Comments on: Wake Up Canada! http://harveyoberfeld.ca/blog/wake-up-canada/ Mon, 21 May 2012 16:30:43 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: Pinky http://harveyoberfeld.ca/blog/wake-up-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-70521 Pinky Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:45:15 +0000 http://harveyoberfeld.ca/blog/?p=16#comment-70521 The foinowllg three sentence comprise the first set of questions posed by the Foreign Policy interviewer to Hillary: 1. In late May, then-top commander General Stanley McChrystal said there is clear evidence of Iranian activity in training and providing weaponry to the Taliban in Afghanistan. What are Iran's core interests in Afghanistan, and how have they evolved in the last nine years? How do those complement or work against what the U.S. and NATO are trying to achieve there? Note that the interviewer's two question sentences don't require, or even invite, Hillary to comment on the interviewer's assumption stated in the first sentence that the US has clear evidence that Iran is involved in training and supplying weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Hillary declined to address this first-sentence assumption, presumably for one or more of the foinowllg reasons: (1) she had not been asked to do so; (2) the assumption was irrelevant to the two questions she was asked; and (3) it would have been impossible in any event to prove the negative of that stated assumption, and thus both pointless and risky to try.But why, one wonders, did this interviewer consider it appropriate to slip in this assumption before posing the two questions to Hillary? It seems plain to me that the interviewer intended that assumption to color the two questions actually posed to Hillary, which questions can thus be rephrased as follows:1. What are Iran's core interests in Afghanistan, and how have they evolved in the last nine years SUCH THAT IRAN IS NOW TRAINING AND ARMING THE TALIBAN IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH ITS OBJECTIVES IN AFGHANISTAN?2. How do IRAN'S INTERESTS IN AFGHANISTAN, AND ITS TRAINING AND ARMING OF THE TALIBAN IN AN EFFORT TO ACCOMPLISH ITS OBJECTIVES, complement or work against what the U.S. and NATO are trying to achieve there? The foinowllg three sentence comprise the first set of questions posed by the Foreign Policy interviewer to Hillary: 1. In late May, then-top commander General Stanley McChrystal said there is clear evidence of Iranian activity in training and providing weaponry to the Taliban in Afghanistan. What are Iran’s core interests in Afghanistan, and how have they evolved in the last nine years? How do those complement or work against what the U.S. and NATO are trying to achieve there? Note that the interviewer’s two question sentences don’t require, or even invite, Hillary to comment on the interviewer’s assumption stated in the first sentence that the US has clear evidence that Iran is involved in training and supplying weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Hillary declined to address this first-sentence assumption, presumably for one or more of the foinowllg reasons: (1) she had not been asked to do so; (2) the assumption was irrelevant to the two questions she was asked; and (3) it would have been impossible in any event to prove the negative of that stated assumption, and thus both pointless and risky to try.But why, one wonders, did this interviewer consider it appropriate to slip in this assumption before posing the two questions to Hillary? It seems plain to me that the interviewer intended that assumption to color the two questions actually posed to Hillary, which questions can thus be rephrased as follows:1. What are Iran’s core interests in Afghanistan, and how have they evolved in the last nine years SUCH THAT IRAN IS NOW TRAINING AND ARMING THE TALIBAN IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH ITS OBJECTIVES IN AFGHANISTAN?2. How do IRAN’S INTERESTS IN AFGHANISTAN, AND ITS TRAINING AND ARMING OF THE TALIBAN IN AN EFFORT TO ACCOMPLISH ITS OBJECTIVES, complement or work against what the U.S. and NATO are trying to achieve there?

]]> By: Brian Weiner http://harveyoberfeld.ca/blog/wake-up-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Brian Weiner Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:30:04 +0000 http://harveyoberfeld.ca/blog/?p=16#comment-10 Well said Harvey and I agree. An interesting add-on to this, I had lunch last week with a friend who had spent 5 years in the Canadian military (and remains connected today), and he insisted that there is a waiting list of Canadian troops lining up to go to Afghanistan. Contrary to what some would say, they WANT to go, to do the right thing, to be in the centre of the action, to help. O Canada! Well said Harvey and I agree.

An interesting add-on to this, I had lunch last week with a friend who had spent 5 years in the Canadian military (and remains connected today), and he insisted that there is a waiting list of Canadian troops lining up to go to Afghanistan. Contrary to what some would say, they WANT to go, to do the right thing, to be in the centre of the action, to help. O Canada!

]]>