Here is Buffy Sainte Marie's Universl Soldier

Don't you hate it when prayer time is used as a way of propagating propaganda? It hardly leaves one with an opportunity to respond. This used to happen a lot when I was part of a more fundamentalist milieu. I think that, what I would do (and perhaps will do in the future, should it ever again occur) is write the person afterward expressing myself similarly to how you have expressed your experience, Alex.

As well, as a former serving member of the Canadian Forces, I have to admit that I have come to believe the same thing as your quote from General Butler on the subject of war.

shouldn't - come - in - here -

shouldn't - post - ....

my husband is there right now, and he would say that contrary to what you have said here, womens rights have taken a dramatic upswing since the canadian military showed up. 

unfortunatly, the taliban are just waiting in the wings for canada to exhaust itself and leave, so they can reclaim what they feel is their birthright and destroy whatever womens rights have been achieved during this time.

just my 2cents on a thread that i should probably not come back into....  back to your regularly scheduled rant...

What I don't get is why everyone does not pull out and let that country's soliders fight their own battles

It won't make a difference all we are doing is sacrificing these young men's lives and these people don't even seem to care

For people with dial-up internet here are the lyrics to Buffy's Song Universal Solidier.

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,

• His orders come from far away no more,
  
• They come from here and there and you and me,
  
• And brothers can't you see,
  
• This is not the way we put the end to war.

I'm not sure that I agree that women's rights, for all women, are being increased when civilian casualties have increased dramatically since Obama was elected. And, since we are in this as an adjunct to the US military, we are culpable in these casualties, in my opinion. From what I understand, some women have benefitted but the gains have been to a very small number of upper middle-class women and the losses far out-strip the gains.

Obama’s Unspoken Trade-Off: Dead US/NATO Occupation Troops versus Dead Afghan Civilians? (click to read article from a secular women's group in Afghanistan who don't think that the war is to their benefit - the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan - www.rawa.org)

please. This is not a war for women's rights. Nobody at the start said it was. In fact, I cannot think of any war in history that has been fought for womens' rights.

In any cause, you do not fight for women's rights by blowing up large numbers of people, among them, women.

If people were to run through the streets killing those they accuse of discriminating against women, do you seriously think they would receive general approval? You don't think they would be arrested for murder?

For thatm matter, there are women all over the world being distreated - deprived of rights, beaten, raped, sold into sex slavery.... If we really gave a damn, we could remedy many of those situations at far less cost  financial and human.

Look at who the great leaders in this crusade for women's rights have been - George Bush, the war lords of Afghanistan who are on our side, John Turner, John Cheney, male generals by the dozen, oil executives... Do these strike you as people who stay up at night worrying about women's rights?

Maybe women's rights have somewhat improved. I don't know. Certainly air service to Afghanistan has enormously improved. Theh Opium trade has received a tremendous boost. No doubt some good things have happened (and we'll just ignore the bad ones like death by starvation and cold and bombs, the collapse of Pakistan, the enrichment of amazingly corrupt warlords, the diversion of western money into munitions firms.. The reality is WE DID NOT GO TO WAR FOR ANY OF THOSE CAUSES.

And what we went to war for is the crucial question. Not are we doing good. We can always make up good reasons. The basic question is why did we decide to go. And it anyone says we went to war to help women, I defy you to prove it.

A basic rule is you do not send your soldiers into danger unless a vital national interest is at stake - one that justifies killing an being killed. No official of any government has ever said what that national interest is for Canada. And you do not do our soldiers any favour when you justify risking their lives for such vague reasons. Supporting our government is not the same as supporting our soldiers.

Polls show that even Americans do not know why they are there in Afghanistan.

Please, do not seriously tell anybody that the US - which will not even provide health care for its citizens and which itself began liberating its own women within our lifetimes - is spending what will be a trillion dollars and killing thousands to liberate AFghanisan women.

Answer the basid question. Why are we there? Not -are t hings gettinig better. not good two shoes sentiments. those can always be made up. But what vital Canadian interest is at stake - so vital we have sacrificed the lives of Canadian soldiers.

You make some good points Graeme, but please tell me (and anyone else) what should be done about the threat of terrorism.

Is terrorism the greatest threat we face? God, no, it's been hyper-exaggerated. But it is still a threat. The Taliban controlled a country that was very open to terrorists, as a source of recruits, money, safe-haven, etc.

Tell me, what should we do? Sit idly by while they attempt to concoct more plans to kill us? And then when they eventually do, just shake our fist as they run back to Afghanistan?

Also, Graeme, what exactly do you believe is the reason NATO invaded Afghanistan? Just curious.

terrorists - all countries, all armies are terrorist. The US bombed Cambodia, a country it was not even at war with, killing half a million innocent people. that's the twin tower every day for most of a year. The "sons of liberty' of the American revolution were terrorists. My French ancestors two destroyed civilian settlements, burning, looting and murdering, were terrorists. The Guatemalan troops who murderd 200,000 maya indians under us military direction were terrorists. Most bombing, by both sides in WW2, Was explicitly and deliberately terrorist. When winston churchill in 1920 ordered the bombing and gassing or kurd civilians, that was terrorism.

If you want to go to war against terrorism, you will have to go to war against the whole world, most especially the western world which has terrorist murdered more people than any other - with the exception of the Chinese champions, mao and Chiang Kai Shek.

Third world countries use terror because it's the only weapon they have. You can't stamp it out by going to war. War is what causes terrorism - but both sides. Poor countries use oil can bombs for their terror because they can't afford long range rockets and drone planes, agent orange for their terror.

As to what the Taliban did, possibly so. But the FBI publicly stated it has no evidence to that effect - which is why they refused to allow Binn laden to be extradited. Nor was AFghan proven a source of recruits. Not on of the 9/11 terrorists has been identified as Afghani. nor is their evidence of Afghan money. Indeed, much of the money the Taligan had - along with the weapons and the training in terrorism was given to it by the US. I believe there is even a book on the subject, publiched in the days when that was something to brag about. (It was part of the US plan to badger the USSR.)

There is no evidence whatever that the Taliban was plotting to kill us. Lord knows, they are as vicious and backward as they come - but so are the warlords on our side that we have planted in the "democratic" government.

As to running back to Pakistan, they wouldn't be doing that if we had not invaded Afghahistan, now would they? What we have done with thishalf wit war is to destablize pakistan, too - and that's not the end.

Yes terrorism is terrible and it's a threat. Don't kid yourself that it means just foreignters with big noses. Terrorism has been a terrible threat for over a century, and we christians have been right up there with the biggest of them. You won't solve the problem by kllinig moslems.

The reason NATO invaded is pretty clear. Just read any history book to figure it out. As the British empire became overextended, Britain could not maintain it. So it looked for military and financial help from that part of the empire which was white. That's how Canada got sucked into the Boer War, and then world War 1. (You can disagree with this if you like. Fair warning ( I taught both military history and Canadian history at a university - and I cannot think of any major Canadian historian of the past sixty years who would disagree with that statement.)

This US is now over its h ead in wars. It needs for money, more bodies. It also needs a facade of respectability. So it turns to NATO. Briatin's Blair happily jumped on board because the US alliance is economically and militarily essential to Britain. Others were not so keen. Chretian intially send peacekeepers because he realized what the game was.... He couldn't afford to alienate our major trade partner - but he did not want to commit us to a future as flunkies to fight American wars. That was not good enough for Canadian business. It was afraid of American trade retaliation. So it was the Canadian council of ceos that demanded our fuller participation.

A number of western leaders, including even harper, have expressed dismay at this war, and a desire to pull out. They know this has nothing to do with righting terrorism - and even less to do with helping women.

So why is the US in Afghanistan? I don't know. And there are many leading scholars who will give the same answer. It is a desire to control the oil and gas pipelines that will supply the far east market? that certainly is a factor. Is it to break up Pakistan? That is possible. Pakistan is moslem, nuclear, a possible friend t oIran, certainly an enemy to india.... I don't know. Apparently, Obama doesn't either - or any body in this thread - because you will not find anywhere a clear and credible reason for why the US is there. 

I am surprised, and a little disappointed that nobody has challenged the statements made above. And nobody has asked for sources. My goodness. Well, just to get the ball rolling, google FBI bin laden no evidence.

You will find 183,000 sources - some of the them questionable, of course - but many quite reliable.

1, Cheney said on US television they have no evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11. Too bad your local paper didn't think it important enough to mention that.

2. The FBI has publicly said it has no evidence.

3, Both Cheney and Bush have said publicly they never had such evidence - and this comes after eight years of arbitrary arrest, detention and torture.

4. Far from protecting Bin Laden, the Taliban agreed to extradite him to a neutral moslem state for trial. They refused to extradite him to the US. Of course. No country will extradite a person without reasonable evidence - and there was none. Canada is alone in the world in being willing to offer up people to foreign states for torture or whatever on the basis of no evidence at all. The US, on the other hand, has refused extradition for a Cuban terrorist for whom there is considerable evidence.

5. There is no evidence to suggest The Taliban gave any money to Bin Laden or his cause.

6. Again, far from protecting Bin Laden, the taliban offered him up to the US long before 9/11. The US refused, perhaps because he was still the US ally he had earlier been.

7. There is no evidence that anybody in AFghanistan had anything to do with  9/11.

8. There is considerable evidence that many people in Saudi Arabia were involved. But so far there has been no US attack on Saudi Arabia.

Still, the US has not only bombed Afghanistan, killing thousands of innocent people and spreading starvation, but it has now invaded killing thousands more, putting itself hopelessly in debt, and endangering what is left of Pakistan.

So perhaps you can explain to me  why the US attacked AFghanistan. Maybe it's not the oil and gas pipelines - but that is the closest I can come to making any sense of it.

Think carefully before joining in with the general panic and going to war against terra-rism.

Oh, there are, as always, not reliable figures on civilian deaths in this war - or even on American ones. (deaths of "contractors", for example, are rarely counted, but probably come close to 1500.) The lowest estimate of civilian deaths in Afghanistan is some 20,000. That ranges up to 50,000, and probably does not count deaths from starvation, etc. That would probably mean something between 10,000 to 25,000 women and children killed. So the dead might not be nearly so grateful as one might expect for the improvements in women's status.

I question your assumption that terrorism is real threat. It's a threat, but one that is in the same degree of threatening us as an asteroid from space hitting us. Or being struck by lightening.

What we can do about terroism is to be good people and act as if all people are of equal worth.

This would also address the two real threats that we face in Canada. Infectious diseases and environmental devestation of the planet.

The flu epedemic of 1918 (influenza A virus strain of subtype H1N1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic.

The pandemic lasted from March 1918 to June 1920,^[3] spreading even to the Arctic and remote Pacific islands. It is estimated that anywhere from 50 to 100 million people were killed worldwide.^{[4][5][6][7][8]} An estimated 500 million people, one third of the world's population (approximately 1.6 billion at the time), became infected.^[5]        3% to 6% of the entire global population died.^[11] Influenza may have killed as many as 25 million in its first 25 weeks. Older estimates say it killed 40–50 million people^[4] while current estimates say 50 million to 100 million people worldwide were killed.^[12]

The total number of people killed during WW1 (including civilians) is 16.5 million.

62 million....over 20 million in the USSR alone.dies in WW2.

So infectious disease HIN1 killed more people the year after WW1 then in both wars.

Since 9/11 12900 have died due to non nation state terrorism.

The World Health Organization states that 2.4 million people die each year from causes directly attributable to air pollution, with 1.5 million of these deaths attributable to indoor air pollution.[9

We in the west tend to think these deaths are not happening in Canada. However I can attest to the fact that I was infected with HIV in the early eighties and at the time no one knew that millions had already died in Africa. Infectious epidemics often start in the developing world because the people there are already suffering from ill health and are more likely to become sick with other things as a result.

Right now millions of people in the developing world are dieing with AIDS untreated, and in the mean time because their immune system is so low their bodies are like petrie dishes, infected with many infectious agents, that are likely to mutate or combine into new illness that will end up killing millions in the west. We also now know that many illnesses like cancer and heart disease are triggered by infectious diseases

 21000 Canadian have died from HIV since I was infected. (compared to 21000 globally from terrorism) and less then a 1000 Canadians from terroism.

In the United States: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there are between 800,000 and 900,000 people living with HIV. Through December 2000, a total of 774,467 cases of AIDS have been reported to the CDC; of this number, 448,060 persons (representing 58% of cases) have died. Comapred to less then 3000 who have died from terrorism.

 In the last two decades, the world has spent more than $196 billion US trying to save people from death and disease in poor countries.

Global military expenditure stands at over $1.2 trillion in annual expenditure and has been rising in recent years.

According to the US congress they alomne have approved Congress has approved a total of about $864 billion for military operations, base
security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks.  Remeber In the last two decades, the whole world has spent  $196 billion US trying to save people from death and disease in poor countries. 196 billion globally over 20 years, compared to the US alone spending 864 billion fighting the war against terrorism in the last eight years alone.

Now I know what happens when we ignore the real threat of infectious disease. If we had been spending money on health, water, and food in Africa in the seventies, we would have noticed all of the young people dieing, but because so many were already dieing from preventable infectious disease in Africa we did not know what the a major epedemic had started. If we had, I and others would have been able to protect ourselves, or we could have developed a treatment earlier.

Like I said, Africa with somany people suffering from HIV, TB, and malaria and others things we have created the conditions for a new global epedimic that could kill millions in the west, ( as oppose to the few thousands who have died from terrorism)

So relative to infectious disease terrorism is no treat at all.

Relative to the enviroment, being afraid of terrorism is comparable to being worried about being hit by a small rock from space, or being hit by lightening. (73 people die each year from lightening in the us alone, so more have been killed by lightening then from terrorism)

BTW Over the next hour alone, 1 500 people will die from a preventable and easily treatable infectious disease - over half of them children under five. Of the rest, most will be working-age adults - many of them breadwinners and parents.  All of which could be prevented for a lot less then what we spend on the war on terrorism.

We invaded Afganistan only because it had to be done, otherwaise the invasion of Iraq would have been even more bizarre to explain, and they would have had to admit that it was for their Oil reserves.

The US offered Turkey  more  money to cooperate with them in the invasion of Iraq, then it would have taken to provide clean, water, health care and drugs for HIV for all of Africa for 5 years, and they would have had enough money to develop a vaccine for Malaria.

well, that cas is certainly made. Terrorism is not the greatest threat we face.

But it's certainly a threat. Curiously, though, though, the threat from Moslems is relatively small. The total of terrorist deaths in the US is far below the annual toll in car accidents or smoking deaths. In all the moslem terrorist killings all over the world since 9/11 you would find it hard to get into the early tens of thousands.

Just in the western retaliations - as the bombings of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan - we are almost certainly over a million. And if you look at it over the past century - the western, Christian  use of terrorism vs. the moslem use of it - you look at Congo, Vietnam, Cambodia, Guatemala, Morocco, and you're looking at tens of millions dead from our terrorism vs. some thousands you can chalk up to moslems.

So the quick answer - if you want to stop terrorism, then stop doing it. In fact, if we don't stop doing it, it will never end, and it will provoke even more.

You will get terrorism from weaker peoples always as a response. It's the only tactic they have. They don't have tanks and fleets and bombers. Do you expect them to be gallant gentlemen and line up with clubs in front of our bombers?

Have you noticed how often we seem to be attacking them, and how rarely they attack us? When was the last time Belgium attacked Congo? Morocco attacked France? Afghanistan attacked Canada? Vietnam or Guatemala or Cuba or Iran attacked the US? Ever hear of the British use of poison gas against iraqi civilians way back in 1920? When was the last time Iraq attacked Britain? How about the British, French and Americans overthrowing the elected government of Iran and installing a murderer and torturer in the person of the shah?Ever wonder who might be behind the overthrow of the elected government of Honduras?

Millions of people in those countries have died at the hands of western, Christian invaders. When did they invade us?

But -ooooo-a handful of them kill 2000 New Yorkers (tiny proportion of the world's victims of terrorism) and the world is expected to go into mourning. and the US is justified in slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

For five hundred years, the west has used force to dominate the world in a series of quite brutal empires from the Spanish to the French to the dutch to the Belgian to the British to the American. In all those five hundred years, we have been the attackers. nobody has attacked us.

We have used terrorism on a grand scale as a convenience of force. They have used it as the only weapon they have. And it is a terrible threat. So how do we stop it?

1. we stop doing it.That would be a giant step to ending terrorism.

2. We should stop interfering in other countries, thereby provoking a violent reponse.

3. we should do what we have failed to do ever since 1945 - establish world law with an enforcement system.

But we won't do any of that. With all I have said above, most people carry around a caricature of a terrorist in their heads. He is a moslem. And moslems are terrorists because they are evil. Case closed.

American bombed Cambodia and killed half a million innocent people. Well, Yeah. but.......

an important point. You NEVER send troops into danger unless 1)the fight is winnable 2)it is absolutely vital to national interest.

Those are the two essentials. Unless those two are present, we should not be there.

1. There are serious doubts among military analysts - ones on our side and of undoubted patriotism - that this is winnable.

2. Harper has insisted we are leaving in a couple of years - no matter what. If this war is vital to our national interest, how can we say we are leaving it?

The answer is, of course, it is not vital to any national interest.

Beside those two points, no other argument matters.

if we have announced we are leaving no matter what, then of course we are simply throwing lives away. That is terrible. But that is what is happening. We are letting our people get killed simply because it is politically expedient for the time being to let it happen.

Graeme,  do you know if anyone has ever won a war in less then 50 years and changed local politics permenantly on someones elses land? 

Doesn't the local population always win wars,  like those fought in self defense against foreign invaders? (i.e. Vietnam succeeded in kicking out the French and USA)( Canada kept the Americans out in 1812)

The allies won WW2 but even then it took another 50 years or so for all of Germany to become a democracy, and cease being part of a threat to its neighbours. 

I can only know that world war 2 in the pacific was a success, but only because of the support afterwards of the Emperor, and the God like respect the Japanese held for him, and the fact that the Japanese were the agressors fighting all of the war outside ofr their own country.

I am assuming even Britian will have to hand over the Falkland Islands eventually, and I believe we still have peacekeepers in Cyprus.  Plus Korea is still unstable.

Are not then all foreign  wars now unwinnable because the countries from away fighting them, are unable to sustain a war  for multiple generations.  Wheareas the local population is motivated to fight for as long as it takes.

Whether it is the Soviets in Afganistan, the Europeans in their former colonies, or the USA and Canada in Afganistan, Vietnam, and Korea?

I mean even if "our side" wins in Afganistan will there not just another group of war lords running the country? Does't change in a country have to come from within?  Can it be imposed from outside? In fact doesn't trying to impose solutions from the outside usually end up making things worse?

i.e. Chile in the 70s, and Iran in the fifties

If I am right (which I am not certain) then why do I know this from what little history I know, and why do not ALL military analysts and politicians believe the same?

Is there something in history I am missing?

I bet the Taliban believes this, as does any country people (Iraq) that is invaded and occupied by foreign troops today.

Does history have any examples other then Japan, that would at least indicate that it is possible I am wrong  in my believe that any war fought outside our land is unwinnable?

well, it's an interesting point. It is true that 500 years of constant victories have been wiped out in the last 60 years. Britain saw it coming, and was wise enough to just let its empire, the biggest in history, go in the decade or so after WW2.

At one time, we could win and take a country for hundreds of years - though eventually losing it. Now we more often lose right away.

I love your take on this graeme. I pretty much nod my head in agreeance with everything you said. I am 22 y/o and I have been saying this since the "War on Terroism" started, this war is only for power & control of oil. I live in Alberta, ironically enough, in the oil & gas sector. You would think oil & gas prices would be down, but no, several times this summer gas stations have gone dry. Oil is skyrocketing in price per barrel. Now why on earth would this war be so important? If not for the precious non-renewable resource that is oil? Hmm.... this war is a sham. George W. is a joke. I pray Obama knows what he got himself into. And knows how to get out of it. 

an important point. You NEVER send troops into danger unless 1)the fight is winnable 2)it is absolutely vital to national interest.

Those are the two essentials. Unless those two are present, we should not be there.

That hasn't been a condition of war for thousands of years ....

I didn't say it has been a condition of war. Please learn the meaning of common words.

wisdom, planning, logistics, tactics, strategy, maintenance of objective are also essential in warfare. But they, too, are not necessarily conditions.

Do you see the difference?

Probably not.

Boy you really are something do you ever listen to yourself ?

nope. he doesn't see the difference.

never will.

I don't see anything ..... because there is nothing there to see