Pike said:
...
First off, I personally believe that Canada should decide its own foreign policy,not be subject to the American foreign policy.
Absolutely correct. Our foreign policy ought too look something like a stylized compass rose – we have interests all around the globe, North, South, East and West – we need to ‘see’ the whole word, we need to assess how
our interests are impacted by events near and far, then we
may need to take some action
s, maybe even military action. As is often the case with stylized
roses one cardinal point out to be bigger than all the rest, lots bigger: the one which points to America. For Canada our relations with the USA outweigh all other considerations.
Pike said:
…
Afghanistan is NOT our priority, If anyone here can explain to me how fighting in Afghanistan enhances our national security I would love to hear it.
If you believe that, if that it a
considered opinion and not just sophomoric,
Trudeauistic anti-capitalist crap, then there is no point in saying anything else except to send you photos of this really neat bridge I have for sale.
Afghanistan,
qua Afghanistan is not important, that’s true. It is poor and weak. Afghanistan acquires importance precisely because it is poor, weak
and sits in a key geo-political location, a
cockpit, as it has for millennia. Afghanistan,
per se, does not matter except that it borders and provides access to a whole hockey sock full of nations which
do matter.
Afghanistan – who governs it and how it conducts itself - matters a lot to Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and China. That means it also matters to a lot India, the Middle East and Central Asia and, less directly, Russia. Afghanistan is, traditionally, politically weak so it has often been, as was just recently the case, a safe haven for those who
have declared war on us* and who have
attacked us*, to. We need to prevent further attacks and, at the same time we need to deny the
enemy (not Islam, not any nations,
per se, but a real and avowed enemy none the less) bases there (that’s what
al qaeda means: “base”). We need to do that by: helping our friends, allies and other peace-loving, trading nations to:
• Defeat the remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan; and
• Help the Afghan people to strengthen themselves and their society so that they are less likely to be able to be sued against us.
Those are important, even vital national interests for Canada and for Australia, Germany, The Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK and, yes, the USA, too. Those vital interests are directly tied to our national security and to our long term peace and prosperity and they
require Canadian soldiers to fight in Afghanistan. Now I understand that the
Trudeauites and the
Pink Lloyd Axworthy wing of the Liberal Party disagree. Since, in my opinion, Trudeau was and Axworthy is a second rate intellectual with very weak foreign policy ideas I will happily ignore their views – they are also sophomoric.
Pike said:
...
Its important to question our elected officials and the decisions they make. I WANT our army to be heavily funded. I WANT us as a country to take up foreign missions. But comon guys lets do what make sense. Lets go into Sudan, thats where our priorities should lie, not fighting in afghanistan trying to makeup to the AMericans for saying No on Iraq.
No real disagreements; you are right, I think, that the reason Jean Chrétien sent troops to Afghanistan was base and cowardly – but he ended up doing the right thing for the wrong reason. It is still the
right thing.
Pike said:
...
Americans created this "war on terror" which is so undefinable its stupid. Think for yourself
Ho-hum, see above re:
”sophomoric, Trudeauistic anti-capitalist crap”.
----------
* Us being the secular, liberal-democratic West.
Edit: typo
