotbed for terrorism than it already is, and we further risk drawing the ire of radical imams around the world, endangering Canadians at home and abroad.

[Streaker]

SigPig SigPig:

Streaker Streaker:

Good luck with that. Canadians clearly won't support ten more years of this. Enough money and lives have been wasted already.

Depends on who you talk to Streaker. In my experience, the more a person knows about what is actually happening over there, the more likely they are to support what we are doing. Not all but most.

Personal experience can be very misleading.

It isn't in Canada's interest to stay in A-stan for ten more years and the idea is politically untenable. If it were Harper would be pushing it.

[Streaker]

llama66 llama66:

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

In boldface is the important part: It leaves each signatory to the treaty free to independently determine its response to an attack.

Canada was under no obligation to go to Afghanistan.

[Streaker]

llama66 llama66:

If we don't see this through, we risk turning Afghanistan into more of a hotbed for terrorism than it already is, and we further risk drawing the ire of radical imams around the world, endangering Canadians at home and abroad.

I'm afraid the damage has already been done. The longer we stay the worse it will get.

[llama66]

dosn't matter whats in our interests, its what needs to be done, what about Afghanistans interests? is it right for us to say, too bad to the Afghani people? we thought we could help but the bleeding hearts at home are afraid this is taking too long so we are not going to help you rebuild the nation we destroyed? we leave now and 6 mos from now the Taliban will be back in power. we could have said WW2 wasn't in our interest, Korea wasn't in our interest, we still went, it might not be in our interest to be there, but its the right thing to do.

[llama66]

not really, Afghani's talk more about the yanks and the brits, and think have we've been attacked? have we had a 9/11 or a 7/7? no we have not, but if we pull out when the going gets tough, I am quite sure that alot of Canadian civilians will be killed, needlessly.

[Streaker]

llama66 llama66:

dosn't matter whats in our interests, its what needs to be done, what about Afghanistans interests? is it right for us to say, too bad to the Afghani people? we thought we could help but the bleeding hearts at home are afraid this is taking too long so we are not going to help you rebuild the nation we destroyed? we leave now and 6 mos from now the Taliban will be back in power. we could have said WW2 wasn't in our interest, Korea wasn't in our interest, we still went, it might not be in our interest to be there, but its the right thing to do.

Utter nonsense.

It is the height of arrogance to think that we know better than they what's in their best interest.

Centuries of this attitude on the part of various imperial powers is the root cause of the problem to begin with. Continuing along this same path won't solve it.

[Streaker]

llama66 llama66:

not really, Afghani's talk more about the yanks and the brits, and think have we've been attacked? have we had a 9/11 or a 7/7? no we have not, but if we pull out when the going gets tough, I am quite sure that alot of Canadian civilians will be killed, needlessly.

The risk to Canada is presently minimal. In the long term our security would best be served by our prompt departure from Arfghanistan.

[llama66]

Streaker Streaker:

llama66 llama66:

dosn't matter whats in our interests, its what needs to be done, what about Afghanistans interests? is it right for us to say, too bad to the Afghani people? we thought we could help but the bleeding hearts at home are afraid this is taking too long so we are not going to help you rebuild the nation we destroyed? we leave now and 6 mos from now the Taliban will be back in power. we could have said WW2 wasn't in our interest, Korea wasn't in our interest, we still went, it might not be in our interest to be there, but its the right thing to do.

Utter nonsense.

It is the height of arrogance to think that we know better than they what's in their best interest.

Centuries of this attitude on the part of various imperial powers is the root cause of the problem to begin with. Continuing along this same path won't solve it.

but running away will?

[Streaker]

llama66 llama66:

Streaker Streaker:

llama66 llama66:

dosn't matter whats in our interests, its what needs to be done, what about Afghanistans interests? is it right for us to say, too bad to the Afghani people? we thought we could help but the bleeding hearts at home are afraid this is taking too long so we are not going to help you rebuild the nation we destroyed? we leave now and 6 mos from now the Taliban will be back in power. we could have said WW2 wasn't in our interest, Korea wasn't in our interest, we still went, it might not be in our interest to be there, but its the right thing to do.

Utter nonsense.

It is the height of arrogance to think that we know better than they what's in their best interest.

Centuries of this attitude on the part of various imperial powers is the root cause of the problem to begin with. Continuing along this same path won't solve it.

but running away will?

It would be a beginning. Left alone, countries like Afghanistan will eventually become more progressive on their own.

[llama66]

LOL! well at this point I think I shall say, I agree to disagree, as you believe that cutting and running is the best thing for us to do. I however do not, good day.

[Streaker]

Call it "cutting and running" if you want - it's what is in Canada's best interest.

[llama66]

what else would you call it? a French advance? strategic withdrawal? its all the same, its a retreat, how ever you want to slice it.
its not in Canada's best interest. Retreat is never in a nation's best interest.

[Streaker]

llama66 llama66:

what else would you call it? a French advance? strategic withdrawal? its all the same, its a retreat, how ever you want to slice it.

Like I said: You can call it whatever you want. I'm just stating that it isn't in Canada's interest to be in Afghanistan. It never was, unless you think it's in Canadians' interest to blow 20-plus billion dollars.

The sooner we're out of there the better. Less money wasted, fewer enemies made.