# Just Exactly What Is, "Supporting Our Troops?"



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Some of you may know by now that I live next door to a military family who bought the home last May. The couple have three children and the husband's parents live with them (his Dad is handicapped and needs help getting around, but in spite of that, they jointly operate a small cabinet making business from their garage). The wife, with the help of her mother-in-law, runs a home based day care service that caters to military families.

The husband's best friend, Master Cpl. Paul Franklin, lost both his legs in Afghanistan last January, You may recall the story in which a diplomat lost his life as well. Paul and his wife Audra use their friends day care and I speak with them often when they pick up their children around 4:30 in the afternoon. (Our motor home is parked on a pad adjacent to the neighbour's driveway, and since I do most of my writing out there, I see them every day.) I marvel at Paul's determination to overcome his physical loss and his goal is to take up long distance running once again.

Since there has been much discussion about "supporting our troops" here, I thought it would interest ehMacers just how this young couple is handling their lives since Paul's tragic experience in Afghanistan.

Two stories broke this morning, one in the Edmonton Journal about Audra and another on the Telus web site on Paul. They are both worth a read. Pay particular attention to the comments made by Audra, in spite of her husband's injuries, she understands what it means to support our troops.

Audra's story, and that of a friend is in a column by Scott McKeen (his column itself should be a must read for Canadians) in today's Edmonton Journal and in part she is quoted:

_"If we can give the families of Afghanistan stability and security without them needing to turn to the Taliban or al-Qaida -- if their children can go to school in safety -- that is winning something," says Franklin." Both women argue that dissent at home is bad for the morale of soldiers overseas. When you put your life on the line each day, you need to feel the country at your back. Without it, the sacrifice seems pointless._

Full story here:

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/columnists/story.html?id=915c5689-eeeb-4fd5-93fd-ddb4931e1377

Paul's story also has his comment:

"(I needed) someone who's in the exact same boat as I am and who knew exactly what I was going through," he said in an interview Tuesday. "(I thought) there's got to be some sort of mechanism or some sort of organization that can do something like that, and of course there wasn't."

Full story here:

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=news_home&articleID=2411555

All Canadians should be extremely proud of this brave young couple, and showing that pride means showing a commitment to their feelings. Calling for troops to come home does not fit their mould, nor should it.

That's what I believe "supporting our troops" really means.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Calling for troops to come home does not fit their mould, nor should it.
> 
> That's what I believe "supporting our troops" really means.


Sorry but I don't buy this far a second. Supporting our troups means hoping for the best for them. The best is for them to come home not to stay in Afganistan and fight a losing battle with the Taliban. Our objectives in Afganistan are unobtainable therefore we are wasting the precious lives of our soldiers on an American pipe dream.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Sorry but I don't buy this far a second. Supporting our troups means hoping for the best for them. The best is for them to come home not to stay in Afganistan and fight a losing battle with the Taliban. Our objectives in Afganistan are unobtainable therefore we are wasting the precious lives of our soldiers on an American pipe dream.


"Both women argue that dissent at home is bad for the morale of soldiers overseas. When you put your life on the line each day, you need to feel the country at your back. Without it, the sacrifice seems pointless."

Means nothing to you then?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Correct. Absolutly nothing. "Dissent" at home is imperative to the concept of democracy and free will. I'll add the soldiers' feelings is NO reason to shut up about the fiasco that is the so called "war on terror". I would be ashamed of myself if I didn't speak out against this waste of human life.
This is the same kind of crap we are seeing in the US where patriotism is being used as a weapon to silence the critcs of George Bush. Well It is wrong in the US and it is wrong in Canada.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Correct. Absolutly nothing.


Well, you can't put it much clearer than that.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> All Canadians should be extremely proud of this brave young couple, and showing that pride means showing a commitment to their feelings. Calling for troops to come home does not fit their mould, nor should it.
> 
> That's what I believe "supporting our troops" really means.


That is a fair opinion SINC, and I'd support it 100% if I believed that we were going to win over there.

Unfortunately, I think the Americans are going to pull out sometime in the next 4 - 6 years before the job is done and that will probably force NATO out as well. I don't think any of the other countries involved have the stomach or political will to stay.

I say, send in the tanks, CF-18s and whatever else we have that can help our troops stay alive over there, but better than that, send them home.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

MartMan got it right. Much as I may feel sympathy for our soldiers who have suffered injury (or death), and the toll this takes on their families, it's ludicrous to pull the flag over our eyes. Canada's military deserves better equipment, better pay, better working conditions (outside of combat, of course). Canada's soldiers deserve to be put in harm's way only when it is necessary, when the justification is rock-solid, and not when the American war machine needs cannon fodder for its imperialist activities.

I support our troops. Bring them home.

Regarding the articles:


> The focus on the fighting and fatalities in Kandahar province, they say, has overshadowed the good works Canadian soldiers are doing in other parts of Afghanistan, in building or repairing civil infrastructure -- schools, roads, bridges and power lines.


"Good works" are irrelevant to the discussion - doing good things for Afghani citizens is useless if the overall security situation results in more civilian deaths. And what about that infrastructure: Where do the roads go? Are they built according to the needs of the citizens, or the "needs" of foreign firms who want access to natural resources?


> Road construction has bypassed rural areas where roads are most needed. A doctor in the Guzara district of Herat province told a Los Angeles Times reporter that many pregnant women die on their way to hospitals because they lack transportation or the secondary roads are impassable. <small>[<a href="http://www.cursor.org/stories/emptyspace.html">Source</a>]</small>


And the power-line reconstruction: great! Who owns the electrical grid? Is it Afghani? Is it Haliburton?

People need to learn to <b>read</b>, rather than just absorb what's thrown at us. Canadian troops doing a job that benefits the people in Afghanistan: Great. Canadian troops being used to further non-altruistic ends is criminal.

M


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

CubaMark said:


> MartMan got it right. Much as I may feel sympathy for our soldiers who have suffered injury (or death), and the toll this takes on their families, it's ludicrous to pull the flag over our eyes. Canada's military deserves better equipment, better pay, better working conditions (outside of combat, of course). Canada's soldiers deserve to be put in harm's way only when it is necessary, when the justification is rock-solid, and not when the American war machine needs cannon fodder for its imperialist activities.
> 
> I support our troops. Bring them home.
> 
> M


:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> Canada's military deserves better equipment, better pay, better working conditions (outside of combat, of course).


Why bother with a military in the first place? We're protected by three oceans. We're not an imperialistic people. And, we certainly don't have the stomach anymore for a fight.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Why bother with a military in the first place? We're protected by three oceans. We're not an imperialistic people. And, we certainly don't have the stomach anymore for a fight.


IronMac, I'm still wanting for YOU to join up....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

IronMac said:


> Why bother with a military in the first place? We're protected by three oceans. We're not an imperialistic people. And, we certainly don't have the stomach anymore for a fight.


Nor the stomach to back our troops. Perhaps we really have earned the reputation of a nation of cowards?

Not our military or soldiers, rather the rest of us have fostered the new global image.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> IronMac, I'm still wanting for YOU to join up....


I'm still waiting for you to openly declare your true allegiance.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

SINC said:


> Nor the stomach to back our troops. Perhaps we really have earned the reputation of a nation of cowards?


Not cowards...I prefer the term "coddled masses of the West". :lmao:


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

From yesterday's Globe:



MacKenzie said:


> *Remember the Taliban, and stay the course*
> 
> LEWIS MACKENZIE
> 
> ...


MacKenzie has summarized most, if not all, of the points that I've been making for the past month. It's a shame that most of the peaceniks here have not evinced any ability to think ahead to the consequences of leaving Afghanistan. A lot of people avoid the hard questions that MacKenzie and I have brought up and it's like watching roaches scattering before the light. :lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

IronMac said:


> MacKenzie has summarized most, if not all, of the points that I've been making for the past month. It's a shame that most of the peaceniks here have not evinced any ability to think ahead to the consequences of leaving Afghanistan. A lot of people avoid the hard questions that MacKenzie and I have brought up and it's like watching roaches scattering before the light. :lmao:


What is even more distressing is the utter contempt Canadians hold for the request of the families of wounded or killed soldiers for support. Screw 'em is the message they send those fighting for our very freedoms in spite of the examples I posted in this thread. Canada, the great multiculturalism nation of cowards. It is disgusting.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Not cowards...I prefer the term "coddled masses of the West". :lmao:


Still waiting for you to join....


I've stated many times my position and how we are being hoodwinked into pursuing a "war" (of what Harper calls it this week). 
Speaking of coddleds masses - wonder what the danger pay is for working at the Timmies out there - there is still time for you to apply out there, or is this supporting our troops only empty rhetoric on your part?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> What is even more distressing is the utter contempt Canadians hold for the request of the families of wounded or killed soldiers for support. Screw 'em is the message they send those fighting for our very freedoms in spite of the examples I posted in this thread. Canada, the great multiculturalism nation of cowards. It is disgusting.


Ahh please SINC, a war half the world away does not impact our freedoms as much as Harper wanting to emulate Bush.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ahh please SINC, a war half the world away does not impact our freedoms as much as Harper wanting to emulate Bush.


Since the Harper vs Bush scenario is an obsession with you, I'll overlook the comment. Incidentally, Hitler too was half a world away.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Hitler was danger - the treat of terrorisms are such a small one that it's ludicrous that you'd even equate both.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Hitler was danger - the treat of terrorisms are such a small one that it's ludicrous that you'd even equate both.


That's a new one for me. I have never considered terrorism to be any kind of "treat".


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

My bad SINC - but hey in the spirit of Halloween, why not...


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

IronMac said:


> From yesterday's Globe:
> 
> 
> 
> MacKenzie has summarized most, if not all, of the points that I've been making for the past month. It's a shame that most of the peaceniks here have not evinced any ability to think ahead to the consequences of leaving Afghanistan. A lot of people avoid the hard questions that MacKenzie and I have brought up and it's like watching roaches scattering before the light. :lmao:


Of course we know what happens when we leave Afghanistan, imo, it is just a matter of how many Canadian soldiers have to die before it reverts to that state.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> What is even more distressing is the utter contempt Canadians hold for the request of the families of wounded or killed soldiers for support. Screw 'em is the message they send those fighting for our very freedoms in spite of the examples I posted in this thread. Canada, the great multiculturalism nation of cowards. It is disgusting.


Oh, come now! Contempt it is not. I'm willing to accept that our dissent is "damaging to morale," and that's too bad - but a few hurt feelings is a fair price to pay for the very necessary dissent which our system of government requires in order to keep it anywhere close to honest. The continued association of Dissent=Treason is a typical right-wing ploy to avoid discussing the core issue of whether this mission is serving the stated interests, or is simply furthering an agenda which has nothing to do with true Afghan democracy and development.

And please - the whole "fighting for our very freedoms" bit is <i>soooooo</i> neo-con. Which of our freedoms, exactly, are being preserved / defended by Canadian troops in Afghanistan?

M


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> Which of our freedoms, exactly, are being preserved / defended by Canadian troops in Afghanistan?


None of course - it's a mindless slogan. 

Just like throwing out “You don’t support our troops if you don’t support this war”. I fail to see how they are attached.
It’s a stupid accusation because we basically all support our troops. Questioning the mission should show SINC that we don’t want to waste their lives on a stupid adventure. 
How much of our tax dollars will be wasted there and who will profit from this war?

Then of course we hear that little Afghani children and women need to learn how to read. Ironically, Harper had no qualms about cutting funding for similar initiatives in Canada…


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think a lot of the difficulty is in the nature of the criticism. Saying that there may be better ways to go about it (requires some expertise, not just 'I wish') or other places the military should be to better match Canada's ideals should be ok and not slandered on the grounds of 'not supporting our troops'. As others have noted, such freedom is a necessary and valuable part of Canada. 

However, when their work is characterised as 'useless' and other more extreme statements, I can see how that is unnecessarily damaging to morale (not 'supporting'). Intelligent criticism and re-evaluation must be encouraged, but it should be "constructive", to use a term related to the discussion.  

Criticism that, at it's heart, diminishes the soldier's work more than it describes a superior alternative for using (or not using, as the case may be) Canada's military to support Canada's ideals seems unnecessarily spiteful.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> showing that pride means showing a commitment to their feelings. Calling for troops to come home does not fit their mould, nor should it.
> 
> That's what I believe "supporting our troops" really means.


How is wanting them home safe and sound not supporting our troops? 

I've said this before and you failed to respond... I think you and many other have lost perspective and fail to understand how truly valuable the lives of our soldiers are.

If a building is burning to the point it can't be saved we pull the firefighters out. If we pull them out do we somehow lessen them? Do we devalue their service by pulling them out of a fire once it has become too dangerous? The answer is a simple no. IN FACT the answer is that we value their lives and their service so much that we do not want their lives placed in jeapordy over something which can't be saved.

It is pretty clear that the people calling for Canada to "stay the course" in a situation that has NO foreseeable positive outcome DO NOT value the lives of our brave soldiers.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Criticism that, at it's heart, diminishes the soldier's work more than it describes a superior alternative for using (or not using, as the case may be) Canada's military to support Canada's ideals seems unnecessarily spiteful.


Beej, the soldiers are only obeying orders. They have little say on the mission. 
We have been over the aspect of something more positive or alternatives (much along the line of Gwynn Dyers thinking).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> It is pretty clear that the people calling for Canada to "stay the course" in a situation that has NO foreseeable positive outcome DO NOT value the lives of our brave soldiers.


Given the wives statement:

"Both women argue that dissent at home is bad for the morale of soldiers overseas. When you put your life on the line each day, you need to feel the country at your back. Without it, the sacrifice seems pointless."

You too see zero value in their opinions and those of their husbands in the military. What a sad testament to the support of them and your country.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Saying that there may be better ways to go about it (requires some expertise, not just 'I wish') or other places the military should be to better match Canada's ideals should be ok and not slandered on the grounds of 'not supporting our troops'.


When the plain truth is not enough, you wish to muddy it? 
We saw how Bush was warned/explained/cautionned that invading Iraq would lead to disaster but the Con masters keep on lying.... they ended up with a mess....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Given the wives statement:
> 
> "Both women argue that dissent at home is bad for the morale of soldiers overseas. When you put your life on the line each day, you need to feel the country at your back. Without it, the sacrifice seems pointless."
> 
> You too see zero value in their opinions and those of their husbands in the military. What a sad testament to the support of them and your country.


boo frickin' hoo...
Maybe the women are onto something...
You want blind allegiance into a war that's a sham....

Here's the truth - the country is divided on this war. Live with it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> plain truth


Nobody knows the "truth" on the outcome for this one. Still, decisions must be made without knowing the future outcomes with certainty, as usual. 

For example, this:
"NO foreseeable positive outcome"

Is conjecture, not truth. There is evidence to support the conjecture, and against it (especially given the absolute nature of the conjecture). I can see why people would have divergent opinions on the issue, but not why they'd lapse into absolutes (guaranteed "victory" or "failure"); especially without a notion of what either would look like and associated timelines. It does, however, make it easier to always be correct: ie. any progress (girls in schools) is "victory" or any regress (drug lords) is "failure".  

I think there has been much accomplished and ground lost relative to initial gains, but that the country can be helped onto a more stable and self-sustaining path. It will take years and success is not certain. Note that a country such as Thailand would represent a significant long-term improvement despite there being a coup and numerous examples of things we, as Canadians, could complain about. I added that example just to clarify that this is a notion of broad advancement, not some Canadianesque result (even we took 100+ years to get here  ). After all, the occasional person may set the standard unreasonably high just to be able to complain. The same goes for setting it too low (Timmies for everyone = mission accomplished?).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, if the war and been sold differently, we would be having a different discussion. I have the feeling that you like the Canadian involvement there. 

In the aftermath of 9/11, I supported the mission, with the changing "goals" and "objectives", I question it more. Within the framework of recent stated goals and shifting political reality there - I don't.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Given the wives statement:
> 
> "Both women argue that dissent at home is bad for the morale of soldiers overseas. When you put your life on the line each day, you need to feel the country at your back. Without it, the sacrifice seems pointless."
> 
> You too see zero value in their opinions and those of their husbands in the military. What a sad testament to the support of them and your country.


So how much more "sacrifice" (dead soldiers) needs to be made to make up for those who have already given the ultimate sacrifice? What is more important? The lives of our soldiers which would be saved if they were back here or the opinions of these wives? Personally I think the lives of our soldiers are more important... it is too bad you don't see that Sinc.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> In the aftermath of 9/11, I supported the mission, with the changing "goals" and "objectives", I question it more. Within the framework of recent stated goals and shifting political reality there - I don't.


I think a lot of Canadians feel similarly, although it may be more a sense of unease than having thought through the items and come to a decision. It would be strange to have an election based on foreign policy in Canada (not counting trade).


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Still waiting for you to join....
> 
> 
> I've stated many times my position and how we are being hoodwinked into pursuing a "war" (of what Harper calls it this week).
> Speaking of coddleds masses - wonder what the danger pay is for working at the Timmies out there - there is still time for you to apply out there, or is this supporting our troops only empty rhetoric on your part?


And I'm still waiting for you to raise your hand and note that I asked you FIRST. 

As for being hoodwinked, you're way too politicized about this conflict and that puts you in the same league as the villains you profess to despise.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> The continued association of Dissent=Treason is a typical right-wing ploy to avoid discussing the core issue of whether this mission is serving the stated interests, or is simply furthering an agenda which has nothing to do with true Afghan democracy and development.
> 
> And please - the whole "fighting for our very freedoms" bit is <i>soooooo</i> neo-con. Which of our freedoms, exactly, are being preserved / defended by Canadian troops in Afghanistan?
> 
> M


Tell me something, CM...in my past posts would you say that I'm a neo-con?

Development in and of Afghanistan is a goal that everyone can believe in although I'm not too sure about ArtistSeries et al. Unfortunately, said development cannot happen when there is a party that doesn't want it and is willing to use the gun to stop it.

As for our "freedoms", I would rather not allow al-Qaeda a safe refuge from which they can declare their "caliphate" and inspire other religious fundamentalists around the world.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Then of course we hear that little Afghani children and women need to learn how to read. Ironically, Harper had no qualms about cutting funding for similar initiatives in Canada…


At least here the women can vote their "leader" out of power or are you forgetting that?

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/afghanistan/



> In research on these and the previous polls, Human Rights Watch has identified the protection of women voters and candidates from* attacks and intimidation by the Taliban* and regional warlords as the major challenge.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Then of course we hear that little Afghani children and women need to learn how to read.


Interesting...are you saying that you don't believe that "little Afghani children and women" should learn how to read? It certainly sounds like it.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> It is pretty clear that the people calling for Canada to "stay the course" in a situation that has NO foreseeable positive outcome DO NOT value the lives of our brave soldiers.


I think that it's way too early for people to predict that the situation is hopeless. A big problem is that people want the quick and easy solution. They can't think beyond the next six months to a year. This is the sort of thinking that got Bush into trouble in Iraq and it's going to come back to bite us on the butt if we leave Afghanistan too early.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Beej, if the war and been sold differently, we would be having a different discussion. I have the feeling that you like the Canadian involvement there.


"Sold differently"? Boy, does that open up a can of worms...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

IronMac said:


> And I'm still waiting for you to raise your hand and note that I asked you FIRST.
> 
> As for being hoodwinked, you're way too politicized about this conflict and that puts you in the same league as the villains you profess to despise.


pure neo con spin

you're either with US or against US


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> As for being hoodwinked, you're way too politicized about this conflict and that puts you in the same league as the villains you profess to despise.


:yawn:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Interesting...are you saying that you don't believe that "little Afghani children and women" should learn how to read? It certainly sounds like it.


Certainly not - put the big daddy Harper cuts funding for reading programs in Canada then goes to say we have to teach the Afghani to read, something stinks.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Certainly not - put the big daddy Harper cuts funding for reading programs in Canada then goes to say we have to teach the Afghani to read, something stinks.


It's arguments like this that suggest you're more interested in the political game of one downsmanship than the issue at hand. You had some good points earlier on your feelings regarding the communications of Canada's role, but this was just a weak left jab.  Perhaps something along the lines of, "smaller combat zone with more intense reconstruction" would be a place to start a real rejoinder.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Sorry Beej - I'm not going to target the message to please you.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Sorry Beej - I'm not going to target the message to please you.


Right, point missed. I'm simply pointing out a style of fake argument that discredits your position more than strengthens it. Continuing with it is obviously your choice. 

-Cheers


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Lewis Mackenzie is full of #[email protected]#@#.

While the questions he suggests Canadians ask themselves are important ones, they are only superficially relevant to whether Canadians want troops in Afghanistan. One could just as easily ask, 'do you want Canadian troops to die in a foreign war?' or 'do you want to spend millions, if not billions, supporting a corrupt regime in Afghanistan?' These questions, too, are superficial without context.

Yet, considering how Canada got incrementally sucked into this vortext of violence without a proper public debate, or at least a debate in Parliament, under successive Liberal and Conservative administrations, it is little wonder this is the level of discourse. Everyone wants to paint it black and white, but it isn't.

I include those military wives in that criticism. I sympathize with and regret the sacrifice their husbands have made. But I think unquestioned acceptance that Canadian troops have to fight and die or suffer grievous wounds anywhere, even Afghanistan, is wrong.

That's how we got into this mess in the first place. We didn't ask enough questions, our MPs didn't ask enough questions and the Liberals didn't ask enough questions. It may have been altruism - 'Lets bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan' - or it may have been politics - 'Lets go to Afghanistan so we can stay out of Iraq.' But either way we went in without a clear idea on what we wanted to get done, what we needed to get done, how we would get it done, how long it would take, and what we would do if the s*&^& hit the fan.

Well, now the s%^$&% is starting to hit the fan, and if we just stand still without questions and exploring our options, we're going to be covered in it.

And our troops quite likely buried in it.


----------



## ROFF (Feb 21, 2001)

The original mission of Canadian troops in Afghanistan ( to capture Osama Bin Laden ) was a good one. The change of mission goals to Nation Building is wrong.
"Our" enemy ( the Taliban ) is primarily a religious police. We are now in a religious war.

The Taliban is willing to wage war for 50 or more years, they have time on their side. Afghani history has lots of examples of invasions that were defeated by resistance over time. All they have to do is wait. Waiting has worked for them in the past. Just make it uncomfortable for the invader.

So I have a question for those who support the invasion. How long should Canada continue with the war? 5, 10, 15 years or how ever long it takes?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ROFF said:


> So I have a question for those who support the invasion. How long should Canada continue with the war? 5, 10, 15 years or how ever long it takes?


5 years to then be replaced by another NATO army on the front lines and repeat the process with a new NATO army every five years for as long as it takes.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I don't care how we sell this war it is not winnable. We knew that going in and anyone who says otherwise is a fool. USSR couldn't contain Afganistan so how could we ever expet to? Afganistan was just to placate Bush and was never meant to do anything else. Canadian lives is a hight cost for better relations with king George. 
I feel for the wives of dead soldiers but expecting the rest of us to wave a flag and sing the praises of the war is just silly. 
I support the troops. Bring them home. They should have never been put in harms way to appease the Americans and fight in a conflict that is unwinnable. I understand that little girls are in school right now in Kabul (and pretty much nowhere else in Afganistan) and this is good but we can't keep them there. The Afganis proved that they could wear down the the millitairy of USSR and the British Empire. What makes you think that we can do any better? I would go as far as to say that we are actually doing more harm as those who are dying would still be alive if we minded our own buisness and never invaded in the first palce or left after the Taliban was driven out.

I'd prefer that the Taliban didn't exist and do belive it should be wiped out but only with the co-opertion of the UN and this includes (must include) the Arab neighbours of Afganistan. Without them this whole excersise is worse than futile.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> 5 years to then be replaced by another NATO army on the front lines and repeat the process with a new NATO army every five years for as long as it takes.


I know you are too old to fight SINC but I believe that people with opinions like this should be over there fighting period. It is so easy for those who are not fit for millitairy service to push for war isn't it?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> I know you are too old to fight SINC but I believe that people with opinions like this should be over there fighting period. It is so easy for those who are not fit for millitairy service to push for war isn't it?


You obviously misunderstand. 

You see, no war is "easy", nor is the decision to assist allies "easy". Those are the hard decisions that must be made in the face of adversity. 

Thank goodness there are those in power (and those who were in power), who recognized our responsibility to our NATO allies. 

Few of the war objectors do. Our troops serve with honour just as their comrades from other NATO members do, in Afghanistan.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

None of that answers to the fact that the war is futile does it SINC? Nor does it answer to the fact that you are not fighting in Afganistan. What about your children SINC? Any of them in Afgainstan?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> None of that answers to the fact that the war is futile does it SINC? Nor does it answer to the fact that you are not fighting in Afganistan. What about your children SINC? Any of them in Afgainstan?


My children are adult individuals and in no way part of this discussion.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> My children are adult individuals and in no way part of this discussion.


I thought so. Keep pushing for war while you are not prepared to make any sacrifices of your own.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> I thought so. Keep pussing for war while you are not prepared to make any sacrifices.


I see, so SINC has to order his adult children into Afghanistan in order for him to be allowed to support Canada's mission there?

Your tortured logic is astounding.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> I thought so. Keep pushing for war while you are not prepared to make any sacrifices of your own.


You are so far off track it is almost amusing. Just because others do not share your views, you try endlessly to impose yours through intimidation or fantasy. You tactics remind me of those of the Taliban.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I see, so SINC has to order his adult children into Afghanistan in order for him to be allowed to support Canada's mission there?
> 
> Your tortured logic is astounding.


Well, SINC seems to accuse anyone of not supporting our mission to be a traitor to this country. Maybe he should show his support (and I don't mean wearing red on Friday's) by encouraging his children to go serve. It's the noble thing to do. beejacon

In the absense, it just sounds like empty slogans. SINC, you could be work part time at the Timmies over there - I'm sure they would appreciate it...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> I don't care how we sell this war it is not winnable. We knew that going in and anyone who says otherwise is a fool.
> ...............
> I thought so. Keep pushing for war while you are not prepared to make any sacrifices of your own.


Oh goody, we're playing the ill-logic game! :clap: Let's see, er...Success is guaranteed and anyone who says otherwise is a fool and er...those who keep pushing against the war aren't prepared to sacrifice the women and girls they know to the Taliban despite them obviously supporting that outcome for others. Yippee. That was fun in a totally irrational way.

And now back to a real discussion...

To other posters: If it is determined that Canada should not continue, would it be a complete withdrawal in 2009 or would a construction crew remain? Should Canada consider reneging on the existing commitment? Presumably there would still be NGO/CIDA involvement; should Canada commit to making Afghanistan a top aid recipient?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

What's the point of even keeping NGO/CIDA involvement if the puppet regime is a sham? We cannot go alone in this mission and the main player (the USA) seems to have abandonned the hunt for Bin Laden... Are we to continue down this road?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> What's the point of even keeping NGO/CIDA involvement if the puppet regime is a sham?


Fair point, but Canada does provide NGO and government aid to countries with very questionable governments and the outcomes are not stellar (possibly worse than that). I don't think the situation would be unique but, perhaps, the government should tighten its standards even more (I think CIDA's scope was focussed under Martin). The question was getting at whether, if we pull out, we'd give "special" status to Afghanistan and provide them with a higher portion of aid than would otherwise have occurred.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Well, SINC seems to accuse anyone of not supporting our mission to be a traitor to this country. Maybe he should show his support (and I don't mean wearing red on Friday's) by encouraging his children to go serve. It's the noble thing to do. beejacon
> 
> In the absense, it just sounds like empty slogans. SINC, you could be work part time at the Timmies over there - I'm sure they would appreciate it...


Absurd logic. Simply absurd logic.

When you have no other retort, lapse on the foolhardy to defray the argument.


----------



## ROFF (Feb 21, 2001)

Beej said:


> To other posters: If it is determined that Canada should not continue, would it be a complete withdrawal in 2009 or would a construction crew remain? Should Canada consider reneging on the existing commitment? Presumably there would still be NGO/CIDA involvement; should Canada commit to making Afghanistan a top aid recipient?


Once Afghanistan becomes stable ( after we leave ) if the Afghani Government asks for our help then it should be considered. The governments of the day ( both here and there ) need to agree on what that aid would entail in order for it to be effective. After all, you cannot help anyone if they do not want it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> The question was getting at whether, if we pull out, we'd give "special" status to Afghanistan and provide them with a higher portion of aid than would otherwise have occurred.


I'd say no, but these are usually political decisions that rarely have anything to do with fairness. I don't see aid going to countries where we have little strategic interest.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

The posts in opposition to the war in Afghanistan are getting more and more convincing by the day. :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I suggest the participants do some reading about the history and forces involved in the region before walking about "winning" in the specific southern theatre and Afghanistan as a whole.

From my view so far until Pakistan and others stop playing both sides of the street - and that includes the US which has too often supported the tribal factions most responsible for the violence and corruption then NATO troops are simply cannon fodder for the major players and there is no resolution to be seen.

These are the kind of complexities involved - Gov Sherzia and Pres. Karzia belong to opposing major factions/tribes with rivalries that go back to the founding of Afghanistan 250 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gul_Agha_Sherzai



> Gul Agha Sherzai
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Gul Agha Shirzai was the Governor of Kandahar Province in Afghanistan from 2001 until 2004, and is currently the Governor of Nangarhar Province.
> Contents
> ...


Just as the "who is friend who is enemy" has played out with Saddam and Bin Laden he same shifting loyalities and "support for the highest bidder" goes on and has gone on in this region for centuries if not millennia. 

I think Karzai has the right mix of talent and international support to lead Afghanistan and I think his efforts deserve our direct AID. The north and centre really need a generation of healing and rebuilding and I think Canadian aid is welcome there and worth while.

I do not think anyone can resolve the border issues in the south and I do not think Canadian soldiers should be engaged there.

The various factions in Afghanistan north and south have to resolve their own disputes. The factional disputes have been going on for centuries and Iraq is seeing the same violence amongst it's major factions.

Just a reminder of the surrounding players in this


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Doc: Actually I think that looking at a map from time to time to remind everyone about the realities of the country's borders is worthwhile. 

Regarding CIDA, the official Conservative line is to divert as much "no strings attached" cash aid into infrastructure and construction projects overseen by Canadian companies and engineers--this is a return to the type of aid offered by Canada in the 1970s and earlier.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I'm sure the Canadian$ companie$ are happy there is no accountability.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Of course, many Canadians don't even have a clue why Canada is fighting a war in Afghanistan. They believe idiotic conspiracy theories, that jets full of jet fuel don't cause very hot fires, that Americans caused September 11, that Elvis is still alive, that Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson are innocent, and that the Taliban are really Aghanis.

Fortunately, someone has taken the trouble to educate the current government, remind them that this is not a peacekeeping mission, remind them that more than 25 Canadians died in 2001 resulting directly from the actions of the people being sought in Afghanistan now, and remind them that wars take as long as they take, and do not end neatly in a package when Canadians lives are, unfortunately, sacrificed in a war where actual people die for a cause.

The collective amnesia in this regard is astonishing.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Good post MD. The cultural history, as is relevant to the war, is deep and it brings into question the borders themselves (also appropriate to consider in Iraq). 

One thing to add is that much weight is placed on how "unwinnable" the circumstances are by use of the USSR failure. It should be kept in mind that the resistance to the USSR was not alone and was a part of the cold war. There are some parallels nowadays and Pakistan has, since 2001, gotten away with a lot of interference, but I wanted to keep that perspective around.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Fortunately, someone has taken the trouble to educate the current government, remind them that this is not a peacekeeping mission, remind them that more than 25 Canadians died in 2001 resulting directly from the actions of the people being sought in Afghanistan now, .......
> The collective amnesia in this regard is astonishing.


This is simply not true. If it was, the people being held in Guantanimo would be guilty but most are not. 9-11 is the excuse for Afgnistan but the reality is we are fighting the Taliban not Al Qeida. The Taliban never attacked the WTC they just gave Al Qeida a place to hide.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> Oh goody, we're playing the ill-logic game! :clap: Let's see, er...Success is guaranteed and anyone who says otherwise is a fool and er...those who keep pushing against the war aren't prepared to sacrifice the women and girls they know to the Taliban despite them obviously supporting that outcome for others. Yippee. That was fun in a totally irrational way.
> 
> And now back to a real discussion...
> 
> To other posters: If it is determined that Canada should not continue, would it be a complete withdrawal in 2009 or would a construction crew remain? Should Canada consider reneging on the existing commitment? Presumably there would still be NGO/CIDA involvement; should Canada commit to making Afghanistan a top aid recipient?


Talk about disengenious. You know as well as I that NO occupying army has EVER held Afganistan so don't go pretending you think we or anyone has a chance.
As for SINC not making sacrifices? I think it is legitamate since he is talking about 20 years worth of war (or more) and has not made any sacrifice but wants others to not only make the ultimate sacrifice but to not complain at the same time. 
There was nothing irrational about my post. tptptptp 


As to the second part of your post: I think we should cut and run. Once things stabilise, we should look at aid and not till then.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> There was nothing irrational about my post. tptptptp
> ..............
> As to the second part of your post: I think we should cut and run. Once things stabilise, we should look at aid and not till then.


"irrational" was the most polite word that came to mind at that moment. I'll try harder.
..............
Fair enough.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> "irrational" was the most polite word that came to mind at that moment. I'll try harder.
> ..............
> Fair enough.


You should have chosen a less polite word then.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> You know as well as I that NO occupying army has EVER held Afganistan so don't go pretending you think we or anyone has a chance.


Is this some sort of religious belief?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Is this some sort of religious belief?


Could it be that he believes that signature line of his?

"The tyranny of the ignoramuses is insurmountable and assured for all time"


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Is this some sort of religious belief?


Are you kidding?


> An ancient land that has often been plundered, and also a focal point of trade, the region of present-day Afghanistan has seen many invading forces come and go, including Indo-Iranians, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, and the Mongols. Afghanistan was created in 1747 as a large empire, its modern-day shape was recognized by the world community as a fully independent State in 1919, when foreign intervention ceased following the Anglo-Afghan wars. Since 1979, the country has suffered almost continous conflict, beggining with the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan followed by Afghan Civil War and finally by the 2001 war in Afghanistan, in which the United States toppled the ruling Taliban government.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Could it be that he believes that signature line of his?
> 
> "The tyranny of the ignoramuses is insurmountable and assured for all time"


The responses in this thread certainly prove my quote true beyond a shadow of a doubt.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Long before September 11, 2001, U.S. women's groups were advocating against the inhumanities being inflicted by the Taliban on a daily basis.

That alone would have justified deposing the Taliban. Sadly, that alone could hardly bring forth a diplomatic moan, let alone an armed invasion.

As for "just giving Al Qaeda a place to hide," no, not a very good re-writing of history.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Long before September 11, 2001, U.S. women's groups were advocating against the inhumanities being inflicted by the Taliban on a daily basis.
> 
> That alone would have justified deposing the Taliban. Sadly, that alone could hardly bring forth a diplomatic moan, let alone an armed invasion.
> 
> As for "just giving Al Qaeda a place to hide," no, not a very good re-writing of history.


I have said that I think the Taliban should be wiped out in this thread. I also said it needs to be a true international effort involving Afganistan's neighbours or it is doomed to failure and is better off not attempted under these circumstances. 

The sad part is I agree with you. There is no excuse for the existance of the Taliban.

Rewrting history? Please show me where the Taliban ever attacked the west. You can't because it never happened.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

HowEver said:


> Long before September 11, 2001, U.S. women's groups were advocating against the inhumanities being inflicted by the Taliban on a daily basis.
> 
> That alone would have justified deposing the Taliban. Sadly, that alone could hardly bring forth a diplomatic moan, let alone an armed invasion.
> 
> As for "just giving Al Qaeda a place to hide," no, not a very good re-writing of history.


If that were the reason we are there then don't do it half-assed. Go in there with everything we have. Rescue every woman and every child under 16. D-Day all over again. If we are fighting for basic human rights... than do it right.

Sadly you are correct that these issues hardly get the attention of the diplomats.

Me personally I think as I've said before... our soldiers deserve better. They deserve the opportunity not to be blown up and shot at for a mission with no metrics for success and no goals to attain.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I don't distinguish between the Taliban supporting Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda.

In Canada, if you drive a car to a bank robbery, and never get out of the car, but know that someone's going to go into the bank with a gun and rob the bank, killing someone in the process, you are guilty of both theft and manslaughter also. Even if you just provide the ready car.




martman said:


> I have said that I think the Taliban should be wiped out in this thread. I also said it needs to be a true international effort involving Afganistan's neighbours or it is doomed to failure and is better off not attempted under these circumstances.
> 
> The sad part is I agree with you. There is no excuse for the existance of the Taliban.
> 
> Rewrting history? Please show me where the Taliban ever attacked the west. You can't because it never happened.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think for clarity the situation in Afghanistan needs to be clearly separated into portions that actually exist in the geo politics of Afghanistan right now and the aid programs that are and have been a feature of Canadian support versus the military effort.

Middle and northern Afghanistan need as much aid as they can get from all nations to prevent a "failed state" situation arising ( post Soviet occupation ) again.
I think few Canadians take issue with our efforts there and I have no issue with Harper doing circa 70s type support.

I have a lot of issue in spending a huge amount of money to equip troops for Southern Afghanistan when I consider it's implications for foreign policy alignment that makes me uncomfortable.
And additionally the "unwinnable" aspect.

By putting all resources into northern and central Afghanistan then that builds a society better eventually to be able to cope with the issues in the South - issues which have defied resolution for centuries.

The south simply has too many conflicting forces at play and in my mind Canada should stay away from being identified with any one of them. There is a reason the Taliban is resurgent in the area.
The Taliban were the only ones able to restore some sort of order post Soviet occupation IN THE REGION.
And from there they took over the rest of the country. Every strict fundamentalist nationstate has human rights issues vis a vie a western outlook.
Some evidence points to the fact that the Taliban were entirely a product of the Pakistanis....and remain so.
The Taliban made a huge error in associating with Bin Laden (money buys loyality in the region an dhe had lots ) and saying the Taliban with Al Qaeda are one and the same is a serious error, much as Saddam and Al Qaeda entanglement has led to grief and ridiculous posturing.

Each party in the south has a different set of goals......raiding and warlord structures have existed and do exist and will be available to the highest bidder and residents in the region will play the Arabs, off against the Pakistanis off against the US off against NATO.

One of the biggest stories in Afghanistan was suppressed as the US was backing two competing factions for occupation of Kandahar and would not let that be known.
The Northern Alliance with Karzai was on one side of the city, with US "advisors" and Sherzai on the south side with HIS US advisors complete with competing claims.

What the world heard about "liberating" Kandahar by force is NOT what happened.
Al Quaeda had left already and had the US not insisted on Sherzai.....well it's possible there would be no Canadian troops doing it over again.

This is who this particular US faction backed


> Gul Agha served a governor of Kandahar from 1992 until 1994. His rule was *reputed to be exceptionally bloody and vicious, even by Afghan warlord standards.*


Yet even today he is an "ally" of Karzai

You get some sense of the tensions in this bit


> In August 2003 President Hamid Karzai decreed that officials could no longer hold both military and civil posts, and *replaced Gul Agha with Yusuf Pashtun as governor of Kandahar, but after much lobbying, Gul Agha was able to retain his governorship temporarily.*


When two leaders of long standing rival stakeholder tribes in the region are wrestling for power and locals on both the Afghan and Pakistani side offering to fight for whoever pays them the most.......WHY THE HELL ARE CANADIAN TROOPS IN HARMS WAY IN THE REGION??? 

Support our troops??!!.......get them out of THAT region...period.

If you think the Taliban was bad during their governing - what came before was worse. The stories from post Soviet/pre Taliban Afghanistan are horrid.

Superb reading here

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/10/1355235&mode=thread&tid=25


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> By putting all resources into northern and central Afghanistan then that builds a society better eventually to be able to cope with the issues in the South - issues which have defied resolution for centuries.
> 
> The south simply has too conflicting forces at play and in my mind Canada should stay away from being identified with any one of them. There is a reason the Taliban is resurgent in the area.
> The Taliban were the only ones able to restore some sort of order post Soviet occupation IN THE REGION.
> ...


So, what are you trying to say? That Afghanistan be divided into north and south?

It's a tempting idea but that means that the Taliban may/will give refuge to al-Qaeda. That's NOT a good idea.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Afghanistan IS divided into north and south....just as Iraq fractured along ethnic lines...something predicted by many pre invasion analysts.

Dealing with reality instead of wishful thinking is a starting point.
What is NATO going to do - chase Talibs into Pakistan..where they are welcome with open arms????.....

http://www.afghana.com/GetLocal/Afghanistan/Provinces.htm

If you look at the road system you'll see the entire south funnels through Kandahar into Quetta and that's the heart of the problem. One road.

Take a look on a google hybrid map.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Afghanistan IS divided into north and south....just as Iraq fractured along ethnic lines...something predicted by many pre invasion analysts.
> 
> Dealing with reality instead of wishful thinking is a starting point.
> What is NATO going to do - chase Talibs into Pakistan..where they are welcome with open arms????.....
> ...


First off, if it's just one road then supply and reinforcement can be cut off but it's not that easy.

Second, the division of Afghanistan is not a given nor are there rumblings that the Afghan people, as a whole, are thinking of secessionism. Afghanistan is not an artificial construct such as Iraq.

As for wishful thinking, what are you suggesting? A safe refuge for al-Qaeda?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

IronMac I suggest a bit more reading about that southern border before you generalize.












> The Durand Line was demarcated by the British and signed into a treaty in 1893 with the Afghan ruler Amir Abdur Rehman Khan. The treaty was to stay in force for a 100-year period. According to Afrasiab Khattak, a political analyst, the areas from the Khayber Agency Northwards to Chitral, however, remained un-demarcated.
> 
> This disputed land was legally to be returned to Afghanistan in 1993 after the 100 year old Durand Treaty expired, similar to how Hong Kong was returned to China. Kabul has refused to renew the Durand Line treaty since 1993 when it expired, Throughout the last nine years, Pakistan has tried to get Afghan Warlords and Taliban to sign a renewal contract of the Treaty, and thankfully they didn’t not fall for the treachery of Pakistan. One of the reasons Pakistan faced problems with the Kabul rulers right from its inception was Kabul's claim over the North West frontier Province. (NWFP) Kabul never accepted that line or the fact that the NWFP is part of Pakistan. This was one of the main policy planks used by President Daoud Khan's government when it tried to foment trouble by Pashtoons nationalists in the NWFP on the issue of greater Pashtoonistan.
> 
> Until this day, the disputed land which rightfully and legally belongs to Afghanistan, is still recognized as the North-West Frontier Province, NWFP. Every other province in Pakistan is named by the ethnic group that resides there, such as Punjab, Sindh, and Balouchistan. But the ethnic Afghans that are forced under the sovereignty of Pakistan must accept the degrading and purposely named NWFP.


••••••••

Very good article here

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061008/workman_taliban/20061008/



> he said he was a deputy commander of 500 fighters and told us *he recently came back from Pakistan where he'd been living under the patronage and protection of the Pakistani intelligence service.* I believed that as well, or at least it sounded plausible, when you remember that *a lot of Afghans blame the resurgence of the Taliban on Pakistani meddling. "I know the location of many Taliban safe houses," he says. "They provide houses, food, motorcycles, telephones, so of course the Taliban is getting stronger."*


Until Pakistan stops playing both sides for it's own purposes I think Canadian troops should not be engaged.

I'm all for aid to the main gov in Kabul and helping that area recover from 3 decades of war and I think it's money well spent.

The south??!!!......I'd far rather see pressure put on Pakistan.
Pakistan has pushed the borders both north and south and fought what - 3 wars with India over Kashmir and almost came to a nuclear exchange.

The Saudis too are not innocent of fomenting trouble in the area - both pre and post 9/11.

This a larger game of geo -politics and I do NOT believe it's in Canada's interest to be militarily involved and I question whether NATO should be as well.

A question the Europeans are asking too.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> IronMac I suggest a bit more reading about that southern border before you generalize.
> 
> Until Pakistan stops playing both sides for it's own purposes I think Canadian troops should not be engaged.
> 
> ...



I'm well aware that the southern border is in dispute with Pakistan. Your references have no bearing as to what I posted about secessionism nor about the division of Afghanistan into a north/south scenario.

I've always said that Pakistan is involved in this with clandestine aid for the Taliban. What I do not believe in is allowing for a safe refuge for al-Qaeda.

I also find it interesting that your argument is for abandoning or witholding aid to an area that needs it. Remember that while the Taliban was in power only about three countries recognized the government (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and one other I can't remember.). Why is it interesting? I thought you believed that failed states, poverty, and general lack of hope lead people to commit terrorist actions? But, now, you're willing to allow the creation of such an area?


----------



## Just_Doug (Oct 9, 2006)

One thing often overlooked is that Canadian troops have taken more than their share of dangerous assignments because some other NATO countries have imposed conditions on what *their* troops will do.

I support our troops simply because they have more balls than most of the other combatants.

For my money, the only ones who have the right to say whether or not our troops should be there are the troops themselves.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

troops serve the civilian population


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*Always Two Sides...*

From CanWest News Service:

"In exclusive interviews with CanWest News Service, parents and siblings say they are concerned about the dangerous fighting with the Taliban. They are also unsettled by the war-focused nature of the mission, and see no end goal that will define when, and under what conditions, Canadian troops will come home for good.
''I am completely opposed to my son being used as ground fodder for an undisclosed reason,'' says Chris Craig, from Victoria. ''I want to know why we're there. The arguments that have been thus far presented don't do it for me."
...
''My eyes have been opened,'' says the young woman, who asked that she not be identified for fear it could cause problems for her brother. ''When my brother joined the military, he was a peacekeeper. Now he's killing off Taliban in Afghanistan and it's just opened my eyes and I don't agree with it.''
...
"...The other side, which includes the military families who have now come forward to express concern, has come to the conclusion that Canada's presence in Afghanistan and particularly in the more dangerous Kandahar province is misguided, is causing more problems than it resolves, and must come to an end.
...
Military experts have echoed criticism of the mission, but they are quick to say it is a ''simplistic'' idea to pull Canadian troops from Afghanistan and risk creating a power vacuum that will be filled by Taliban militants.
However, right now Canadian troops spend about 90 per cent of their time engaged in combat and just 10 per cent on reconstruction and humanitarian efforts, while a winning formula should be the opposite, according to Walter Dorn, a professor of peacekeeping at the Royal Military College. Dorn teaches majors, generals and combat commanders who have served in Afghanistan.
*''It seems to me that for every person that we kill, we create relatives and associates who increase the level of hatred and we're sowing the seeds for future attacks,'' he says in an interview from New York, where he is working with the United Nations. ''If you don't win the hearts and minds of the people, you'll lose.''*
(Emphahsis mine - SoyMac)
Full Story: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen...9e4c4-d8a1-4cdd-95f3-54ae2598c426&k=20729&p=1


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I wonder if the blind supporters of the war on ehmac will be sending strongly worded emails to these families that they are not supporting the troops

someone should forward the comments of those families to Sentor Romeo Dallaire

it's always easier to send someone else's family into war


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I wonder if the blind supporters of the war on ehmac will be sending strongly worded emails to these families that they are not supporting the troops
> 
> someone should forward the comments of those families to Sentor Romeo Dallaire
> 
> it's always easier to send someone else's family into war


Who's blind? Maybe deaf--from your incessant parroting. *squak*


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Who's blind? Maybe deaf--from your incessant parroting. *squak*


maybe you want to direct that to the families of the troops ?
yeah, i didn't think so


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> maybe you want to direct that to the families of the troops ?
> yeah, i didn't think so


I don't have a problem with them or their beliefs--but you apparently do of others.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

IronMac you insist on these dramatic - all or nothing scenarios.....sound like Bush.

Until the Northern part of Afghanistan is in better secured then isolating the South instead of trying to "fix" the problem strikes me as better use of limited resources.

The US actually did a good job of just that in Northern Iraq prior to the invasion with their no fly zone and support for the Kurds.
The payoff now is that is the most stable part of Iraq.

With limited resources and KNOWING Pakistan is playing games then making sure Northern Afghanistan is on a secure road to recovery/rebuild strikes me far and away as the best approach.
Eventually Afghanistan and Pakistan will have to settle that border issue just as other regions must settle THEIR border disputes.
But a weak centre in Afghanistan does no one any good - most importantly the people of that war weary nation.

Just as that long difficult road between Kabul and Khandar is treacherous for invading troops it makes it difficult for incursion from the south where as the area around Kandahar and Qetta is porous and frankly IMPOSSIBLE to secure.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Give us a solution that does not allow a safe haven for al-Qaeda and I'll back it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You mean beside the one they already have in Pakistan. 
Where do you have any indication that Canadian troops are in any way shape or form engaged with Al Qaeda???

THIS is a start in the right direction



> Major arms manufacturers Russia and China abstained from the vote
> 
> *A United Nations committee has voted overwhelmingly to begin work on drawing up an international arms trade treaty.
> The measure would close loopholes in existing laws which mean guns still end up in conflict zones despite arms embargoes and export controls.*
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6088200.stm


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> THIS is a start in the right direction


This is not AFGHANISTAN: Scores of civilians killed in air strikes, say officials and elders

This is just "I told ya so"


> Nato denies Afghanistan push in disarray
> Nato forces have been accused this week of killing dozens of civilians in an airstrike and have clashed with the Taliban in an area the alliance declared free of insurgents last month.
> 
> In a separate development, Ronald Neumann, US ambassador to Afghanistan, criticised a ceasefire deal reached by UK Nato troops and local groups in a town in Afghanistan’s turbulent Helmand province.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3b89cc6c-6529-11db-90fd-0000779e2340.html


This is the reality


> Is NATO Losing the Real Battle in Afghanistan?
> This week's deadly civilian bombing has further eroded the support of locals, who want to see less guns and more butter from the international force


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1551391,00.html

And this is just stupidity


> Aging choppers headed to Kandahar?


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061025.wseaking1025/BNStory/National/home


----------

