# Losing the war in Afganistan



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> *Canadian Forces “caught by surprise” in Afghan war*
> 
> KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - The Canadian Forces have been “caught by surprise” in recent months by a dramatic shift in the Afghanistan war that has seen the Taliban melt into the civilian population and spread into a far wider area, a top officer admitted Wednesday.
> 
> ...


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=6843ab79-e1ea-488c-85df-0413f4d54ab1&k=45178

They do sound "clueless". All the more reason to stop this farce and bring them home...


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Don't you just love the possible interpretations of the same info:?
Here's another take:

"Stephanie Levitz, Canadian Press
Published: Wednesday, June 06, 2007


KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - Canadian troops in Afghanistan are adapting to a rapidly-changing environment that's caught them by surprise as battle zones expanded and the enemy sought cover among civilians, the deputy Canadian commander said Wednesday.
Col. Mike Cessford said traditional planning for a well-organized, well-trained enemy dissolved as soldiers confronted a dynamic, constantly evolving reality on the ground that's challenged the way the Canadian military works.
But he insisted the Canadian Forces are getting the desired results, arguing that the Taliban are now fighting for survival.
"There are peaks and valleys, but we are seeing that we are maintaining pressure," Cessford told reporters in Kandahar.
"Does that mean the places have been cleaned of the Taliban? Absolutely not."
"But it does mean that their ability to group, their ability to plan, their ability to develop capability to inflict significant harm on us is reduced. They are focused on survival as opposed to offensive operations, and we are having an impact."
In a blunt assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, Cessford said more often than not Canadian troops are "taking the fight" to insurgents.
That's paved the way for increased development aid efforts, Cessford said, pointing to polio vaccinations campaigns and education as two growing areas of activity.
Bubbles of resistance popping up further afield are an indication that heavy fighting in the Panjwaii district and around Kandahar City last fall have forced insurgents out of heavily-populated areas, he said.
This allows the troops to move into areas that haven't traditionally seen a strong Canadian presence.
"Having established ourselves a presence among the people, we are prepared, where need be, to flex out from that development zone to allow us to disrupt and engage the Taliban before they come close to the people," he said.
"That is something we are certainly trying to achieve - to separate and shield the people from Taliban coercion."
Last year, Canadian troops focused on a 20-square-kilometre radius around Panjwaii. This season, however, will see the military and development projects move into an arc of districts north of Kandahar.
Some of the success is due to the increasing capabilities of Afghan national forces, Cessford said.
But there has been a "sea-change" in the way the Canadian military adapts to fighting a war against insurgents cloaked among civilians in cities and towns, he said.
"What changed for us is we found ourselves absolutely involved not so much in a quasi-regular conflict against well-trained and well-prepared enemy forces, we found ourselves actually conducting operations amongst the people ... we were very surprised how dynamically and dramatically things evolved."
As a result, decisions that would have taken months or years on changing ground strength are now made much faster, Cessford said.

He said the military brass as "getting it" when it comes to the realities on the ground.
The army is also far more dependent on intelligence than force when it comes flushing out enemy combatants, Cessford said. Many insurgent fighters are young, unemployed men who are opposing international forces for the excitement and the money, he said.
"The real enemy are the hard-core leadership that come into the areas, that come into the areas from afar ... and who are the ones who are intractable, who will not consider any other options but a return to the extremist Taliban rule, which was pretty brutal and pretty rough," he said.
Cessford said fighting this kind of enemy requires a restrained use of violence and the military is trying to hold back from using artillery or air power to target potential threats.
Civilian casualties are an ongoing issue in Afghanistan, with some estimates suggesting more than 1,300 people have been killed in the last 16 months.
Though history books have few examples of victory over guerrilla-like tactics, Cessford, who has a doctorate in history, is adamant that a different outcome is possible for Afghanistan.
"The odds are on our side," he said.
"This is an insurgency against an elected democratic government that has significant support, that had significant support before the Taliban came to power ... people have already seen the Taliban ... and it wasn't particularly nice."
Cessford said no matter what political decision is made in Ottawa on whether Canada will extend its mission past February of 2009, the country will always have a presence in Afghanistan.
But as the clock ticks down towards the deadline, there is also the certainty that more sacrifices will be required.
"We are seeing movement, we will see setbacks," he said. "I think unfortunately we will continue to pay a price in blood and treasure for this mission."


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Time to pull the plug, our troops can't win this fight. Bring them home.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

*Losing the "H" in Afghanistan.*


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> *Losing the "H" in Afghanistan.*



Ohhh no, the "H" in Afghanistan will be around as long as there are poppy fields to grow.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Every Army that went to Afghanistan got their ass kicked why would Canada be exempted?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Pelao said:


> Don't you just love the possible interpretations of the same info:?


Last year the Taliban was on the run, just like the year before....
Bin Laden is still running around...
The government does not extend much past Kabul.
Reconstruction is a farce.

Yup, we are winning this one....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

"We can't possibly win in the Pacific Theatre of war. The Japanese have Kamikaze pilots who don't care if they live or die! Time to pull the plug, our troops can't win this fight. Bring them home."


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> "We can't possibly win in the Pacific Theatre of war. The Japanese have Kamikaze pilots who don't care if they live or die! Time to pull the plug, our troops can't win this fight. Bring them home."


You do know the answer to that was to nuke a couple of cities. So I take it you are suggesting dropping a couple of nukes on Afghanistan?


----------



## Garyola (Feb 6, 2003)

I would like to see a new law in this country that would state, if the politicians send troops into a prolonged, offensive combat mission(not peacekeeping), where there is no direct threat to Canadian soil, the politicians that have supported such a mission would have their of age children and/or closest of age eligible relatives trained and sent to the combat zone as combatants immediately upon the start of hostilities. 
Then we will see some serious thinking about what is the right thing to do before these politicians start to send young men and women off to fight and die in far away wars.

G


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

The question shouldn't be about whether we are winning the war or not (there is evidence on both sides of the argument), it should be about whether we are doing the right thing by being there.

Personally, I think we are doing the right thing. Afghanistan was a failed state that facilitated world wide terrorism. We had no choice but to respond to this threat. I don't think it is moral to go in and blow the crap out of everything and then leave. I think the West has a responsibility to install a functioning government.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

And your response to the families of those Canadians and others who died at the hands of Al Qaeda and the Taliban who harboured them, 5.5 years ago or so, would be what exactly? No threat to Canadian soil, so keep on killing?




Garyola said:


> I would like to see a new law in this country that would state, if the politicians send troops into a prolonged, offensive combat mission(not peacekeeping), where there is no direct threat to Canadian soil, the politicians that have supported such a mission would have their of age children and/or closest of age eligible relatives trained and sent to the combat zone as combatants immediately upon the start of hostilities.
> Then we will see some serious thinking about what is the right thing to do before these politicians start to send young men and women off to fight and die in far away wars.
> 
> G


Ironically, this is a great description of United States' foreign policy circa 1940.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> "We can't possibly win in the Pacific Theatre of war. The Japanese have Kamikaze pilots who don't care if they live or die! Time to pull the plug, our troops can't win this fight. Bring them home."


I don't remember the being attacked by Afghanistan....

And the specious argument of we have to beat them there or they will attack us here is laughable -


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Personally, I think we are doing the right thing. Afghanistan was a failed state that facilitated world wide terrorism. We had no choice but to respond to this threat. I don't think it is moral to go in and blow the crap out of everything and then leave. I think the West has a responsibility to install a functioning government.


Hey, that's the same excuse for Iraq.....

They are plenty of "failed states". If you want to be the police of the world, you'll have to show a little aptitude...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I think the West has a responsibility to install a functioning government.


So what sort of government did you have in mind? Western style democracy? In a country where every other person has an AK47, make heroin for a living, torture women for showing their face, etc...

I think the west has a responsibility to leave it the hell alone. Take in as many refugees as we can but these folks aren't done fighting and nothing that we do or say will make them stop.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

So if there is a burning building full of people, you just want to help those that make it out on their own, and not try and help the rest, nice.

And a little off topic but I love the "can do" attitude when it comes to saving the environment but when it comes to something that is directly affecting people now, it's not our problem.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> And a little off topic but I love the "can do" attitude when it comes to saving the environment but when it comes to something that is directly affecting people now, it's not our problem.


How did that little war in Vietnam work out for the Yanks?

It's hard to have a "can do" attitude when the goal is rather directionless - unless you can placing a puppet government a goal.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Still great attitude, failed before so why try it now? So why are we still trying to save the environment, fight hunger in Africa, or find a cure for cancer? If we haven't done it by now, will we ever?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> It's hard to have a "can do" attitude when the goal is rather directionless


And Kyoto is going as planned?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> So if there is a burning building full of people, you just want to help those that make it out on their own, and not try and help the rest, nice.


This is just plain silly. Our allies are as bad as our enemies in Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance: discriminates against women, produces heroin, and is generally corrupt. The only real difference is one side is backed by the US and the other isn't.
I'd love to see a real change in Afghanistan but that is not what we are fighting for. It is time to bring the troops back home. They should have never gone there in the first place.
Part of being smart is learning from the mistakes of others. The British and the USSR already showed that controlling Afghanistan is a pipe dream. Current policy shows that real change isn't even that (a pipe dream).


edit:
If anyone actually wanted help the Afghan peoples and cut the illegal heroin trade they would use this solution:
Buy ALL the opium and channel it in to legit codeine and morphine production. This would end the shortage of legal analgesics the medical system is now facing, give Afghan opium growers a legal outlet for their product, and reduce the supply of raw opium (the starting source for heroin) going to the illegal labs. I'm sure the money spent on eradication would be more than enough to accomplish this goal.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> You do know the answer to that was to nuke a couple of cities. So I take it you are suggesting dropping a couple of nukes on Afghanistan?


There was no doubt the U.S. would have won that theatre of war over a two-year period. Your nukes are a red herring. It's the "can-do" attitude of the frightened during WWII I'm referring to.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

martman said:


> This is just plain silly. Our allies are as bad as our enemies in Afganistan. The Northern Alliance: discriminates against women, produces heroin, and is generally corrupt. The only real difference is one side is backed by the US and the other isn't.
> I'd love to see a real change in Afganistan but that is not what we are fighting for. It is time to bring the troops back home. They should have never gone there in the first place.


But you see they are "our" bad guys....


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> "We can't possibly win in the Pacific Theatre of war. The Japanese have Kamikaze pilots who don't care if they live or die! Time to pull the plug, our troops can't win this fight. Bring them home."


This is a lame example. The differences between imperial Japan and Afghanistan are enormous. For starters: Name one country Afghanistan has taken over.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> This is a lame example. The differences between imperial Japan and Afghanistan are enormous. For starters: Name one country Afghanistan has taken over.


Do the people of Afghanistan eat with chopsticks? Then the comparison is invalid! Please Martman, what does taking over another country have to do with whether one can defeat that country in battle.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Do the people of Afghanistan eat with chopsticks? Then the comparison is invalid! Please Martman, what does taking over another country have to do with whether one can defeat that country in battle.


It has to do with whether we SHOULD even be there in the first place. Afghanistan doesn't compare to imperial Japan which is why your sarcastic example is lame.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The topic isn't whether we should be there, but whether we can win--therefore your post is "way lame."


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The topic isn't whether we should be there, but whether we can win--therefore your post is "way lame."


Fine Japan is still a lame example as Japan has been defeated militarily several times. Afghanistan? Never.

As well the topic is not: "Whether we can win" it is: "losing the war" and the issue of should we be there in the first place is indeed part of "losing the war in Afghanistan."

Again equating the war in Afghanistan with WWII is a spit in the face of those who died fighting "the Axis". Next you will be telling me the war in the Falklands was as important / as justifiable as WWII.

Yes you right wingers always accuse those who attack you of the same thing you were accused of. Sad really.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

You really cannot win a guerrilla war. The best that the Western powers can do is to contain the insurgency long enough to allow the pro-Western government to be able to stand on its own two feet enough to defend itself.

As for whether or not we should be there. Yes, I believe that we should be for reasons as diverse as human rights to national security.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

IronMac said:


> You really cannot win a guerrilla war. The best that the Western powers can do is to contain the insurgency long enough to allow the pro-Western government to be able to stand on its own two feet enough to defend itself.


I think it depends on how you want to define victory. If you are willing to take losses over a long period of time and believe it is worth the sacrifice to hold territory, then yes you can win. But, if you want to win in the fashion of a war like WWII, then no.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I think it depends on how you want to define victory. If you are willing to take losses over a long period of time and believe it is worth the sacrifice to hold territory, then yes you can win. But, if you want to win in the fashion of a war like WWII, then no.


I find this interesting... can you give me a an example of where an opposing force has actually won against an enemy who employed guerilla tactics?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Martman: Sure, if you think Afgahnistan can survive attacks from the rest of the world because of some magical qualities it possesses, plese feel free to enjoy that concept.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> I find this interesting... can you give me a an example of where an opposing force has actually won against an enemy who employed guerilla tactics?


Sure check out the Unsuccessful campaigns near the bottom.

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


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jumbo: Martman prefers the myth of the guerilla war to the reality. He's been spoonfed to much VietNam in his young life.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

A few months ago Gordon and Pete had no idea what we were doing with POW. Torture? Maybe. Abuse? Maybe.
Today, Gordon had no idea how many POW we handed over. 
So it's rather amusing to hear the righties lecture the Taliban on human right abuses.

Now, our brilliant military strategists inform us that the truly bad freedom fighters in Afghanistan blend in with civilians.... It's rather easy to predict what's next...

I'm surprised that MF has not decried that the Afghan people as ungrateful twats for not knowing what is good for them and embracing our presence there....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I find this interesting... can you give me a an example of where an opposing force has actually won against an enemy who employed guerilla tactics?


I already said above that you first must provide a definition of victory. 

I would suggest that holding territory is to achieve victory over a guerilla army and that losing territory is a loss. I imagine you won't agree with this. So there is no point in my bringing up examples.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I would suggest that holding territory is to achieve victory over a guerilla army and that losing territory is a loss. I imagine you won't agree with this. .


Strange definition of "victory". Seems that you are applying tradition warfare definition and imposing it undo a "guerilla" army.

I'm glad we are winning:


> Since the invasion, Afghanistan has become less stable due to increased warlord and Taliban activity, growing illegal drug production, and a fragile government with limited control outside of Kabul.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Martman: Sure, if you think Afgahnistan can survive attacks from the rest of the world because of some magical qualities it possesses, plese feel free to enjoy that concept.


You are so condescending. 
The "magical quality" Afghanistan possesses is a history of being unconquerable.
The English couldn't contain her and neither could the Soviets. The Soviets had a lot more troops in Afghanistan than the US and its allies. It is sheer stupidity to think that the mission has a hope in hell especially when our "Afghan allies" are basically no different from the people we are fighting and we don't have enough real interest to commit anywhere near the number of soldiers for anywhere near the length of time it would take.

All they have to do to win is survive till we leave and we will leave.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Jumbo: Martman prefers the myth of the guerilla war to the reality. He's been spoonfed to much VietNam in his young life.


This is a load of BS. Who has held Afghanistan? Do you honestly believe we can when we don't have the conviction to commit enough troops to ever get the job done? Who is living on Fantasy Island?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> He's been spoonfed to much VietNam in his young life.


It should be 'too' not 'to'. (nitpicker!)


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I already said above that you first must provide a definition of victory.


I'd say victory is setting up a stable and long lasting democracy in Afghanistan that respects human rights. 
If you think this is ever going to happen as a result of this conflict I have some land in Florida...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Martman: A grand theory. Afghanistan is unconquerable because it has not been conquered. Do not even think about it. It is magic!

Canada is undefeatable because it has never been defeated! Hooray for us!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Martman: A grand theory. Afghanistan is unconquerable because it has not been conquered. Do not even think about it. It is magic!
> 
> Canada is undefeatable because it has never been defeated! Hooray for us!


MF: that theory is so lame it could be applied to what, say 75% of countries world wide?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Canada is undefeatable because it has never been defeated! Hooray for us!


Ah, but that's because Canada has *never* fought a war on its own. 

I say pull out of Afghanistan, kiss Kandahar goodbye and invade Denmark. That'll teach those modern day Vikings for planting their flag on a desolate piece of rock in the arctic.

Lets go Canada!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The only real success in Afghanistan has been increased heroin production.

I'm still trying to determine if MF has been influenced by that. 


This is another clusterf***, and it's sad to see some cheer-leading such a disaster.


> Wednesday, June 06, 2007
> Bloodshed is spreading to previously stable provinces of Afghanistan, threatening aid efforts as humanitarian workers contend with growing numbers of attacks from insurgents and criminals.
> 
> A series of UN "security accessibility maps" obtained by The Independent paint the same picture, showing areas considered to be in the top danger category spreading across the country in the past year. In June 2006, few places fell into this category. Most of Helmand was then tagged as the second- worst level - a high risk/ volatile environment. Large swathes of the provinces of Kandahar and Zabul were high or medium risk, while a significant part of Uruzgan was high risk. Areas of extreme risk did exist in those regions and in eastern provinces such as Khost and Paktika, but they were relatively small in size.
> ...


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article2618169.ece


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> The only real success in Afghanistan has been increased heroin production.


Rebuilding the local economy is one of the _prime directives_.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Martman: A grand theory. Afghanistan is unconquerable because it has not been conquered. Do not even think about it. It is magic!
> 
> Canada is undefeatable because it has never been defeated! Hooray for us!


It's a good thing the USians have forgotten (on purpose, no doubt) that we burned down their Yellow House (it's not accurate to say we burned down their White House; it was yellow when we burned it down). Otherwise, we'd get lumped in with the terrorists.

At least we're only accused of supplying the terrorists, across our porous border (forgetting also that none of the 9/11 "19" entered the US from Canada--although they certainly accused us of that, back in the day).


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

It's 2007. How long do we fight a war with/for/against a large sophistocated nation like Afghanistan before we admit we suck?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

It's too bad the US didn't focus their attention on Afghanistan instead of adventuring into Iraq on a lie. Even military people admit to that.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> I'd say victory is setting up a stable and long lasting democracy in Afghanistan that respects human rights.
> If you think this is ever going to happen as a result of this conflict I have some land in Florida...


You asked me to provide an example of a country that has won a war against a guerilla army. I can't move forward in this discussion until you provide a generic definition for victory.

I suggested that holding real estate was the fundamental key. Some don't seem to agree with that, but I think everything flows from holding real estate. You can't create a democracy or impose your will if you don't have the land.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I suggested that holding real estate was the fundamental key. Some don't seem to agree with that, but I think everything flows from holding real estate. You can't create a democracy or impose your will if you don't have the land.


Two things - we are losing territory at the moment and it's farcical to impose "democracy"....


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> You asked me to provide an example of a country that has won a war against a guerilla army. I can't move forward in this discussion until you provide a generic definition for victory.


Sorry but that was not me. I asked nothing of you Vandave.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Martman: A grand theory. Afghanistan is unconquerable because it has not been conquered. Do not even think about it. It is magic!
> 
> Canada is undefeatable because it has never been defeated! Hooray for us!


That's right ignore the other points I made completely so you can continue a dishonest attack on me.
I will re-state them in bullet form for you.
1) We don't have the will to win. (this means we are not willing to send enough troops and keep them there long enough to complete the mission and when I say we I mean the US and all the Allies of the US except the "Afghan allies"

2) The "Afghan allies" are no different from the "Afghan enemies".

3) The Brits and the Soviets tried and failed and they were far more committed then we are.

4) The Soviet army had WAY more troops than we ever will and they failed miserably.


No MF it is you who believes in magic. The magic that will allow an army with no real conviction and not enough resources to win against an enemy who has proven time and again that our methods will fail against them all the while our allies are the same as our enemy. {sarcasm}It will be a cakewalk to succeed where Soviet troops failed{/sarcasm}

As for not thinking about it. It is you who is not thinking. I've though long and hard about this. I looked at the history of Afghanistan and those who tried to invade. You are living on pipe dream that apparently involves no thought whatsoever. On what basis do you think "victory" is possible in Afghanistan? Right just like your anti-global warming beliefs they are not based in any fact whatsoever. All you can ever offer is speculation based on fantasy . I offer recent history.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF is ticked that after all the billions of $ poured into Iraq, the U.S. only control 1/3 of Baghdad.... How that Pax Americana dream working out?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070604/ts_nm/iraq_crackdown_dc_1


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Two things - we are losing territory at the moment and it's farcical to impose "democracy"....


First off, NATO/Western powers are not "losing" territory. There are no front lines per se. And, the only time that the Taliban tried to hold on to territory they got killed, literally. :clap: 

As for imposing democracy...well, I don't see the Taliban being any better than the present Karzai government and I would venture to say that they are much much worse.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> As for imposing democracy...well, I don't see the Taliban being any better than the present Karzai government and I would venture to say that they are much much worse.


I disagree. I'd say they are similar. Again the only difference I see is backing by the USA.

Press Backgrounder: Military Assistance to the Afghan Opposition<br> (Human Rights Watch Backgrounder, October 2001)


> What Is the United Front/Northern Alliance?
> 
> In 1996, when the Taliban captured the Afghan capital, Kabul, the groups opposed to the Taliban formed an alliance called the National Islamic United Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan, commonly known as the United Front. The United Front supports the government ousted by the Taliban, the Islamic State of Afghanistan (ISA). The president of the ousted government, Burhanuddin Rabbani, remains the president of the ISA and is the titular head of the United Front. For the past year his headquarters have been in the northern Afghan town of Faizabad. The real power was, until his assassination in September 2001, the United Front's military leader, Commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was also the ISA's minister of defense. The precise membership of the United Front has varied from time to time, but includes:
> 
> ...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> 1) We don't have the will to win. (this means we are not willing to send enough troops and keep them there long enough to complete the mission and when I say we I mean the US and all the Allies of the US except the "Afghan allies"
> 
> 2) The "Afghan allies" are no different from the "Afghan enemies".
> 
> ...


No. 1 - I sort of agree with that point. It's always been my contention that the soft decadent masses of the Western democracies have no real stomach for bloodletting.

No. 2 - No, the difference is that the Afghan allies that are currently in place will not allow Islamic fundamentalists such as al-Qaeda a place to build and train.

No. 3 - Not really. The British forces that everyone points to were mainly made up of Indian troops. The Soviets were an altogether different animal from those who stormed Berlin. Those troops were corrupted by the influences of the Western democracies/culture.

No. 4 - While quantity confers a sort of quality it doesn't mean much.

A guerrilla war is winnable (I am amending my earlier post in this thread). There is a quick and easy way that is unacceptable to most people and, then, there is the hard way that will take about 9 years according to the latest literature.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> I disagree. I'd say they are similar. Again the only difference I see is backing by the USA.


That "backing" is clouding your judgement then.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> That "backing" is clouding your judgement then.


No it isn't. See my edited post above.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> No. 3 - The Soviets were an altogether different animal from those who stormed Berlin. Those troops were corrupted by the influences of the Western democracies/culture.


Right and our soldiers are different how?

Soon we will have been in Afghanistan longer than the duration of WWII. Bush is now talking about 50 years in Iraq. Do you honestly believe anyone (outside of the Afghanis) have the stomach to stay 50 years in Afghanistan? Don't forget that for the most part people like the Taliban in Afghanistan. When they were in power there was peace. We, on the other hand, are just another set of foreign invaders.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> No. 4 - While quantity confers a sort of quality it doesn't mean much.


Perhaps but you are discounting the experience that the Soviets had in Afghanistan BEFORE they invaded. Don't forget the Soviets were entrenched in Afghanistan before they invaded. They had many spies who actually delivered actual information (unlike the US covert ops). USSR had a lot more going for it going in than the US did or does now.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> No. 2 - No, the difference is that the Afghan allies that are currently in place will not allow Islamic fundamentalists such as al-Qaeda a place to build and train.


This may be true but ultimately I am not convinced. I'd add that even if this assertion is true (which it may be), it doesn't change the fact that on a human rights basis (and a democratic basis) there is no improvement. This means that your "human rights" justification is out the window.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> A guerrilla war is winnable (I am amending my earlier post in this thread). There is a quick and easy way that is unacceptable to most people and, then, there is the hard way that will take about 9 years according to the latest literature.


The Soviets were in Afghanistan 9+ years. So much for the literature.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Martman: I'm not convinced Afghanistan is a great military venture--you seem intent on proving that I'm wrong in my imagined support of the action. I'm merely taking issue with your concept that people can't win in that theatre if they really want to. You later state that you don't believe Canadians have the guts and will to win--fair enough. But they could if they wanted to.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Martman: I'm not convinced Afghanistan is a great military venture--you seem intent on proving that I'm wrong in my imagined support of the action. I'm merely taking issue with your concept that people can't win in that theatre if they really want to. You later state that you don't believe Canadians have the guts and will to win--fair enough. But they could if they wanted to.


Yes any nation is defeatable if there is enough will.
(cue to image of Duckman leaving the rubble around his bomb shelter and the pan out to show the complete devastation all around him and his lone voice shouting "I win, I win" as he jumps up and down for joy.)


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm merely taking issue with your concept that people can't win in that theatre if they really want to. You later state that you don't believe Canadians have the guts and will to win--fair enough. But they could if they wanted to.


Would you tell your kids that they could be President of the U.S., knowing full well that it will never happen?

It takes more than "will" to make something happen....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> It takes more than "will" to make something happen....


Yes: cash, personnel, superior weaponry.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Yes: cash, personnel, superior weaponry.


Cash? For bribes I suppose?
Personnel? Okay
Superior weaponry? We already have that....

Maybe we should also support "Star Wars" program for that extra edge...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Must Be True Not Provable But Must Be True As An Act Of Faith?*



> I'm not convinced Afghanistan is a great military venture--you seem intent on proving that I'm wrong in my imagined support of the action. I'm merely taking issue with your concept that people can't win in that theatre if they really want to. You later state that you don't believe Canadians have the guts and will to win--fair enough. But they could if they wanted to.


Must be true because he said so. 

Canadian Culture and sensibilities have been erased and replaced with the Hollywood ending in the reality of some citizens.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> No it isn't. See my edited post above.


It is. No one is saying that they are not concerned about what these people have done in the past but it will be up to the people of Afghanistan whether or not they are going to put the warlords on trial for what they did in the past.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> Right and our soldiers are different how?
> 
> Soon we will have been in Afghanistan longer than the duration of WWII. Bush is now talking about 50 years in Iraq. Do you honestly believe anyone (outside of the Afghanis) have the stomach to stay 50 years in Afghanistan? Don't forget that for the most part people like the Taliban in Afghanistan. When they were in power there was peace. We, on the other hand, are just another set of foreign invaders.


First off, thanks for proving my point that the weak-kneed soft citizenry of the Western democracies don't have the stomach to stay in Afghanistan.

Second, I suggest you look closely to see whether or not the women of Afghanistan prefer the Taliban to be in power. Or anyone else who liked music or kite-flying or going to school.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> Perhaps but you are discounting the experience that the Soviets had in Afghanistan BEFORE they invaded. Don't forget the Soviets were entrenched in Afghanistan before they invaded. They had many spies who actually delivered actual information (unlike the US covert ops). USSR had a lot more going for it going in than the US did or does now.


Big deal. No one believed that the Taliban could be toppled in less than six months either. They're reduced to a guerrilla campaign.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> This may be true but ultimately I am not convinced. I'd add that even if this assertion is true (which it may be), it doesn't change the fact that on a human rights basis (and a democratic basis) there is no improvement. This means that your "human rights" justification is out the window.


First off, are you seriously saying that the present Karzai gov't would allow al-Qaeda into the country?

Second, if you say that the human rights situation in Afghanistan has not improved from what it was under the Taliban then you have obviously not kept up to date on developments.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> The Soviets were in Afghanistan 9+ years. So much for the literature.


First off, that's the average. Second, not every guerrilla war can be won.

In fact, the Soviets, as far as I can recall were never able to defeat a guerrilla army unless you want to talk about the Hungarians and Czechs.

The Brits have successfully faced down guerrillas in the Malay Emergency, the Mau Mau Uprising and the Boers while the Americans had final success during their occupation of the Phillippines.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> Sorry but that was not me. I asked nothing of you Vandave.


Wrong robot.

In any case, you answered the question and I can't respond until a victory definition is provided.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> First off, are you seriously saying that the present Karzai gov't would allow al-Qaeda into the country?


Why would Martman have to say that when Karzai does?



> resident Hamid Karzai acknowledged for the first time yesterday he has met with Taliban militants in attempts to bring peace to Afghanistan, which is struggling to quell a rising insurgency.
> 
> At the press conference, Mr. Karzai struck a conciliatory tone, urging Afghan militants to lay down weapons and join his government.
> "*Afghan Taliban are always welcome, they belong to this country*. ... They are the sons of this soil," Mr. Karzai said. But he said that militants from neighboring countries such as Pakistan "should be destroyed."


http://washingtontimes.com/world/20070406-103237-9241r.htm


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Why would Martman have to say that when Karzai does?
> 
> 
> Karzai admits meeting Taliban in peace talks - World - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper



Where does it say al-Qaeda?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> I disagree. I'd say they are similar. Again the only difference I see is backing by the USA.


If you want to quote reports, I strongly suggest you have a read through HRW's report:

The Human Cost: The Consequences of Insurgent Attacks in Afghanistan

It makes enlightening reading where the Taliban are deliberately targeting civilians and conducting an extermination campaign against the education system.



> The report documents how, in violation of the laws of war, insurgent forces have repeatedly, *directly targeted civilians* for attack, and how even attacks directed at Afghan and international military forces have often been launched without due regard for civilian life.





> Increasingly, the Taliban has been *targeting* certain groups of civilians, including _humanitarian aid workers_, journalists, _doctors_, religious leaders, and civilian government employees





> Insurgents *intentionally* targeted *civilian* objects that served no military purpose, including *schools*, buses, or bazaars





> The new report also details how *attacks on Afghan teachers and schools*, especially girls’schools, *doubled* from their already high levels in 2005. The continuing attacks have forced hundreds of thousands of students out of classrooms.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Where does it say al-Qaeda?


You are correct. My apologies.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

The point I'm trying to make is this.
As a society we don't have the will to put the needed human power for the needed time to defeat the Taliban. Furthermore the Northern Alliance is little different from the Taliban despite what IronMac claims.
I'll add we will not win and I'll give two to one odds. Any takers?
This is an exercise in futility. You can't change a society like Afghanistan by changing one corrupt sexist Islamist leader for another. The real reason we can't win: were not even trying and never have tried in the past. And that is on top of the other reasons I've already given.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Wrong robot.
> 
> In any case, you answered the question and I can't respond until a victory definition is provided.


And I provided you with one.



martman said:


> I'd say victory is setting up a stable and long lasting democracy in Afghanistan that respects human rights.
> If you think this is ever going to happen as a result of this conflict I have some land in Florida...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> If you want to quote reports, I strongly suggest you have a read through HRW's report:
> 
> The Human Cost: The Consequences of Insurgent Attacks in Afghanistan
> 
> It makes enlightening reading where the Taliban are deliberately targeting civilians and conducting an extermination campaign against the education system.


Yes our "Afghan allies" are the pinacle of respect for human rights:


> Mahmad Gul, 33, an impoverished farmer, said he was interrogated for three days in May of 2006, without any meals, at Zhari District Centre, a small town west of Kandahar city.
> His tormentors were the Afghan police, he said, but the Canadian soldiers who visited him between beatings had surely heard his screams.
> “The Canadians told me, ‘Give them real information, or they will do more bad things to you,’ “ Mr. Gul said.
> The farmer said he’s lucky; during two months of questioning in Afghan jails, the worst that happened to him was that an interrogator punched out the teeth on the left side of his mouth.
> ...


From Canadian custody into cruel hands at 3arabawy

Please explain how the cause of human rights is to be advanced by these bastards.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> The point I'm trying to make is this.
> As a society we don't have the will to put the needed human power for the needed time to defeat the Taliban.


*YOU* certainly don't have the will at any ate.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

People who don't stand behind our troops should try standing in front of them.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> Yes our "Afghan allies" are the pinacle of respect for human rights:
> 
> Please explain how the cause of human rights is to be advanced by these bastards.


At least we're able to have some say in what happens rather than stand by and do nothing which is what you're suggesting.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> *YOU* certainly don't have the will at any ate.


It isn't just me (in case you didn't notice).
CANOE -- CNEWS - Canada: Poll says 70% back Afghan pullout


> Poll says 70% back Afghan pullout
> By DONNA CASEY, SUN MEDIA
> 
> 
> ...


You can pretend we can "get the job done" but with numbers like these, I don't see how it's going to happen.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> At least we're able to have some say in what happens rather than stand by and do nothing which is what you're suggesting.


I don't see how stirring a hornet's nest is going to help anything. If we didn't have the resolve to fix Afghanistan (which was never there). We shouldn't have gone in, in the first place. The real purpose of invading Afghanistan was revenge for 9-11.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm not surprised that Canadians don't have the stomach for much. I'm grateful that a generation with different values were on guard during WWII.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> And I provided you with one.


That's not what I asked. I already said I wanted a generic definition, not one that only applies to Afghanistan and not one that inserts your values (e.g. Democracy) into the mix.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> That's not what I asked. I already said I wanted a generic definition, not one that only applies to Afghanistan and not one that inserts your values (e.g. Democracy) into the mix.


I'm only regurgitating the BS we are told the mission is by our gov't. They set the "victory conditions", not me.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I'm not surprised that Canadians don't have the stomach for much. I'm grateful that a generation with different values were on guard during WWII.


Yep, I lost my Mom's youngest brother at 33 in Korea.

Her other four brothers fought in WWII as did my father who was wounded on the French/German border in early 1945.

The cowards here who call for us to abandon Afghanistan quite frankly disgust me.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> The cowards here who call for us to abandon Afghanistan quite frankly disgust me.


What bothers me is that people don't put the moral decision first.

I can understand if somebody doesn't agree with the war on the reason of principle. But to say you don't want us fighting there because we are paying a price is to demonstrate a lack of moral conviction.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> What bothers me is that people don't put the moral decision first.
> 
> I can understand if somebody doesn't agree with the war on the reason of principle. But to say you don't want us fighting there because we are paying a price is to demonstrate a lack of moral conviction.


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: 

Thanks Vandave.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I'm not surprised that Canadians don't have the stomach for much. I'm grateful that a generation with different values were on guard during WWII.


I am a young Canadian (32) and I support what we are doing in principle in Afghanistan. Most of the soldiers fighting there are under 30.

I don't agree with your comment and I don't think you can stereotype my generation.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yep, I lost my Mom's youngest brother at 33 in Korea.
> 
> Her other four brothers fought in WWII as did my father who was wounded on the French/German border in early 1945.
> 
> The cowards here who call for us to abandon Afghanistan quite frankly disgust me.


My father was in Korea in 53... I had uncles in WW2 and a Great Grandfather in WW1

Quite frankly your position is the one that is cowardly as you yourself have never been in combat yet are perfectly willing to send someone else's son or daughter into a combat zone where there is no defined enemy and no defined metric for success. They won't know if the next hazard is a car they drive by on a street, some tribal elder looking to tune them with an axe to the back of the head or some kid on a bike loaded for bear.

In WW1 and WW2 and Korea there was a defined enemy and goal... that does not exist in Afghanistan.

We need to bring our troops home... now.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> I don't see how stirring a hornet's nest is going to help anything. If we didn't have the resolve to fix Afghanistan (which was never there). We shouldn't have gone in, in the first place. The real purpose of invading Afghanistan was revenge for 9-11.


Stirring a hornet's nest? Revenge? What? Did you think that al-Qaeda was going to turn themselves in?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I am a young Canadian (32) and I support what we are doing in principle in Afghanistan. Most of the soldiers fighting there are under 30.
> 
> I don't agree with your comment and I don't think you can stereotype my generation.


You seem to be the exception then. :clap:


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> In WW1 and WW2 and Korea there was a defined enemy and goal... that does not exist in Afghanistan.


Here is a goal. Denial of a base area and moral victory for al-Qaeda. Good enough for you?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> I am a young Canadian (32) and I support what we are doing in principle in Afghanistan. Most of the soldiers fighting there are under 30.
> 
> I don't agree with your comment and I don't think you can stereotype my generation.


VanDave: I'm not commenting on the age of any particular poster, but on a historical generation. I shudder to think of the comments I'm, reading here applied to WWII:

* We can't win!
* We don't have the stomach for it!
* It will cost too much!
* Some of our soldiers died--bring home the troops now!

I can't imagine this crew of EhMacers on the day after D-Day.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> What bothers me is that people don't put the moral decision first.
> 
> I can understand if somebody doesn't agree with the war on the reason of principle. But to say you don't want us fighting there because we are paying a price is to demonstrate a lack of moral conviction.


That is a load of crap... moral conviction is an entirely subjective viewpoint. 

If... I mean *IF* we had the moral conviction to REALLY make changes there, things would be being handled quite differently. Instead what we have is a haphazard meat grinder that puts our soldiers in the most risk with little to no chance of real substantial success.

IF we had moral conviction as a country, as a society we would institute conscription and send boatloads (10's of thousands) over there like we did in WW2.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

IronMac said:


> Here is a goal. Denial of a base area and moral victory for al-Qaeda. Good enough for you?


Base area? That doesn't even make sense for a loosely affiliated, decentralized radical organization. Perhaps we should have dropped them in the middle of Saudi Arabia if you were really serious about going after Al Qaeda?

Besides at this point Canadian forces are not fighting Al Qaeda they are fighting the Taliban, while they may have some ties they are not the same organizations.

How do you define a moral victory for Al Qaeda? by their standards they've won. They now have plenty of juicy "western" targets running around their doorstep. They don't even have to go to the end of their street to kill a westerner. We've served them their victory on a silver platter.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> People who don't stand behind our troops should try standing in front of them.


This old canard..... I'm glad that the army decides Canada's foreign policy....


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> VanDave: I'm not commenting on the age of any particular poster, but on a historical generation. I shudder to think of the comments I'm, reading here applied to WWII:
> 
> * We can't win!
> * We don't have the stomach for it!
> ...


I was about to throw out some comments directed at the thought process that lead up to your post but decided that it wasn't worth the effort.

If you seriously think that this action in Afghanistan is remotely similar to what happened during WW2 then where is the mobilization? Why isn't this country from coast to coast on a war footing? Why haven't we reinstated conscription? Why aren't we sending 10's of thousands of soldiers to Afghanistan to defeat the enemy?

When was the last time Afghanistan invaded another country? If I was Germany's neighbour I'd be pretty nervous as they are long overdue for their regularly scheduled invasion. 

All countries with a history of invading your neighbour put you hands up now? Afghanistan? No?

So when is Afghanistan's D-Day coming? 

You should really re-read your post again and think about it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm not surprised that Canadians don't have the stomach for much. I'm grateful that a generation with different values were on guard during WWII.


You mean mindless automatons that went to fight for Queen and Country?









Or maybe, just maybe, the cause in WW2 was one that made sense and was the right thing to do.... And lets not forget Canada was attacked on our soil.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Base area? That doesn't even make sense for a loosely affiliated, decentralized radical organization. Perhaps we should have dropped them in the middle of Saudi Arabia if you were really serious about going after Al Qaeda?
> 
> Besides at this point Canadian forces are not fighting Al Qaeda they are fighting the Taliban, while they may have some ties they are not the same organizations.
> 
> How do you define a moral victory for Al Qaeda? by their standards they've won. They now have plenty of juicy "western" targets running around their doorstep. They don't even have to go to the end of their street to kill a westerner. We've served them their victory on a silver platter.


If you know anything about the history of al-Qaeda you'd know that it's always looked for a "base area". For most of its history, its membership has been made up of stateless persons who are no longer welcome in their home countries and so it does need base areas such as the Sudan and Afghanistan.

Second, Canadian forces are fighting al-Qaeda members as recently as within the last week.

Third, moral victory? If the Canadians/Western powers leave, it will once again prove to Islamic fundamentalists the world over that the Western democracies don't have the stomach for bloodletting.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> If you seriously think that this action in Afghanistan is remotely similar to what happened during WW2 then where is the mobilization? Why isn't this country from coast to coast on a war footing? Why haven't we reinstated conscription?


Why haven't we? Because the Quebeckers would throw a fit like they did in both WWI and WWII and probably refuse to serve.



da_jonesy said:


> When was the last time Afghanistan invaded another country?


Don't be too hasty in saying that. Afghanis have invaded others in the past...just not the modern past. But, hey, memories are long in that part of the world.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> You mean mindless automatons that went to fight for Queen and Country?


Yeah, that sounds about right for what Quebeckers were saying in the past...the term is "zombies" though. 



ArtistSeries said:


> Or maybe, just maybe, the cause in WW2 was one that made sense and was the right thing to do.... And lets not forget Canada was attacked on our soil.


We were attacked on Canadian soil?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> Besides at this point Canadian forces are not fighting Al Qaeda they are fighting the Taliban, while they may have some ties they are not the same organizations.


And that would be the Taliban that the present Afghanistan government said is welcomed back into the country....


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> And that would be the Taliban that the present Afghanistan government said is welcomed back into the country....



Do you always take things out of context? Or twist them around?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Wrong robot.
> 
> In any case, you answered the question and I can't respond until a victory definition is provided.


Perhaps nations shouldn't be entering into military campaigns or wars without knowing what victory is. Just a thought.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> You mean mindless automatons that went to fight for Queen and Country?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


However in today's world those posters come off more like this...










And this one...










or this one...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

IronMac said:


> Why haven't we? Because the Quebeckers would throw a fit like they did in both WWI and WWII and probably refuse to serve.


Wow... and I thought the extremists were in Afghanistan.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Why haven't we? Because the Quebeckers would throw a fit like they did in both WWI and WWII and probably refuse to serve.


How many conscripts saw battle in WW2 - very few.
Bill 80 (at that time) ensured that. So while it's fair to say that French Canada strongly opposed conscription, across Canada only 63% supported it....

And the "Terrace Mutiny" involved Anglophone and Francophone soldiers....


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

IronMac said:


> Third, moral victory? If the Canadians/Western powers leave, it will once again prove to Islamic fundamentalists the world over that the Western democracies don't have the stomach for bloodletting.


Stomach for it? Not only do we have a stomach for it we excel at it. We have down to a fine art and they know it, and have experienced it for years. Just look at the comparative casualty rates and tell me we don't have the stomach for bloodletting.

The west is exceedingly efficient at killing others.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

SINC said:


> People who don't stand behind our troops should try standing in front of them.


People who "say" they stand behind our troops should try standing in front or along side them... in Afghanistan.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> We were attacked on Canadian soil?


German U-Boats attacked Newfoundland (technically not Canada at the time) and U-Boats often were spotted in the St-Lawrence river.
On the West Coast, Estevan Point lighthouse (Vancouver Island) was attacked. Let's not forget the Japanese fire balloons (over 9000 of them - one made it to Saskatchewan)...

Battle of St.Lawrence http://uboat.net/articles/?article=29


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> On the West Coast, Estevan Point lighthouse (Vancouver Island) was attacked.



Summer of '42--after Canada had declared war on Japan and Germany.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> People who "say" they stand behind our troops should try standing in front or along side them... in Afghanistan.


Were it not for my age, I would gladly volunteer.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Were it not for my age, I would gladly volunteer.


I understand there are also NGO's over there who do not have the same recruitment requirements that the Armed Forces do. I'm sure they are looking for volunteers.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

How many naval ships, tanks, airplanes, missle silos, and mobile missle launchers did the Taliban or Al-Qaeda start out with in 2001? How many do that have now?

We thought we would just waltz in, tagging along with the US and NATO, and run over the inferior primitive enemy. We thought it would easy. We thought it would be quick.

The war still has no end in sight and the "enemy" is still able to keep us from "victory" without the use of tanks, or artillery, or aircraft.

Our military victory was already acheived. We helped blow the shi-tzu out of their bases and training camps of the offending government and "military" that harboured the attackers of September 11, 2001.

That's where we should have left it. We killed the badies. Fulfilled our duties to NATO and then should have left with heads high and let Afghanistan sort its own affairs out.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Summer of '42--after Canada had declared war on Japan and Germany.


And let's not forget "invaded" Newfoundland.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> And let's not forget "invaded" Newfoundland.


As you say, not at all Canada at that time.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> That is a load of crap... moral conviction is an entirely subjective viewpoint.


Really? Then why do the left wing only pipe up when our troops die? Why is the argument always focussed on the price we pay? 

I believe that morals are more universal than they are subjective. And no... I don't want to get into a google bomb discussion about it.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I believe that morals are more universal than they are subjective.


And where did those morals come from? from a Western Christian bias.

Morals are highly subjective. Ask anyone in Afghanistan what their thoughts are in regards to the equality of women and you'll get a much different answer than you will here. 

If morals were universal than we would have much less conflict in the world. The issue is that morality is NOT universal.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> I understand there are also NGO's over there who do not have the same recruitment requirements that the Armed Forces do. I'm sure they are looking for volunteers.


Sadly, not for ones with a heart condition.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Really? Then why do the left wing only pipe up when our troops die? Why is the argument always focussed on the price we pay?


We are no better than the Taliban we are trying to replace. When we can't even say how many "detainees" we hand over... We hold ourselves up to a higher "moral ground" yet take the low road and justify it by any means. 

You seem to insist that we change their culture by force, do you really think that's the way?

Those in power are using "fear" as a justification for their actions. The price is our freedom. There is something disturbing in Canada when information is suppressed, when the war becomes a photo-opt, an excuse for exaggerated military spending... 

I don't support this present "war" because the mission changed in nature. The justification does not make sense ...

If the U.S. had actually accomplished it's goals there instead of heading off to Iraq, I'd likely be 100% behind our efforts. We are being told that we have almost won, yet our soldiers can't travel without high risk. We now need tanks and helicopters - that sounds like we are doing well. 

As for reconstruction, there has not been any measure of the effectiveness. 

So while your the blind support VD is typical, it does fit in the nature of those that don't question....


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> How many conscripts saw battle in WW2 - very few.
> Bill 80 (at that time) ensured that. So while it's fair to say that French Canada strongly opposed conscription, across Canada only 63% supported it....
> 
> And the "Terrace Mutiny" involved Anglophone and Francophone soldiers....


So, "throw a fit" does work eh?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> How many conscripts saw battle in WW2 - very few.
> Bill 80 (at that time) ensured that. So while it's fair to say that French Canada strongly opposed conscription, across Canada only 63% supported it....
> 
> And the "Terrace Mutiny" involved Anglophone and Francophone soldiers....


So, "throw a fit" does work eh?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> German U-Boats attacked Newfoundland (technically not Canada at the time) and U-Boats often were spotted in the St-Lawrence river.
> On the West Coast, Estevan Point lighthouse (Vancouver Island) was attacked. Let's not forget the Japanese fire balloons (over 9000 of them - one made it to Saskatchewan)...


Get real. Canada declared war WITHOUT being attacked on its own soil. You're upturning/ignoring your own argument's logic where Canada was not attacked so why should we be in Afghanistan.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Stirring a hornet's nest? Revenge? What? Did you think that al-Qaeda was going to turn themselves in?


Nope but the Taliban is not Al Qeada and the mission is not about the BS objective we were told about.

My dad got a section 8 rather than go to Korea. I'm proud of him.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

martman said:


> Nope but the Taliban is not Al Qeada and the mission is not about the BS objective we were told about.
> 
> My dad got a section 8 rather than go to Korea. I'm proud of him.


Klinger lives!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

double post


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I've pointed out several times in this thread why we can't win and all the gung ho types have ignored the facts. 
WHY SHOULD WE FIGHT A WAR THAT THE MAJORITY OPPOSES AND WE HAVE NO CHANCE OF WINNING? WHAT GOOD CAN COME OF IT? 

Even if you support this action how can you justify it given the fact the majority oppose it and there is not enough resources to see a victory?

I'm still waiting for takers on my two to one bet!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Klinger lives!


My dad has a huge nose but the difference is he never went. He got out at Whitehall St. 

I believe Korea was just a warm up for Vietnam in an era when few dared to challenge the lies out of Washington. I don't believe we should have been there either.

I also believe our meddling in Korea has been the major factor shaping North Korea into what it is today. Like USA messed up Cambodia, we are largely responsible for helping to create the conditions that make the current status quo in the the north.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> What bothers me is that people don't put the moral decision first.
> 
> I can understand if somebody doesn't agree with the war on the reason of principle. But to say you don't want us fighting there because we are paying a price is to demonstrate a lack of moral conviction.


What bothers me is people who spew moral platitudes like they are enough. I'd love to see a government in Afghanistan that recognizes human rights and women's rights but given the realistic level of commitment we can expect from the rest of the world, it ain't gonna happen. 

Going in without the full needed troops equipment etc is a half measure doomed to failure. Doing part of the job is WORSE than doing nothing (Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea). 

If we don't have the level of commitment necessary (and I've yet to see ANYONE argue this point) then interfering in Afghanistan will make things worse not better.

You can go on all day about the morality of this situation. What about the morality of killing people for a cause that we know will not be won?
Aren't we responsible for the bloody aftermath?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> What bothers me is people who spew moral platitudes like they are enough. I'd love to see a government in Afghanistan that recognizes human rights and women's rights but given the realistic level of commitment we can expect from the rest of the world, it ain't gonna happen.


It won't happen right away and it will take a long time. Social changes do not happen overnight and human rights take time to develop. We are still progressing with human rights in Canada (e.g. gay marriage rights). 

We first must start with a stable government and help Afghanistan to build a stable situation. From there, they can make their own decisions. I figure the Arab world is about 100 years behind the West when it comes to human rights. It will take that long for them to reach where we are now ASSUMING a stable government can be put in place. If we let extremist islam take over, then they will rewind the clock 1000 years. 

To me the MORAL decision is to not allow the militant islamic extremists and terrorists to take over.



martman said:


> Going in without the full needed troops equipment etc is a half measure doomed to failure. Doing part of the job is WORSE than doing nothing (Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea).


You are the one saying we should pull out. 

Either you agree with the principle of the mission or you don't. Which is it? 



martman said:


> If we don't have the level of commitment necessary (and I've yet to see ANYONE argue this point) then interfering in Afghanistan will make things worse not better.


I agree that we don't have enough commitment but most of our troops feel that progress is being made. 



martman said:


> Aren't we responsible for the bloody aftermath?


I don't agree with the leftist approach of always finding somebody else to blame other than the actual perpetrators. If you murder somebody, you are responsible. If the US leaves Iraq or the West leaves Afghanistan, the militants who start the civil war are the ones who are fundamentally responsible. They have a choice.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I don't agree with the leftist approach of always finding somebody else to blame other than the actual perpetrators. If you murder somebody, you are responsible. If the US leaves Iraq or the West leaves Afghanistan, the militants who start the civil war are the ones who are fundamentally responsible. They have a choice.


This is a cop out. Invading a country makes you a perpetrator. If you destabilize a region then you are (at least partially) responsible for the bloody aftermath. 
By your logic the US has no responsibility for the civil war in Iraq or the genocide in Cambodia. I don't buy this line for one second.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> You are the one saying we should pull out.
> 
> Either you agree with the principle of the mission or you don't. Which is it?


Yes life would be convenient if issues were as black and white as this. They aren't.
I agree with the supposed terms of the mission BUT I know that this was never truly the mission and that there never was enough will to make this bogus mission a reality. Furthermore I always believed (and still do) that in order for the stated goals to ever be reached the UN had to be completely on board especially the Islamic members. 

You in your response admit the will and resources aren't there so why try and do the impossible at a cost of lives when success is not going to happen? How does this benefit anyone?

I still say a job attempted and left undone (in the context of Afghanistan) is far worse than not even trying and quite frankly I don't think we are even trying.

I'm still waiting on takers for my two to one bet...
Don't stampede each other trying to get in on this...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Nope but the Taliban is not Al Qeada and the mission is not about the BS objective we were told about.
> 
> My dad got a section 8 rather than go to Korea. I'm proud of him.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

The term Section 8 refers to a discharge from the United States military for reason of being mentally unfit for service. This term was made popular by the television program M*A*S*H, in which a corporal in the US Army, Max Klinger, attempts for years to get a Section 8 discharge (usually by wearing women's clothing), in order to get out his tour of service of the Korean War.

In the 1950s, Section 8 discharges were commonly given to service members found guilty of "Sexual Perversion," especially for homosexuality — and it was classified as an undesirable discharge, depriving the soldier so discharged of veteran's benefits but not resulting in the loss of any citizenship rights, such as the right to vote.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> To me the MORAL decision is to not allow the militant islamic extremists and terrorists to take over.


{sarcasm}You mean the Northern Alliance?{/sarcasm}

The problem is I agree with you about Islamists extremists. The other problem is our "Afghan allies" are Islamist extremists. Please explain how we can save the Afghan peoples from the extremists in their midsts by propping up Islamist extremists found in their midsts?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
> 
> The term Section 8 refers to a discharge from the United States military for reason of being mentally unfit for service. This term was made popular by the television program M*A*S*H, in which a corporal in the US Army, Max Klinger, attempts for years to get a Section 8 discharge (usually by wearing women's clothing), in order to get out his tour of service of the Korean War.
> 
> In the 1950s, Section 8 discharges were commonly given to service members found guilty of "Sexual Perversion," especially for homosexuality — and it was classified as an undesirable discharge, depriving the soldier so discharged of veteran's benefits but not resulting in the loss of any citizenship rights, such as the right to vote.


Section 8 also prevents the drafting of "such unfit" people.
Common reasons for section 8 included: homosexuality, drug use, Communist party membership, paranoia, schizophrenia, etc.

My father's permanent record says he is a gay, communist, paranoid, schizophrenic who uses and is addicted to drugs. None of these things were or are true but he was a card carrying pinko (democratic socialist (not quite red)). Interesting that none of this interfered with his emigrating to Canada.

What was the point of your post anyway SINC?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I figure the Arab world is about 100 years behind the West when it comes to human rights.


I fear it could be much longer than that. The Spanish Inquisition lasted almost 400 years. (cue Monty Python joke here)
1476 to July 15th, 1834

I fear this is the start of the Islamic version of the inquisition. I pray I'm wrong (and I'm an atheist).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> I agree with the supposed terms of the mission BUT I know that this was never truly the mission and that there never was enough will to make this bogus mission a reality.


Perhaps you should be lobbying our government to expand our role and to lobby our allies to expand NATO's role so that we can achieve the goals of the mission.

The approach that you and others are taking (i.e. it's too hard so let's not try), promotes the middle ground policy that we currently have (i.e. limiting our commitments).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> {sarcasm}You mean the Northern Alliance?{/sarcasm}


Yes actually. They are not nearly as extreme as the Taliban or the Arabs that are coming into Afghanistan.



martman said:


> The problem is I agree with you about Islamists extremists. The other problem is our "Afghan allies" are Islamist extremists. Please explain how we can save the Afghan peoples from the extremists in their midsts by propping up Islamist extremists found in their midsts?


Relative to Western values, the entire islamic world could be classified as extreme. However, the more Liberal groups do not believe they are in a Jihadist struggle against the West. These are the people we need to work with.

Much of the problems in Afghanistan are imported by other people. The Taliban were originally an extremist movement in northern Pakistan supported by many extremist Arabs. They took advantage of the failed state that Afghanistan became after years of war. They were partially supported by the Afghani people because they could at least hold the country together and keep things predictable (much like the Nazis kept the trains running on time).

A big part of this war is keeping those people out and minimizing their influence.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Perhaps you should be lobbying our government to expand our role and to lobby our allies to expand NATO's role so that we can achieve the goals of the mission.
> 
> The approach that you and others are taking (i.e. it's too hard so let's not try), promotes the middle ground policy that we currently have (i.e. limiting our commitments).


Can't you read?
I said I believe it is necessary to get the Islamic world on line. Without that the rest is a joke. (a sick joke at that). I'll add that the intentions of my other country (USA) are NOT benevolent towards Afghanistan.
I find your suggestion counter productive. Only with the UN in charge and with the active support of the Muslim and Arab world can we see progress. It is clear (especially after the invasion of Iraq) that there is no chance of this.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Yes actually. They are not nearly as extreme as the Taliban or the Arabs that are coming into Afghanistan.


I've seen zero indication of this other than statements from lairs like Snow, Harper, and Cheney. Everything I've read on the subject says otherwise.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> Only with the UN in charge and with the active support of the Muslim and Arab world can we see progress. It is clear (especially after the invasion of Iraq) that there is no chance of this.


Sounds a lot like Korea. When is the last time the UN ran a war?

The Arab and Islamic states are doing next to NOTHING to assist Afghanistan or Iraq.

In about 1.5 years, we are going to see a major turnaround in the policies of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. As the US starts to withdraw from Iraq, it will become THEIR problem. The lack of assistance in Iraq and Afghanistan is only going to hurt them in the long run.

Turkey is already getting involved in Northern Iraq. It is just a matter of time before the Saudis and Iranians start to get actively involved and fuel a civil war. Don't blame the US.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> I've seen zero indication of this other than statements from lairs like Snow, Harper, and Cheney. Everything I've read on the subject says otherwise.


All you have to do is compare how they ran the country before the Taliban did. Read about it and you will agree.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I have read about it and I do not agree.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Sounds a lot like Korea. When is the last time the UN ran a war?


Korea was a sad joke that was not really run by the UN. Did USSR or China back the Korean conflict? The only reason Korea happened the way it did was Khrushchev threw a tantrum and stormed out of the UN before a vote. This was the first and LAST time that is (was) gong to happen.


As long as the US is in charge there is zero chance of this mess getting sorted out. We are involved as a suck up measure to the US. The US created this mess by invading and they should be the ones to risk the lives of their people to clean it up not us. They were pissed at us for not going into Iraq because they want us to pay there too. the Project for a New American Century is no rational basis for foreign policy yet that is precisely where we are now. 

AGAIN HALF MEASURES AND POKING STICKS INTO HORNETS NESTS IS NOT A WAY TO SUCCEED. 

You have continually failed to show me any hope at all and therefore any reason at all that I should have any confidence in our or the USA's leaders on this issue.

I find your insistence on absolving the US of ANY responsibility for the destabilization they have caused in Afghanistan (and presumably Iraq, Cambodia etc.) abhorrent.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MM and VD: Does anybody have a good paper that compares life in Afghanistan before and after the Taliban gained power? I do not mean some journalist briefly proclaiming reality or a pundit pushing an agenda, I mean a proper analysis.

My limited knowledge on the matter suggests the Taliban was worse, but I could use much more information. Note that I also do not mean anecdotes of "badness", such as are often used to try and equalise things with a dismissive wave of the hand.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> MM and VD: Does anybody have a good paper that compares life in Afghanistan before and after the Taliban gained power? I do not mean some journalist briefly proclaiming reality or a pundit pushing an agenda, I mean a proper analysis.
> 
> My limited knowledge on the matter suggests the Taliban was worse, but I could use much more information. Note that I also do not mean anecdotes of "badness", such as are often used to try and equalise things with a dismissive wave of the hand.


Lots of bad anecdotes on all sides of the conflict. That's the problem with this type of discussion. A person could google bomb anecdotes all day.

I remember watching a documentary on Afghanistan before 911. Here is my anecdote.... You could buy a DVD in Kabul and were allowed to watch it. The most popular movie to buy was Rambo IV. When the Taliban came to power, personal freedoms like this were gone.

There is a reason why Masood was killed on 910. The Taliban knew the US would immediately support them.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

> Carla Garapedian, producer/director of the Dispatches programme, Lifting the Veil, assesses how far life has changed for women in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban regime
> A young Afgan child
> 
> Whack! The soldier's baton hit me hard against my back, knocking out any illusions I had about women's progress here in Afghanistan.
> ...



The Taliban is probably more extreme than most other factions in Afghanistan but the difference is for the most part minimal except if you live in Kabul. Outside of Kabul all bets are off.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> Nope but the Taliban is not Al Qeada and the mission is not about the BS objective we were told about.


No, the Taliban are not al-Qaeda and I feel sorry for the former when they had to, according to the rules of hospitality, cover for al-Qaeda.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> I've pointed out several times in this thread why we can't win and all the gung ho types have ignored the facts.
> WHY SHOULD WE FIGHT A WAR THAT THE MAJORITY OPPOSES AND WE HAVE NO CHANCE OF WINNING? WHAT GOOD CAN COME OF IT?
> 
> Even if you support this action how can you justify it given the fact the majority oppose it and there is not enough resources to see a victory?
> ...


You know what? I don't see the Western powers losing at the moment. So far, militarily, the Taliban have been driven to deliberately attacking civilians and nothing good ever comes of that. Their "spring offensive" doesn't seem to have made much dent in the coalition's forces either.

As for the majority opposing it, well, I won't tell you what I think of the "majority".


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> You can go on all day about the morality of this situation. What about the morality of killing people for a cause that we know will not be won?
> Aren't we responsible for the bloody aftermath?


That's a self-fulfilling prophecy/argument. Sounds like Baird to me.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> {sarcasm}You mean the Northern Alliance?{/sarcasm}
> 
> The problem is I agree with you about Islamists extremists. The other problem is our "Afghan allies" are Islamist extremists. Please explain how we can save the Afghan peoples from the extremists in their midsts by propping up Islamist extremists found in their midsts?


You're talking about people from before 2001. Both sides have extremists but the real fundamentalists are on the Taliban side. Let's see what happens with the government that the Western powers have thrown their lot in with.

As an additional FYI about the Taliban, let me quote from pg. 231 of "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright:



> pork, pig, pig oil, anything made from human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, any equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computers, VCRs, televisions, anything that propagates sex and is full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards."


were among some of the things banned by the Taliban.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> That's a self-fulfilling prophecy/argument. Sounds like Baird to me.


You might chose to say that but in the end I will be right here saying I told you so.

If yo have so much confidence in the mission, why don't you put up for my two to one wager?
Could it be you know I'm right and don't want to admit it?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> Can't you read?
> I said I believe it is necessary to get the Islamic world on line. Without that the rest is a joke. (a sick joke at that). I'll add that the intentions of my other country (USA) are NOT benevolent towards Afghanistan.
> I find your suggestion counter productive. Only with the UN in charge and with the active support of the Muslim and Arab world can we see progress. It is clear (especially after the invasion of Iraq) that there is no chance of this.


The US is not in charge in Afghanistan. Your judgement is clouded by the idea that the US is behind everything.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The majority's opinion changes (used to support it) and foreign policy cannot and should not twist that fast. If, however, the majority is consistently against it, then Canada's role post-2009 needs to be questioned. Note that "it" is not as clear as many may assume, particular when asking about a war, a humanitarian pursuit, geopolitical machinations etc. The question matters.

I would like us to do more but the majority dictates something like this. Note, I do not mean just grabbing convenient polls. Support before in numerous polls, less now, maybe support later. I mean a real political push by our leaders to make their cases and them deciding based on what they hear and, of course, fearing for their political careers. Polling questions, volatility of results aside, change the results and are only a piece of elected representatives hearing.

The first step is to vote in some leaders.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> You're talking about people from before 2001. Both sides have extremists but the real fundamentalists are on the Taliban side. Let's see what happens with the government that the Western powers have thrown their lot in with.


The "real fundamentalists" are on both sides. That is why this is one big sad joke.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> The US is not in charge in Afghanistan.


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> You're talking about people from before 2001. Both sides have extremists but the real fundamentalists are on the Taliban side. Let's see what happens with the government that the Western powers have thrown their lot in with.


Of course the problem with this line of argument is that it doesn't even matter as no one is actually serious about winning in the first place. How do I know this?
One word: Iraq.
If Afghanistan was the issue Iraq would have not been invaded taking up the majority of the US forces in the region.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> Korea was a sad joke that was not really run by the UN. Did USSR or China back the Korean conflict? The only reason Korea happened the way it did was Khrushchev threw a tantrum and stormed out of the UN before a vote. This was the first and LAST time that is (was) gong to happen.


Seriously, do you even know anything about history?

First of all, the Soviet ambassador was the one who "missed" the meeting where the vote was held as to whether or not the UN would intervene.

Second, yes, the USSR and China both backed the North Koreans. At the very least the Soviets had planes and pilots while the Chinese had around half a million troops in Korea.

If you're part of the "majority", well, it just proves my ideas about the "majority".


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> You might chose to say that but in the end I will be right here saying I told you so.
> 
> If yo have so much confidence in the mission, why don't you put up for my two to one wager?


Your repeating this got me interested enough to find the initial request. "Win" is quite subjective. If things are better (also subjective) is that a win, or are you looking for something more specific? Japan is still quite a bit more sexist than Canada...did the U.S. and the West in general lose that? Obviously not, but I think you get my point.

What are the timelines and what is winning to you? This takes a lot of detail lest you just use anecdotes to define losing. If 5% more girls get educated up to grade 6 equivalent, is that a win? If there is some coup with turmoil and deaths, will you instantly flag that as failure; or various viciously opposed groups killing each other in some numbers unheard of in Canada (ie. greater than one or two)?

In short, the wager makes no sense without a specific decision point. There will always be some subjectivity for such a matter, but "win" is way too broad. I don't think they'll adopt the Canadian Charter of Rights in my lifetime if that's what you mean. Of course, I don't know if anybody will ever do that in full (South Africa learned from it, but I assume their end result was different).


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> If yo have so much confidence in the mission, why don't you put up for my two to one wager?
> Could it be you know I'm right and don't want to admit it?


Sorry, I was raised not to take candy from a baby.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> If you're part of the "majority", well, it just proves my ideas about the "majority".


Nice to see you support democracy. tptptptp 
I'm ecstatic you are not the PM.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> Your repeating this got me interested enough to find the initial request. "Win" is quite subjective.


It is far easier to define lose.
Lose means that the Taliban or some related front organization still exists and starts (successfully) taking over within 6 months of the USA leaving.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Sorry, I was raised not to take candy from a baby.


I don't for a second believe you believe this. Pure rhetoric and nothing else.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> It is far easier to define lose.
> Lose means that the Taliban or some related front organization still exists and starts (successfully) taking over within 6 months of the USA leaving.


Okay, that helps. Normally I would not think "related front" would be controversial, but you seem to lump all extremists (as per Western perspective) together, without allowing for one being materially less bad than another.

Beyond that, time for timelines. Let's say that the related front is as bad or worse than the pre-2001 Taliban (not established, but play along) and that it tries, with much violence, but fails. Now, do you have a year in mind? 

I think that this will take a very long time and that success, along the lines of not losing as per your definition is not guaranteed, but that it is possible. 2009 is too soon for that, in my opinion, although the infrastructure vs. combat balance could significantly shift by then. 

Regardless, there will be "unCanadian" problems for decades. Most of the world has such unCanadian problems. India still has flare ups but I think we would all agree that if Afghanistan got to the point of being as uneff'd as India (or Thailand, or Indonesia, etc.) then that would be success. Do we agree?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> Okay, that helps. Normally I would not think "related front" would be controversial, but you seem to lump all extremists (as per Western perspective) together, without allowing for one being materially less bad than another.
> 
> Beyond that, time for timelines. Let's say that the related front is as bad or worse than the pre-2001 Taliban (not established, but play along) and that it tries, with much violence, but fails. Now, do you have a year in mind?
> 
> ...


For the most part I'd agree but I'd also say that it matters not if 2009 is too soon. All that matters is how much the USA can stomach before it bails.

I should add that scenarios like Pakistan taking over or outright civil war are also part of the lose category.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> All that matters is how much the USA can stomach before it bails.


An important factor but should the rest then walk away? A "win" is possible without the U.S. (we may disagree on likelihood...lotto 6/49?) and no one would argue that because the U.S. doesn't care, then we don't care (would they?). 

It gets messier with the actual politics of what other countries will contribute and, over extended timeframes, what other countries cannot be helped due to commitments in Afghanistan. But, at the core, for as much as the U.S. is despised for its foreign policy, would it not actually be a long-term accomplishment (as opposed to short-term "my enemy's enemy..." thinking) to demonstrate success without them?

This is an odd twist but, given how much the world sneers as the U.S. (rightly or wrongly and both) and how much their economy pays for their military, it would seem that their interests are best served by simply walking away and ensuring that their borders are secure. 

I do not think this would be a good thing overall, notwithstanding the current President's idiocy, but that it would seem to be the best decision by the U.S. for the U.S. Just isolate and stop wasting money being hated. 

Heck, people will still point to, in different conversations, how Afghanistan beat the USSR and how the U.S. propped up Afghanistan "extremists" as if they were completely separate things. Maybe the world would notice if the U.S. just walked away. Some would argue this as a good thing, but I'm not so certain. In the least, it is complex.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> lots of stuff


The point I keep making is that there is not the will to fix Afghanistan. Not just in USA but EVERYWHERE!
I wish I were wrong but I know I am not. USA is the biggest contributer to the Afghan mission but even for them it is an afterthought (Iraq). I strongly doubt the mission would continue in any real way past the time of their involvement. Don't you think this true?
What makes you think anyone is actually serious about fixing this problem? I told you why I don't think the USA is serious. You talked a lot about what should be but I'm talking about what is.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> Heck, people will still point to, in different conversations, how Afghanistan beat the USSR and how the U.S. propped up Afghanistan "extremists" as if they were completely separate things. Maybe the world would notice if the U.S. just walked away. Some would argue this as a good thing, but I'm not so certain. In the least, it is complex.


I believe that when the US leaves (and they will), The power vacuum will cause a civil war. I think it will be the same if they leave today or a decade from now. In a worst case scenario we are talking about a Cambodia like event. I fail to see how delaying the inevitable will help. And I fail to see why we should absolve the US (and Canada etc) (like IronMac says we should) of it's responsibility for creating this situation in the first place.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think Canada should take more of a leadership role and convince other countries, with or without the U.S., to do more. That will take time (oh yeah, and leadership, which requires some public support). Otherwise, it's just "we won't so we can't". If you want to take that approach, I fully invite you to use it for global warming in which case we will once again disagree. It is an extremely difficult issue (global warming is even more difficult, policy-wise) but it is worth putting significant effort into and, by effort, I mean getting other nations onside.

You may be right about failure (in politics, cynicism predicts the outcome 90% of the time  ) but, since about late 2005, I haven't seen real political effort to indicate doability more than voteability. The latter is recent governance, the former is not impossible or unheard of. We've been busy on other matters, some important and some not, in my opinion. 

Completely revamping CIDA is a good place to take a coordinated leadership role, in my opinion.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I'm willing to change my views about Afghanistan but only if the world steps up to bat. I am not going to hold my breath on this one.

I actually believe in regime change but not unilateral, American forced regime change. History has too many examples of what happens when the US does these thing by itself (Shaw of Iran). Regime change needs wide spread international support or it is doomed to failure. (Iraq)


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> I'm willing to change my views about Afghanistan but only if the world steps up to bat. I am not going to hold my breath on this one.
> 
> I actually believe in regime change but not unilateral, American forced regime change. History has too many examples of what happens when the US does these thing by itself (Shaw of Iran). Regime change needs wide spread international support or it is doomed to failure. (Iraq)


I agree with most but not all of what you said. Is that disturbing? beejacon 

The other countries, including Canada, went into Afghanistan willingly for better or for worse. "America" can only be blamed for so much when it has prosperous allies choosing of their own accord. 

I do not agree with belittling the decision of countries like Canada. Questioning whether it was intelligent, sure, (I would have preferred an extensive covert mission) but implying that they did not choose on their own is something else. This was not just the U.S., as shown by Iraq. The developed nations of the world chose. 

I'm not referring to the smaller nations dependent upon U.S. foreign aid...accepting charity has its costs.

Now, Canada can try to get that widespread international support. That would take significant effort and time. That's why I think the, "we won't so we can't" fully applies, as with global warming. Try and possibly fail. But try. It may not be the optimal humanitarian, strategic, economic, geopolitical effort, but it may very well be the canary in the coal mine.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> What was the point of your post anyway SINC?


I thought it important readers of the thread clearly understood what a section 8 was, since you expressed pride in your father using it to avoid service.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> I thought it important readers of the thread clearly understood what a section 8 was, since you expressed pride in your father using it to avoid service.


Fair enough.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> I agree with most but not all of what you said. Is that disturbing? beejacon


YES! :lmao: 

The difference with the climate change issue is that the environment doesn't get worse than it would have if we attempt change and fail. Regime change is a whole different ball game.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Jesus! The kool aid is potent today VD....

You talk of human rights in Afghanistan, yet our soldiers help transgress those same ideals you seem to espouse. That's MORAL to you? You have to lead by example, not platitudes...

There was a stable government in Afghanistan - it was led by the Taliban. So your assessment of rewinding the clock 1000 years is pure cow patties....

I'm sure that the Arab world would find it amusing to be lectured on human rights when your avatar is a woman in a bikini - some may find it sexist. I'm not not sure what she is doing near the icecap in a bikini.

You talk about half hearted commitments. That's facile of you, when the U.S. basically got distracted by PINAC's plan and invaded Iraq.... 

The "war on terror" or 'fighting terrorism is nothing but a joke. I'm sure as a kid many spoke to you and said "I told you so" because your petulant holier than thou attitude speaks volumes of the idiocy that preach VD...

Lapping up pernicious little sound bytes spoken by war mongers and right wingers has done what? Close to sweet F.A. You want to help the Afghan people (or Iraq) take the billions that are wasted and give humanitarian aid. Instead, your good old right wing buddies have increased the "terrorist threat". Talk about self-serving...

I love your orgy of self-righteous thinking about what is good for the Afghani people. Would you like to propose that we send them to re-education camps?

VD seems to forget that for some vaguely pragmatic reason, we turn a blind eye to abuse in other countries - I wonder why you tolerate this behaviour from our so-called friends? 

I remember Bush embracing the Taliban (because they were against drugs) and turning a blind eye abuses back then. 


> The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession.


http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm

It's amusing to see that right wingers embraced the Taliban before 9/11 in spite of their record.

The Sharia law is still in effect in Afghanistan so that new glossy coat of "freedom" paint has not exactly helped anything. No wonder the Canadians name one of the bases there "Camp Mirage"....

I see that you echo Harpers's:


> “We cannot just put down our weapons and hope for peace, we cannot set arbitrary deadlines and wish for the best and that we can’t let anyone get away with tarnishing the reputation of the Canadian Forces as the most professional, dedicated, disciplined and effective soldiers on this planet. We can’t and we won’t because we know where we stand, we know what we stand for and we know who we stand with.”


What a trainwreck the mission is by emulating the Taliban and other bad people by letting suspects be tortured and abuse, you will never win offer the people. Your solution of more firepower is farcical and by supporting Karzai, well it's basically supporting thuggery. So before you get morally uppity (do you really think it makes you a man?) maybe we should respect the Geneva convention and show that we are somehow morally superiour.

The country summary published in January 2007 is rather dismal
http://hrw.org/wr2k7/pdfs/afghanistan.pdf
- Sure the average per capita income is up, mostly because of drug trafficking
- Reversed economic development in many parts
- 200 000 less students attending school in 2006 than 2005
- Karzai allowing abuse of power, militias
- Complicity or duplicity with Warlords 
- Women are still victim of widespread abuse
- The loathed by the West, Department for the Promotion of Virtue and the Discouragement of Vice reinstated

I'm peeved that you think some are soft VD, when it's pointed out that we should not be in bed with the NDS (mostly former KhAD agents) handling prisoners to them without some guarantee of decency. Only those living in a lalaland think this would be a good idea. 


> Canadians who still believe the fairy tale that their forces in Afghanistan are "nation building" or doing social work should reflect on the grim fate of prisoners their soldiers handed over to the mercies of the Afghan secret police.
> Ottawa's deal this week with Kabul for inspection of NDS prisoners is a sham. The KhAD had the same empty "agreement" with human rights groups in the 1980s.
> It's bad enough Canada's troops are defending Afghanistan's warlords who run its booming heroin industry. Now Ottawa is hand in glove with the Communist Party's veteran torturers. Well done, Ottawa.


http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2007/05/06/4157957-sun.html


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Jesus!
> 
> I'm sure that the Arab world would find it amusing to be lectured on human rights when your avatar is a woman in a bikini - some may find it sexist. I'm not not sure what she is doing near the icecap in a bikini.


You expect me to read all that on a Friday night?  

You're just mad that Martman has shifted his position to agree with larger goal of bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan. 

Where do you stand on the issues? Was it the right thing for the West to respond to 911 and the training camps in Afghanistan, or not? Was it right for the West to try and restore a stable government that is not extreme like the Taliban, or not?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Where do you stand on the issues? Was it the right thing for the West to respond to 911 and the training camps in Afghanistan, or not? Was it right for the West to try and restore a stable government that is not extreme like the Taliban, or not?


I don't play the reframing game - and some of your questions have been answered.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I don't play the reframing game - and some of your questions have been answered.


I'll take that as a 'yes' to both questions.

So my next question is then... why do you believe this is purely an issue to fault the Conservatives on? You don't seem to point any fingers at Martin who got us to this point in the first place.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I'll take that as a 'yes' to both questions.
> 
> So my next question is then... why do you believe this is purely an issue to fault the Conservatives on? You don't seem to point any fingers at Martin who got us to this point in the first place.


VD, like I said, you should not try to reframe at this moment. 


Blaming the Libs, nice try... Now you are starting with pathetic with talking points....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

VD, thanks for changing the Avatar - so there goes one argument....
Here's another one...


> The commander of a beleaguered Afghan National Police detachment in Kandahar province's Zhari district is becoming increasingly frustrated with the Canadian Forces in the area. The foreign soldiers, he charges, have repeatedly ignored police calls for help in fighting the insurgents and overlooked tips on where to find and destroy Taliban nests.
> In fact, Mr. Hakim contends, a lack of co-operation between the police, the Afghan National Army and Canadian troops has helped insurgent strength in the district grow to 300 or 400 fighters from 100 six months ago .
> 
> "This is the problem: We don't have a connection with the Canadians. Never, ever," he said in an interview on the floor of his mud-walled headquarters. "We give information to the Canadians and they are not acting upon it. That is why the enemy is getting stronger and stronger."
> ...


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5f56e855-2f7c-40a1-94a4-ea94c2d0130e&k=9051


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Vandave said:


> You expect me to read all that on a Friday night?


Will it keep you quiet for any length of time?  



> Was it the right thing for the West to respond to 911 and the training camps in Afghanistan, or not? Was it right for the West to try and restore a stable government that is not extreme like the Taliban, or not?


Question 1... I'm told it was our obligation under NATO, it has been very well explained elsewhere in this forum why that is no longer an issue and we should leave. 

Question 2... Well again... no not our responsibility, especially if we haven't been asked for aid. But I'm curious what government did Afghanistan ever have that was stable that you would like to restore them to?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Question 1... I'm told it was our obligation under NATO, it has been very well explained elsewhere in this forum why that is no longer an issue and we should leave.


Yes it was, but do you feel it was the right thing to do, or not?



Dreambird said:


> Question 2... Well again... no not our responsibility, especially if we haven't been asked for aid. But I'm curious what government did Afghanistan ever have that was stable that you would like to restore them to?


I think there is a difference between a responsibility and doing the right thing. My question was more along the lines of whether it is the right thing for us to do.

I think the answer to question 1 is yes. After that, the next choice is whether we stay and try to make things better. I think the moral decision is to try and restore peace and stability. 

Weren't they stable in the 1960s and 70s?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> Nice to see you support democracy. tptptptp
> I'm ecstatic you are not the PM.


Don't put words in my mouth, please. I support democracy but only if people have all of the facts to make a reasonable decision. And, sadly, the majority of people simply do not have the wherewithal or inclincation to educate themselves and think things through.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> - Sure the average per capita income is up, mostly because of drug trafficking
> - Reversed economic development in many parts
> - 200 000 less students attending school in 2006 than 2005


Interesting points you bring up but you overlook the fact that:

A. The reversed economic development is the result of your Taliban friends and their warmongering.
B. 200,000 fewer students because your friends are conducting an extermination program against the education system.

Nice bit of logic there...blaming the victim.

As for drug production and trafficking, it may interest you to know that the Taliban before they came to power, also encouraged and taxed the drug producers to the tune of 10%.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> The difference with the climate change issue is that the environment doesn't get worse than it would have if we attempt change and fail. Regime change is a whole different ball game.


There are actually unintended consequences.

For example, using certain biomass technologies that emit lower net GHGs can worsen air quality. Some technologies to improve air quality reduce efficiency and therefore increase GHGs. Other policies can look like they decrease emissions in one area while they actually increase global emissions.

Politicians, emboldened to try "anything" also end up spending lots of money that could have gone towards international aid, domestic social programs, tax cuts or deficit reduction (lowering relative prosperity) because the level of support, but lack of public understanding, allows for almost any action, whether or not much of significance is accomplished and whether or not things are made worse.

Addressing climate change is politically much more difficult for the world to handle. If Afghanistan is too tough, and we should not risk it because others' will not help...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Vandave said:


> Yes it was, but do you feel it was the right thing to do, or not?


I have to say no, I don't believe it was.



> I think there is a difference between a responsibility and doing the right thing. My question was more along the lines of whether it is the right thing for us to do.
> 
> I think the answer to question 1 is yes. After that, the next choice is whether we stay and try to make things better. I think the moral decision is to try and restore peace and stability.
> 
> Weren't they stable in the 1960s and 70s?


Afghanistan's history is quite convoluted and baffling to me, however looking here: Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I found this:



> The longest period of stability in Afghanistan was between 1933 and 1973, when the country was under the rule of King Zahir Shah. However, in 1973, Zahir Shah's brother-in-law, Sardar Daoud Khan, launched a bloodless coup. Daoud Khan and his entire family were murdered in 1978, when the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan launched a coup known as the Great Saur Revolution and took over the government.


Further down the page they also go on to state that Afghanistan has had almost every sort of gov. possible in the last century.

But yes, under King Zahir Shah, the 60's and a small part of the 70's were stable.

And from reading in that wikipedia article I _think_ that's the track the US may be trying to follow... the current leader belongs to Zahir Shah's clan... Shah himself returned to Kabul, but as of Jan. I believe he was quite ill, so I'm not sure if he's still alive or for how long. 

In any case in between then and now... there were the Soviets and the US nicely training and setting up the Taliban... in other words creating a big mess in a place of big messes. And now they call us to help mightily in cleaning it up? I have a problem with that. At least at this point... when there is enough stability in the region that a true "peacekeeping" effort is appropriate, talk to me again...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> You're just mad that Martman has shifted his position to agree with larger goal of bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan.


I haven't shifted my position one bit. I think we should get out of Afghanistan and we shouldn't have ever entered in the first place. I think the actual mission is not what we have been told it is and I don't think any of the involved parties have ever truly thought they were going to help the Afghani people.
This has been my position from the beginning so don't spread lies about my stance on this issue.

I said I believe in regime change but only in limited circumstances, none of which have or are likely to ever be met. I also said that I believe it is counterproductive to try and fix Afghanistan without the proper backing AND resources and that since these were never available (or ever likely to be available) that no effort at changing Afghanistan is better than an attempt.

Everyone would like to see peace and stability in the region except Bush and co. This includes ArtistSeries, myself and you. So what exactly are you saying here?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> In any case in between then and now... there were the Soviets and the US nicely training and setting up the Taliban... in other words creating a big mess in a place of big messes. And now they call us to help mightily in cleaning it up? I have a problem with that. At least at this point... when there is enough stability in the region that a true "peacekeeping" effort is appropriate, talk to me again...


:clap: :clap: 
Lately every time the US messes up they call on Canada to help pay for it with money and lives.
As an American I'm embarrassed. As a Canadian I'm outraged that the government is willing to keep ponying up.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Speaking of "regime change"... even if I did believe it was my/our place to do so... what about other places with dismal human rights records... like say... oh... China?

Should we march in there and set them straight? Good luck with that one! Might get your ass kicked clear to Mars no rocket required...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> This has been my position from the beginning so don't spread lies about my stance on this issue.





martman said:


> I agree with the supposed terms of the mission


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Speaking of "regime change"... even if I did believe it was my/our place to do so... what about other places with dismal human rights records... like say... oh... China?
> 
> Should we march in there and set them straight? Good luck with that one! Might get your ass kicked clear to Mars no rocket required...


If you look at what I say about "regime change" you'd see that I only support it when the UN is in control and the neighbours are all involved. Obviously if this kind of action were attempted it would have to be one nation at a time. China would probably have to be last as they would pose the largest problem. 

I'm not holding my breath for any changes that meet my conditions. The UN setup with the Veto makes it almost impossible to get the international community behind the idea of a minimum standard for governments and makes the enforcement of anything unlikely.

As for other places with dismal human rights records? Afghanistan was a far better choice than Iraq. Of course that was never the reason for invading Afghanistan or Iraq for that matter...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


>


Granted I used a bad choice of words. I agree with the premise of the supposed mission but I also said I didn't believe that was ever the actual mission. Of course you have also quoted me out of context (why am I not surprised that you would stoop to this level to make your point. I have restored the quote so I will be represented by my words and not your twisted version of them.


martman said:


> Yes life would be convenient if issues were as black and white as this. They aren't.
> I agree with the supposed terms of the mission BUT I know that this was never truly the mission and that there never was enough will to make this bogus mission a reality. Furthermore I always believed (and still do) that in order for the stated goals to ever be reached the UN had to be completely on board especially the Islamic members.


Nice try but to make your point you couldn't even quote a complete sentence.
It always amazes me when people do this with quotes. It's not like I can't go back and restore context (or the rest of the sentence in this case).


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

It was just a comment MM... no offense intended... 

Personally I'd like nothing more than to see people treated properly and equally all over the world... I just don't know what that would take...  

It's certainly far off in the future.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> It was just a comment MM... no offense intended...
> 
> Personally I'd like nothing more than to see people treated properly and equally all over the world... I just don't know what that would take...
> 
> It's certainly far off in the future.


none taken
I just thought I should clarify my stance in case you were misinterpreting my position on "regime change". I certainly don't want people like Vandave stating my position for me!
:lmao:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> Nice try but to make your point you couldn't even quote a complete sentence. It always amazes me when people do this with quotes. It's not like I can't go back and restore context (or the rest of the sentence in this case).


You said it, not me. 

What was the 'true' intent of the mission then?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> You expect me to read all that on a Friday night?


VD, the problem with you and some here is that you want the simple little soundbyte when the problem is a more complex than that....


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> You said it, not me.
> 
> What was the 'true' intent of the mission then?


What a load of BS. You quoted half a sentence in order to twist my words so you can say that. 

If you are not going to read responses than why are you here arguing?
I already said what the real mission is:


martman said:


> I don't see how stirring a hornet's nest is going to help anything. If we didn't have the resolve to fix Afghanistan (which was never there). We shouldn't have gone in, in the first place. *The real purpose of invading Afghanistan was revenge for 9-11.*


Bold added by me just now, this time around to make my point faster.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> VD, the problem with you and some here is that you want the simple little soundbyte when the problem is a more complex than that....


BINGO!:clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

“EDMONTON - One year ago, a Canadian infantry company fought the Taliban in an Afghan village.

It was the first battle for the Canadian military since the the Korean War.

After 55 years of peacekeeping operations in countries from Cyprus to Rwanda, Vietnam to Somalia, the Canadian army faced a different kind of test that day and came out victorious.

On June 12, 2006, C Company of the 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry defeated a Taliban unit at the village of Seyyeden, Afghanistan, 40 kilometres west of Kandahar.

The Battle of Seyyeden got only a brief mention in most Canadian newspapers mainly because no Canadian soldier was killed. At the time, news coverage was dominated by stories of Canadian fatalities from skirmishes and ambushes in Afghanistan, and the political debate over those deaths.

*"From Canadians' perspective, the most dramatic thing is when a Canadian soldier loses his or her life, and there's a good reason for that," says Edmonton MP Laurie Hawn, a former fighter pilot and Cold Lake squadron commander.

"Those are our sons and daughters, and it is tragic, but there is no balance to those stories. When all you hear about is the sacrifice and you never hear what it meant, what it accomplished, you've only got half the story."*

Canadian soldiers are known as the best fighters in the 37-nation force in Afghanistan and are making it possible for the country to rebuild, Hawn says, adding that C Company's commander, Maj. Bill Fletcher, won Canada's second-highest battlefield honour, the Star of Military Valour, partly for his efforts at Seyyeden.

"We need to celebrate it," Hawn says.”

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=0dc9445d-4625-4f18-ad0f-f6d7da464f78


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> What a load of BS. You quoted half a sentence in order to twist my words so you can say that.


Look, you said you agreed with the TERMS of the mission. Full stop. Period.

That's all I wanted from you. I don't need BUTSs, IFs, ANDs or MAYBEs so that you can flip flop on your positions at a later time. Don't confuse the choice itself and implementation of said choice. Big difference. 

The next question then becomes... Is the correct moral choice to stay and try to restore peace and stability to their country? Again, I need a yes or no answer. And again, let's not get caught up with implementation.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Canadian soldiers are known as the best fighters in the 37-nation force in Afghanistan and are making it possible for the country to rebuild, Hawn says, adding that C Company's commander, Maj. Bill Fletcher, won Canada's second-highest battlefield honour, the Star of Military Valour, partly for his efforts at Seyyeden.


There is a local guy from Vancouer serving in Afghanistan who is posting a blog about his experience. Here is a cut and paste:

"There was a radio intercept of a couple of Taliban. One was asking the other who was coming up in their region. The other was asking why he wanted to know. The answer:"[Other nations] I don't care about, they come and they leave. Canadians, they are dangerous, we don't want them around, its bad for business".


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Look, you said you agreed with the TERMS of the mission. Full stop. Period.
> 
> That's all I wanted from you. I don't need BUTSs, IFs, ANDs or MAYBEs so that you can flip flop on your positions at a later time. Don't confuse the choice itself and implementation of said choice. Big difference.
> 
> The next question then becomes... Is the correct moral choice to stay and try to restore peace and stability to their country? Again, I need a yes or no answer. And again, let's not get caught up with implementation.


Look you quoted half a sentence and claimed to be able to characterize me by it. That is dishonest. Period. 



Vandave said:


> That's all I wanted from you.


That may be all you wanted but it isn't all I said. Not even one sentence of it so stop lying about this as the truth is plain for all to see.

As for you next question: leave it to you to look for a black or white answer to a situation so full of shades of grey. This isn't a court where you are dealing with a hostile witness. It is a forum where people are arguing politics. No I will not play your BS game especially responding to the same post where you admit to only being interested in half sentences when the other half doesn't suit you. 



Vandave said:


> Is the correct moral choice to stay and try to restore peace and stability to their country? Again, I need a yes or no answer. And again, let's not get caught up with implementation.


The question needs anything but a yes no answer. Of course you aren't interested in facts and arguments you just want to continue to twist people's opinions around and find it difficult if they are allowed to express themselves. If you want a real answer I'll give you one. IF you will only accept yes / no than forget it as you are not interested in real discourse.
Go misquote someone else. I'm sick of your dishonesty.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

VD wants the lofty ideals (just like communism is an ideal form of government) not the details or the implementation...

When will you join reality?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> VD wants the lofty ideals (just like communism is an ideal form of government) not the details or the implementation...
> 
> When will you join reality?


It's actually quite simple. You need to decide what your goals are before you go about and implement something. I'm not downplaying the implementation at all, nor the complexity of it. I simply wanted to know what people's opinions were about the larger question of being there or not.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> It's actually quite simple. You need to decide what your goals are before you go about and implement something.


So you agree with me that it was stupid, ill-planned, showed a lack of foresight, and a disaster for the Cons to have changed the nature of the mission and expect Canadians to still support their jingoistic endeavours that mainly served to underline that the Cons have absolutely no coherent foreign policy.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So you agree with me that it was stupid, ill-planned, showed a lack of foresight, and a disaster for the Cons to have changed the nature of the mission and expect Canadians to still support their jingoistic endeavours that mainly served to underline that the Cons have absolutely no coherent foreign policy.


I know you are having trouble following simple logic, but please take a deep breath and think about this. I'll say it again:

*There is a difference between a decision and the implemenation of the decision.*

All I have been trying to clarify is whether people agree with two of the key decisions (i.e. firstly to remove the terrorist training camps and secondly, to support the creation of a stable government after removing the Taliban). You can't discuss implementation until that is clarified.

Martman hasn't been very clear but it seems to me that he agreed with both of these two goals but doesn't agree with the implementation of them and thus, no longer supports the mission.

You seem to not support the mission because people are dying and it is 'too hard'. Feel free to clarify you position on my two questions.

My position is yes to both questions. I don't mind discussing implementation after we get you past answering two simple questions.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> All I have been trying to clarify is whether people agree with two of the key decisions (i.e. firstly to remove the terrorist training camps and secondly, to support the creation of a stable government after removing the Taliban).


No VD, you have thrown in a lame diversion at the last moment instead of discussing issues (under the pretext that it was too hard/long).

Now that Afghanistan is supposedly safer, I wonder how Karzai feels after that rocked attack that missed him by very little....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6698758,00.html

As for soldiers dying, that's part of their job if there are sent fighting. On the human level it's tragic but globally it does not affect me one way or another. I don't wish soldiers harm, but if it happens, it's all part of what their are paid for.

This little mission is mired in rhetoric and we should have learned (looking at the Iraq fiasco) that the mission will not work. Victory at any cost will not work.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Martman hasn't been very clear but it seems to me that he agreed with both of these two goals but doesn't agree with the implementation of them and thus, no longer supports the mission.


I support the stated goals (with many caveats) but never had any faith that these were the real goals. I never supported going into Afghanistan because I believed from the start that USA was never serious about fixing anything. From the first mention of the possibility of going in I questioned (loudly to my MP): "Why should we go there to pay to help clean up the USA's mess?" I still stand behind that.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

As for the plight of Afghanistan's women?
The defiant Afghan women promised a better life who refuse to be victims - Independent Online Edition > Asia


> The defiant Afghan women promised a better life who refuse to be victims
> By Terri Judd in Lashkar Gah
> Published: 13 June 2007
> 
> ...


I'm just so happy for the women of Afghanistan. Not!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

martman said:


> As for the plight of Afghanistan's women?
> The defiant Afghan women promised a better life who refuse to be victims - Independent Online Edition > Asia
> 
> I'm just so happy for the women of Afghanistan. Not!


That sounds awful. But I've read so much biased garbage from The Independent that I don't trust it at all. Too much fiction.

I'd like to know what Canadian soldiers, for example, actually see happening to people in Afghanistan, and judge from that.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Taliban Overrun Southern Afghan District*

First we win them over by bombing a school, the Taliban set off a bomb in the capital killing 35, and now those reduced to "cut and run" tactics have taken over a district...

BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | District recaptured from Taleban
Seven children killed after air strike on school in Afghanistan - World news - News - Belfast Telegraph
Kabul bus bomb kills 35 in worst attack since ousting of Taliban - World news - News - Belfast Telegraph

So how's that little war going?

At least they are not at the bottom of failed states
Foreign Policy: The Failed States Index 2007


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> First we win them over by bombing a school, the Taliban set off a bomb in the capital killing 35, and now those reduced to "cut and run" tactics have taken over a district...
> 
> BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | District recaptured from Taleban
> Seven children killed after air strike on school in Afghanistan - World news - News - Belfast Telegraph
> ...


More disinformation on the part of your Taliban and al-Qaeda friends? First off, the "school" was a madrassa and, if you had read the article, Western troops would not have bombed the school if they had known that there were children there. Unlike your Taliban friends who seem to enjoy deliberately targetting civilians.

Second, it's a district and not a province. Your friends won't be able to hold it for long. They simply don't have the firepower. Oh sure, they'll spend a few days killing teachers, aid workers and anyone close to the government that they will get their hands on but they'll be driven out.

Of course, I'm sure that you would love to see Afghanistan at the top of the list of failed states. Nothing like having a disaster to prove your point. :clap:


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

How's the war going? I think it's going pretty good when the West manages to kill this trainer of suicide bombers. :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Of course, I'm sure that you would love to see Afghanistan at the top of the list of failed states


It's actually pretty close - Iraq is second on the list - Afghanistan not far off.

The Fund for Peace - Failed States Index Scores 2007

Note the US on the "moderate" list.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

While some people here like to talk up Taliban successes in the number of schools burned, teachers killed, women forced into prostitution, civilians blown apart by suicide bombers and how far the Afghan economy has suffered because of that I'd like to point out another side. 

There was a great article by Marcus Gee in the Globe and Mail on June 8th about Roshan which is one of two cellphone operators in Afghanistan. It's a huge success story and what's notable is that 20% of its workforce are women (Roshan provides private transport for them to avoid them being harassed) and it provides 6% of the central government's tax revenues. :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Cell phone business is the great sign of success in Afghanistan. Security buses for women-only is a sign of huge success in Afghanistan.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm sure the drug lords and Taliban appreciate the needs for good communications



> “THEY may be Taliban, they may be warlords, who cares?” asks Karim Khoja, rhetorically. “We are apolitical—they are customers.” Nobody could accuse Mr Khoja of being narrow-minded. Indeed, his easy-going approach has allowed him to build a successful mobile-phone business in one of the world’s least hospitable markets, war-torn Afghanistan. One legacy of more than two decades of occupation, fighting and terror—and little in the way of economic activity before that—was that Afghanistan did not have much of a traditional fixed-line telecoms infrastructure. This presented a chance to leapfrog the old technology and go straight to mobile phones. A mobile-phone network requires a lot of radio masts, however. Whether they remain standing, especially in remote parts of Afghanistan, depends on the goodwill of the locals. Hence Mr Khoja’s customer-centric philosophy. “When we go to a village, we talk to the elders and explain how when a mast comes to an area it brings jobs and economic growth,” he says. He adds, not entirely reassuringly, that *everybody in Afghanistan, including the Taliban, understands the importance of being able to communicate.
> 
> .......It may help that Roshan is 51% owned by the for-profit arm of the Aga Khan Development Network. *


what that has to do with Canada is beyond me.

Economist Article - Shining a light - Roshan Telecom, an AKFED company « Ismaili Mail


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> More disinformation on the part of your Taliban and al-Qaeda friends? First off, the "school" was a madrassa and, if you had read the article, Western troops would not have bombed the school if they had known that there were children there. Unlike your Taliban friends who seem to enjoy deliberately targetting civilians.


Seems that the "West" have a bomb first then say sorry attitude. That will win over the population.

Given the lack of respect you have for customs and people, it's no wonder "we" are losing the war....





IronMac said:


> Second, it's a district and not a province. Your friends won't be able to hold it for long. They simply don't have the firepower. Oh sure, they'll spend a few days killing teachers, aid workers and anyone close to the government that they will get their hands on but they'll be driven out.


Nice assumption. Can you back ANY of it? Of course not, you live and thrive on fear. You and VD seem to have a patholigical need for this…




IronMac said:


> Of course, I'm sure that you would love to see Afghanistan at the top of the list of failed states. Nothing like having a disaster to prove your point. :clap:


Yes. And it should underscore that "your" intervention is a failure....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> There was a great article by Marcus Gee in the Globe and Mail on June 8th about Roshan which is one of two cellphone operators in Afghanistan. It's a huge success story and what's notable is that 20% of its workforce are women (Roshan provides private transport for them to avoid them being harassed) and it provides 6% of the central government's tax revenues. :clap: :clap: :clap:


And they love their drug lord customers.....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I'm sure the drug lords and Taliban appreciate the needs for good communications


So many Negative Nelly's...

Telecommunications are a sign of progress and a good one at that. Every form of infrastructure can be used for negative purposes.

You are grasping at staws here.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> How's the war going? I think it's going pretty good when the West manages to kill this trainer of suicide bombers. :clap: :clap: :clap:


Maybe we should show the pictures of the 3 dead Canadian soldiers....


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Maybe we should show the pictures of the 3 dead Canadian soldiers....


Hey, if you want to celebrate our troops being killed go right ahead.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Nice assumption. Can you back ANY of it? Of course not, you live and thrive on fear. You and VD seem to have a patholigical need for this…


Really? If u can point out where the Taliban are going around building schools (aside from the brainwashing madarasas) go right ahead.

globeandmail.com: There are grounds for hope in Afghanistan



> While Taliban violence, often targeting women and girls, is spreading fear, it is not winning converts. After attacks on 400 schools and 40 teachers in the past year, there are some districts where Taliban intimidation has virtually shut down girls' education.


Taliban behead teacher at co-ed school | Afghanistan | Asia | International News | News | Telegraph



> Taliban militants beheaded a headmaster in southern Afghanistan in the latest fatal attacks targeted at teachers and schools. The killers forced his wife and children to watch the murder.
> 
> Malim Abdul Habib, 45, was killed at his home near Qalat, capital of Zabul province, on Tuesday night. He had been headmaster of the Shaikh Mata Baba High School for two months.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*gasping* at straws.....indeed..........breathless at the foolish hubris.

The strawman of "winning".

You are trying desperately to make a rotted sows ear that has defied would be conquerors and pacifiers for millenia.....into some silken Canadian shoulder patch our troops can brag about.

..more appropriate would be.....are...... shrouds for the dead.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac you have a jingoistic streak about you that is unsettling in its shallowness. All the clichés about misguided patriotism seem and hate towards others seem to come alive with you. The hawkish mentality that you dish out seems to be a disservice to a poorly defined mission with no chance of ever being “won”….


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> IronMac you have a jingoistic streak about you that is unsettling in its shallowness. All the clichés about misguided patriotism seem and hate towards others seem to come alive with you. The hawkish mentality that you dish out seems to be a disservice to a poorly defined mission with no chance of ever being “won”….


Jingoism? Do u even know what that means? Or do you just blather on in the hope that you don't embarass yourself as you did in quoting that report? You know, that report where it said that there were fewer schools yet conveniently forgetting the fact that the Taliban were the ones on an education eradication program?

Is your only objection to being in Afghanistan is that the mission is "poorly defined"? Does that mean that you get up in the morning with every step of your day detailed in Entourage? Does it freak you out if the light turns red instead of green at the appointed time that you expected it to? Do you go postal when you're given two loonies in change instead of a toonie? :lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Jingoism? Do u even know what that means?


The question should really be "do you?"....


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> The question should really be "do you?"....


If you can prove "jingoism" on my part, go right ahead. If you can't, then; a) you don't know what it means or b) your accusation is baseless.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Main Entry:	jin·go·ism 
Pronunciation:	'ji[ng]-(")gO-"i-z&m
Function:	noun
: extreme chauvinism or nationalism *marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy *

IM - make a statement flat out you are not hawkish on imposing western values by force.

Both in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan you certainly are hawkish for military solutions.



> Jingoism is chauvinistic patriotism, usually associated with a War Hawk political stance


AS has lots of material to choose from....

•••


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Main Entry:	jin·go·ism
> Pronunciation:	'ji[ng]-(")gO-"i-z&m
> Function:	noun
> : extreme chauvinism or nationalism *marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy *
> ...


If you believe that AS has lots of material to choose from then you go ahead and point them out. Yeah, let's make the infamous IronMac challenge; point out three instances where I am a flag-waving patriot who believes in transplanting uniquely Western values by force on Afghanistan and I'll even make it easy for you by not limiting examples to only this thread.

But, Afghanistan and Iraq are two different situations. I won't deny that, depending on what sort of outcome you want for Iraq and if you're talking about holding the country together, that I advocate(d) a hawkish solution. Even then, that window has probably passed and Iraq's already well on its way to dissolution.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I won't deny that, depending on what sort of outcome you want for Iraq and if you're talking about holding the country together, that *I advocate(d) a hawkish solution.*


That'll suffice......the only caveat is replacing "national interests" in the definition with "western interests."

You're still advocating a belligerent approach in Afghanistan as part of Canadian foreign policy that you approve of or defend.
It's only a matter of degree of jingoism exhibited....you knew it right away hence the crafted "unique values" ( nice dodge - doesn't work ) and Iraq recommendation exemption.
There is no problem in the approach you take....it's a valid foreign policy stance just admit what it is.....a mild form of the definition above.....and one that the greater part of Canadians disagree with to a greater or lesser degree.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> That'll suffice......the only caveat is replacing "national interests" in the definition with "western interests."
> 
> You're still advocating a belligerent approach in Afghanistan as part of Canadian foreign policy that you approve of or defend.
> It's only a matter of degree of jingoism exhibited....you knew it right away hence the crafted "unique values" ( nice dodge - doesn't work ) and Iraq recommendation exemption.
> There is no problem in the approach you take....it's a valid foreign policy stance just admit what it is.....a mild form of the definition above.....and one that the greater part of Canadians disagree with to a greater or lesser degree.


That's pretty lame. Jingosim is the extreme form of nationalism/patriotism...you can't go and say "mild form" of jingosim because that doesn't exist! Are you going to accuse me of being "mildly" nationalistic or patriotic now? Go ahead, I challenge you to find three instances of me being even "mildly" nationalistic or patriotic with regards to Canadian forces in Afghanistan.

And how do you define "Western" values? What "Western" values do you see me putting forth? It can't be that women should be allowed to go to work and girls should be brought up to read and write because that's happening throughout most of the Muslim world. It can't be democracy because I never said anything about democracy and Turkey and Mali are prime examples of Islamic democracies. Is it freedom of religion? Well, I never said anything about that either.

So, let's add "Western" values advocated by IronMac to the above list that u can try to find. Let's see, three instances of me advocating the imposition of western values by force on Afghanistan and being mildly nationalistic/patriotic.

As for Iraq, there's no dodge there because it's a different situation entirely and Canadian forces are not involved there. If you were to ask me if I approve of Canadian forces being in Iraq, I would give you a flat-out no.

_Last edit:_

Hey, let's have even more fun...we'll throw Iraq into the mix too. Three instances of me advocating the imposition of "western" values by *force* on Afghanistan and Iraq and being mildly nationalistic/patriotic. As you said, there's lots of material to work with so it shouldn't take you very long.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Ironmac, you are probably going to have to wait a long time.

I have been trying to get those two to provide a definition of Neocon and then provide examples as to how it applies to me. 

All I got back was silence.... No reason why it won't be the same for you.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Karzai blasts NATO over deaths - CNN.com

Hint hint... time to leave.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Ironmac, you are probably going to have to wait a long time.
> 
> I have been trying to get those two to provide a definition of Neocon and then provide examples as to how it applies to me.
> 
> All I got back was silence.... No reason why it won't be the same for you.


VD, your morally superiour stance is one example - of course knowing that you are never wrong and whatever you do it guide by a higher "right" makes you infaillible and above mortals...

Ironmac has blinders on - no point of letting him frame the question when I explained clearly enough earlier on.

Let's see you two answer some previous inquiries -


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> Karzai blasts NATO over deaths - CNN.com
> 
> Hint hint... time to leave.


Karzai sounds pissed - as for fighting terrorisms, the words "I told you so" and "blowback" come to mind...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

More Afghan civilians killed by foreign forces than by insurgents in 2007: report

Another example of why we shouldn't be there.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Ironmac, you are probably going to have to wait a long time.
> 
> I have been trying to get those two to provide a definition of Neocon and then provide examples as to how it applies to me.
> 
> All I got back was silence.... No reason why it won't be the same for you.


It's been five days now and I don't hear anything.

Ok, let's make it even easier! Three instances of me imposing any sort of values on either Iraq or Afghanistan through military force.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ironmac has blinders on - no point of letting him frame the question when I explained clearly enough earlier on.
> 
> Let's see you two answer some previous inquiries -


Clearly explained what? The only thing that you clearly said was that I was "jingoistic" yet you have yet to back that up. I'll put my foot down right now...go on...where am I jingoistic?

And what previous inquiries are you talking about?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> More Afghan civilians killed by foreign forces than by insurgents in 2007: report
> 
> Another example of why we shouldn't be there.


By that logic, if the Taliban kill one more civilian than the Western powers, they shouldn't be there?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

IronMac said:


> By that logic, if the Taliban kill one more civilian than the Western powers, they shouldn't be there?


You just don't get it do you? That is a pretty feeble analogy. What this article is saying is that more *civilians* are being killed by "friendly fire" from coalition forces than from Taliban forces. The Taliban *are* Afghani.

By your logic... It would be perfectly reasonable for the police in toronto to murder innocent people as they go about fighting gang violence.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> You just don't get it do you? That is a pretty feeble analogy. What this article is saying is that more *civilians* are being killed by "friendly fire" from coalition forces than from Taliban forces. The Taliban *are* Afghani.


And what does the typical insurgent look like? A civilian perhaps? And what does a typical western soldier look like? In uniform perhaps?

Do you think this might have something to do with it? 

When you consider the methods of fighting, it is pretty amazing the civilian death count is similar on both sides.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> More Afghan civilians killed by foreign forces than by insurgents in 2007: report
> 
> Another example of why we shouldn't be there.


There may be many reasons to doubt the mission, but I don't see this as being one of them. Every war in which our military has participated has carried the tragedy of civilian deaths. A war of this nature will probably feature even more. It's a tragedy, and the forces need to work harder at discerning who is who.

But if civilian deaths caused by our forces resulted in us leaving a combat mission then I suspect our history would be very different. War simply sucks from every possible angle.

I find the discussions over how the war is going largely moot. If the same discussions and attitudes had prevailed in WW2 then we would have given up very early on. War has ebbs and flows, ups and downs, victories and defeats. 

The issue is whether or not we should be there at all.

The deeper issue is what role can our country play in dealing with problems before they become bad enough to send in troops.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Pelao said:


> There may be many reasons to doubt the mission, but I don't see this as being one of them. Every war in which our military has participated has carried the tragedy of civilian deaths. A war of this nature will probably feature even more. It's a tragedy, and the forces need to work harder at discerning who is who.


I disagree... we are in the middle of an ongoing civil war and we have picked a side. These reports indicate that more civilians are dying at the hands of NATO forces than Taliban forces. At what point do you decide what is best for the civilians? Assured oppression at the hands of the Taliban or potential death at the hands of NATO forces fighting the Taliban.

While this should not be the sole reason to leave, it is one more reason to leave. 


Providing an opportunity for extremists to kill westerners (serving our soldiers up on a plate)
In the middle of a civil war.
No plan for success (so when do we win?)
No defined enemy (can't tell the players without a program)
Killing more civilians than the enemy (inflicting more casualties on the population than enemy)


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> And what does the typical insurgent look like? A civilian perhaps? And what does a typical western soldier look like? In uniform perhaps?
> 
> Do you think this might have something to do with it?
> 
> When you consider the methods of fighting, it is pretty amazing the civilian death count is similar on both sides.


Ah VD, you criticize the Taliban for not lining up like some tin soldiers in a Napoleonic war as if they have no honour, yet you don't comment on air strikes attacking schools. Do civilians get to see the "enemy"?

After five years it's amusing to hear excuses from the right as to why we are not winning - it echoes the situation in Iraq.

Ironmac and yourself seem to indicate that if you don't support the war it makes us a Taliban lover. It's amazing how Harper and VD like to blame others for the failures. 

I've opposed this war because it make no sense, it's ill conceive, the power that be (mostly the Americans) have 'effed off, it has not looked at the facts, we have been morally bankrupt with our treatment of "prisoners", and the stated "war on terrorism" is a joke. Bring them home now.

So this wreak of a mission and it's failure is now supposed to be the fault of those that oppose it? If anything our national security is now in a more precarious position because of childish views like yours.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> At what point do you decide what is best for the civilians? Assured oppression at the hands of the Taliban or potential death at the hands of NATO forces fighting the Taliban.


First, the report is based on one period. Second, most observers accept that the figures are hardly exact given that it can be hard to discern who is civilian. The deaths at the hands of our forces (and those of our allies) are truly horrific. If these numbers had been sustained throughout the conflict, and if they stay at these levels into the future, then there is indeed some harder thinking needed.

My understanding is also that most of the deaths are not the result of NATO activity as you state, but rather from the US / Special Forces part of the conflict. This split in the the operations of the war is something I feel should be ended. There should be one single command and operations structure. 

Your question is interesting. The way I see it, the oppression at the hands of the Taleban is something we know will happen, and we know what it leads to because it has happened before. We also know it will affect the _entire_ population. The civilian deaths have not been happening at this rate until recently, and hopefully will be reduced. An ugly thing it may be, and an awful price to pay by people who seem to have no choices in any of this. But if the deaths by allied forces can be eliminated or contained, then they are a better option than the guaranteed oppression of an entire population and the organized export of trained terrorists. 

In any case, I see no reason to drop the mission, though I would like to see more strategic direction.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Pelao said:


> In any case, I see no reason to drop the mission, though *I would like to see more strategic direction.*


Good luck with that one.

Harper follows and admires Bush Co... is it any wonder why we are doing so well?




> Yet at the same time, Mr. O'Connor was blunt in his assessment of the long-term prospects for Afghanistan, using the kind of unsubtle language that has got him into political hot water before. "Afghanistan has always been a land of instability," he said in response to a conference questioner, adding later, that "I think the area is always going to be unstable."


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070628.woconnor28/BNStory/National/home


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Good luck with that one.


Yeah, I know.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> You just don't get it do you? That is a pretty feeble analogy. What this article is saying is that more *civilians* are being killed by "friendly fire" from coalition forces than from Taliban forces. The Taliban *are* Afghani.
> 
> By your logic... It would be perfectly reasonable for the police in toronto to murder innocent people as they go about fighting gang violence.


The logic is that coalition forces are killing more civilians than the Taliban so, therefore, the coalition forces should not be there. Is that what you were saying in your original post or not?

I mean, the url states:

"More Afghan civilians killed by foreign forces than by insurgents in 2007"

You then state:

"_Another example of why we shouldn't be there_"


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ironmac and yourself seem to indicate that if you don't support the war it makes us a Taliban lover. It's amazing how Harper and VD like to blame others for the failures.
> 
> I've opposed this war because it make no sense, it's ill conceive, the power that be (mostly the Americans) have 'effed off, it has not looked at the facts, we have been morally bankrupt with our treatment of "prisoners", and the stated "war on terrorism" is a joke. Bring them home now.
> 
> So this wreak of a mission and it's failure is now supposed to be the fault of those that oppose it? If anything our national security is now in a more precarious position because of childish views like yours.


One thing I'd like to point out about "childish" is how quickly AS goes around attacking people rather than people's views.

AS, you blather on about how this war makes no sense, it's ill-conceived, and so on but you know what? I have yet to see a really good argument from you that backs up anything about what you say. You make these statements (much as when you called me "jingoistic") but there's nothing behind them.

You cannot go around attacking people and making statements that you cannot back up. You won't win anyone over to your side and it makes it all too easy for someone like me to show you up.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> I disagree... we are in the middle of an ongoing civil war and we have picked a side. These reports indicate that more civilians are dying at the hands of NATO forces than Taliban forces. At what point do you decide what is best for the civilians? Assured oppression at the hands of the Taliban or potential death at the hands of NATO forces fighting the Taliban.
> 
> While this should not be the sole reason to leave, it is one more reason to leave.
> 
> ...


Let's look at this a bit:

A. It's a civil war to some degree but it's also interlaced with foreign elements in terms of foreign aid and foreign troops (for lack of a better term). This is not a war of Afghan versus Afghan.
B. Assured oppression versus potential death. I would think that that's a pretty easy choice! Especially when you consider that the possibility of a potential death only really applies to you if you live in the south.
C. Your "serving up our soldiers on a plate" does a real disservice to the fact that Western troops are *more* than capable of fighting back. Western troops cannot be defeated on the battlefield by guerrillas.
D. No plan for success? There's a plan for success and an end-goal. You're really asking about two different things.
E. There is a defined enemy; the Taliban and their foreign supporters. What you're grousing about is that they don't wear uniforms. So? Guerrilla wars have been won before. By that sort of logic, if a country is faced with a guerrilla campaign then it should give up.
F. Killing more civilians? The only good thing I can say about this is that the Western powers do not *deliberately* target civilians. You cannot say the same thing about the Taliban and their supporters.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

IronMac said:


> One thing I'd like to point out about "childish" is how quickly AS goes around attacking people rather than people's views.
> 
> AS, you blather on about how this war makes no sense, it's ill-conceived, and so on but you know what? I have yet to see a really good argument from you that backs up anything about what you say. You make these statements (much as when you called me "jingoistic") but there's nothing behind them.
> 
> You cannot go around attacking people and making statements that you cannot back up. You won't win anyone over to your side and it makes it all too easy for someone like me to show you up.


please apply underlined text to neo cons and bushco. and their "war on terror"
WMDs ring a bell?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> please apply underlined text to neo cons and bushco. and their "war on terror"
> WMDs ring a bell?


It's too bad IronMac can't see that we have done very little.
A record opium production, rampant corruption, NGO having left the country...

Even Harper's "consensus" should tell that the mission is unpopular and that maybe the propaganda that your government has fed you is rather transparent.

It's a fool errant that will end in failure.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Good posts IronMac! :clap: 

I anxiously await for AS to provide examples of jingoism. I can't imagine the wait will be long.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

"extreme patriotism, esp. in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy."
If you are too dense to understand.....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Good posts IronMac! :clap:
> 
> I anxiously await for AS to provide examples of jingoism. I can't imagine the wait will be long.


I see you failed to notice this part of IM's post and how perfectly it applies to the current junta on PA Avenue.



> You cannot go around attacking people and making statements that you cannot back up. You won't win anyone over to your side and it makes it all too easy for someone like me to show you up.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

VD, like Ironmac is a poltroon that thrives on the fear. One would say that the the fear of terrorist is like viagra to him... 
Moonbats to the right have this irrational need to lump all those that don't agree with the war as Taliban lovers and completely fail to see that their actions are actually regressive to their so-called stated goals.

The more proof that our actions are not working, the stronger the denial from VD..


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> "extreme patriotism, esp. in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy."
> If you are too dense to understand.....


This isn't complicated AS. 

You said you could provide all sorts of examples to IronMac. He called your bluff and said prove it, to which you have provided no response. 

We are not looking for a definition. We are looking for specific EXAMPLES.

Understand?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> This isn't complicated AS.
> 
> You said you could provide all sorts of examples to IronMac. He called your bluff and said prove it, to which you have provided no response.
> 
> ...


VD, you are delusional. 
Please edify me where I said I would "I would provide all sort of examples to IM".

I think this speaks broadly about your characteristics to invent what you'd like to hear/read. 
While ignoring all arguments from my part (even some answering direct questions), you craft this story for your sorry beliefs. 
You presume so much that the concept of "fair and balanced" does not even manifest itself to you. 

It's completely ridiculous and feckless thinking that seems to be your plateau in terms of debate. Maybe this is why yourself and IM cannot distinguish between democracy and a narco-state. This wearisome trait evidenced by lack of coherent thinking is to be expected from now since it seems to be your hallmark - and I had some hope from you.

So instead of inventing what you want me to think (as witnessed by this "bluff") please astonish me were I wrote I would provide all sorts of examples.

*Either you can or you are demonstrating that you are a moonbat.*


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So instead of inventing what you want me to think (as witnessed by this "bluff") please astonish me were I wrote I would provide all sorts of examples.
> 
> *Either you can or you are demonstrating that you are a moonbat.*


You got me. My memory failed me (rare). It was MacDoc who said you could select from all sort of examples.

<------ Enjoy the moonbat for the next day.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> <------ Enjoy the moonbat for the next day.


lol :clap:


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

IronMac said:


> A. It's a civil war to some degree but it's also interlaced with foreign elements in terms of foreign aid and foreign troops (for lack of a better term). This is not a war of Afghan versus Afghan.


Not to "some" degree, it is a Civil war period and has been for the past decade. If the Taliban did not receive some support from the local indigenous population we wouldn't be having this conversation.



IronMac said:


> B. Assured oppression versus potential death. I would think that that's a pretty easy choice! Especially when you consider that the possibility of a potential death only really applies to you if you live in the south.


The Taliban only ever had control in the South as the Northern territories were in hands of the local warlords and Tajik and Uzbeck tribes. The Taliban is a Pashtun phenomenon that gets their support from the local population... which happen to be the ones getting killed by NATO forces.



IronMac said:


> C. Your "serving up our soldiers on a plate" does a real disservice to the fact that Western troops are *more* than capable of fighting back. Western troops cannot be defeated on the battlefield by guerrillas.


You missed it entirely and completely... whoosh, over your head. The extremists in Afghanistan could never in a million years attack Western Targets of any significance. By having our forces in theatre you have provided western thousands of targets for the extremists to go after. 



IronMac said:


> D. No plan for success? There's a plan for success and an end-goal. You're really asking about two different things.


That's funny because if it is two separate things we have neither.



IronMac said:


> E. There is a defined enemy; the Taliban and their foreign supporters. What you're grousing about is that they don't wear uniforms. So? Guerrilla wars have been won before. By that sort of logic, if a country is faced with a guerrilla campaign then it should give up.


Bulls**t... You give me an example of where a Guerilla force has been defeated in a prolonged conflict. In most cases the combatant employing guerilla tactics may loose many of the battles, but in just about every case that a Western power has been involved the Western power has lost.



IronMac said:


> F. Killing more civilians? The only good thing I can say about this is that the Western powers do not *deliberately* target civilians. You cannot say the same thing about the Taliban and their supporters.


Really... Maybe not a specific example from Afghanistan but the incident at Haditha Iraq pretty much destroys your argument. You are missing the point that whether or not the death was the result of a targeted suicide bombing or a collateral death from a 500lb iron bomb dropped from an F16, the result is still the same. And if there are more collateral deaths than targeted ones, who is doing more damage?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> Really... Maybe not a specific example from Afghanistan but the incident at Haditha Iraq pretty much destroys your argument. You are missing the point that whether or not the death was the result of a targeted suicide bombing or a collateral death from a 500lb iron bomb dropped from an F16, the result is still the same. *And if there are more collateral deaths than targeted ones, who is doing more damage?*


The war hawks just don't get it.

For those keeping score:


> A United Nations tally shows that of 673 civilian deaths this year, 314 were caused by international or Afghan security forces, and 279 by insurgents. A similar Associated Press count, though lower, shows the same trend: 213 killed by the U.S. or NATO and 180 by the Taliban.
> 
> Overall, the AP counts more than 2,800 people killed this year. The tally, based on Western and Afghan official data, puts the violence far ahead of last year, when about 4,000 died.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-30-afghanistan-violence_N.htm

Of course this does not take into account:


> *Afghan officials: 95 killed*
> U.S.-led airstrikes targeting Taliban militants who had attacked NATO forces slammed into civilian homes in southern Afghanistan, killing both civilians and insurgents, Afghan and Western officials said Saturday.
> Like most battles in the dangerous and remote regions of Afghanistan, casualty estimates varied widely.


and


> *100 Civilians Killed in NATO, U.S. Assault, Afghan Officials Say*
> More than 100 people have been killed. *But they weren't Taliban. The Taliban were far away from there,"* said Wali Khan, a member of parliament who represents the area. "The people are already unhappy with the government. But these kinds of killings of civilians will cause people to revolt against the government."


Let the winning of hearts and minds continue....


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> please apply underlined text to neo cons and bushco. and their "war on terror"
> WMDs ring a bell?


You're putting AS in with the neocons and bushco? Odd but I guess if the shoe fits...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> "extreme patriotism, esp. in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy."
> If you are too dense to understand.....


Ok, show *three* examples of how I am extremely patriotic and advocate such a foreign policy?

Note that MacDoc has dropped out of the running...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> VD, like Ironmac is a poltroon that thrives on the fear. One would say that the the fear of terrorist is like viagra to him...
> Moonbats to the right have this irrational need to lump all those that don't agree with the war as Taliban lovers and completely fail to see that their actions are actually regressive to their so-called stated goals.
> 
> The more proof that our actions are not working, the stronger the denial from VD..


Still keeping up the personal attacks, eh?

People like you do not realize what it means for the West to lose in Afghanistan. You're all wrapped up in fancy-schmancy words on placards that give you a goody-two-shoes feeling when you say them yet have no conception of the implications of what you're advocating. 

I have yet to see you give a cogent, reasoned concise argument as to why you want Canadian troops out of Afghanistan. This is despite at least one other post of mine asking that you do. Otherwise, you're simply wasting space on the server.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> So instead of inventing what you want me to think (as witnessed by this "bluff") please astonish me were I wrote I would provide all sorts of examples.


I asked you over a week ago to backup your accusation and so far...nothing.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Not to "some" degree, it is a Civil war period and has been for the past decade. If the Taliban did not receive some support from the local indigenous population we wouldn't be having this conversation.


I strongly strongly suggest that you look up where the Taliban gets its support from. They do receive some support from the local population but I very much doubt that everyone in the south supports them.



da_jonesy said:


> The Taliban only ever had control in the South as the Northern territories were in hands of the local warlords and Tajik and Uzbeck tribes.


NO. The Taliban had managed to seize approximately 90 percent of the country before the US-led invasion. The Northern Alliance were barely hanging on by their fingernails before 9/11.



da_jonesy said:


> You missed it entirely and completely... whoosh, over your head. The extremists in Afghanistan could never in a million years attack Western Targets of any significance. By having our forces in theatre you have provided western thousands of targets for the extremists to go after.


Really? So, incidents like 9/11, USS Cole, US embassy in Kenya, the Madrid bombing, the 7/7 bombing in London were all insignificant?



da_jonesy said:


> Bulls**t... You give me an example of where a Guerilla force has been defeated in a prolonged conflict. In most cases the combatant employing guerilla tactics may loose many of the battles, but in just about every case that a Western power has been involved the Western power has lost.


Mau-Mau Uprising (1952-1960)
Malayan Emergency (1948-1960)
Philippine-American conflict (1899-1902)

That's *three* examples just off the top of my head. 



da_jonesy said:


> Really... Maybe not a specific example from Afghanistan but the incident at Haditha Iraq pretty much destroys your argument. You are missing the point that whether or not the death was the result of a targeted suicide bombing or a collateral death from a 500lb iron bomb dropped from an F16, the result is still the same. And if there are more collateral deaths than targeted ones, who is doing more damage?


It doesn't destroy my argument. Western forces do not deliberately target civilians whereas the Taliban do. Which side would you rather see win?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> For those keeping score:


I thought that peaceniks abhorred "body counts"? Oh wait...you're not a peacenik are you?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> I thought that peaceniks abhorred "body counts"? Oh wait...you're not a peacenik are you?


But it does underscore that we are killing more civies than the Taliban is - spin away with your pathetic excuses...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> *People like you *do not realize what it means for the West to lose in Afghanistan. You're all wrapped up in fancy*-schmancy words* on placards that give you a goody-two-shoes feeling when you say them yet have no conception of the implications of what you're advocating.
> .


You mean the people that tried to speak at your level with warnings of "I told you so" with regards to Iraq?

ooohhhweee Jimmy Bob, likes is like this: we's gettin' oowl asses kicked over theres 'cause we have a clues what is we is doin'..
And likes, some stooopids is tellin' us, we's agot to fight them overs there to stopes them heres --- we'llll ****tes, that's a lie. yous just like have had a lookee over to Englandss and seees that a lye. If theys hickey head weren't up they assess the'd sees that we makin' it worses....

Thems the "axes of the deluted', thems a sendin' us troops over yonder to fiths for a poopet narcos state. I hears that they even don't have them titties bars down there - heck, thems a need some edocation Western creamery styls.

Sus, you get a goin' with that raw-raws "reed fridays", ands I'ms a sure that them troops be winnin'g even thou they is breakin' that Geeneeva covention ands all sortas internations laws, whiles them poors mammies and papies see them boys comin' back in pine boxes and cry'ng for propers' burrials heres' in Kanadia...


Support our troop - bring them back now.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Mau-Mau Uprising (1952-1960)
> Malayan Emergency (1948-1960)
> Philippine-American conflict (1899-1902)
> 
> That's three examples just off the top of my head.


and let's not forget Vietnam not to mention Afhganistan and Iraq
just ask Putin how easy things were in Afghanistan
it's been over 4 years since Bush declared Mission Accomplished and yet they need a "surge" even though the mission was accomplished


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

IronMac said:


> I strongly strongly suggest that you look up where the Taliban gets its support from. They do receive some support from the local population but I very much doubt that everyone in the south supports them.


If you are going to strongly suggest that, you should STRONGLY review the facts. The fact is that Taliban is the Pashtun word for "students" or "seekers of knowledge" who are predominately Pashtun, which makes up the ethnic majority in Southern Afghanistan. While I agree that not everyone in the south agrees or supports them, the fact remains that a certain number do or they would be receiving any support or would not be growing in size. The Taliban are local as opposed to Al Queda who are not.



IronMac said:


> NO. The Taliban had managed to seize approximately 90 percent of the country before the US-led invasion. The Northern Alliance were barely hanging on by their fingernails before 9/11.


Where did you get that number? Load of crap. The Taliban confined themselves to the Pashtun regions from where they came.



IronMac said:


> Really? So, incidents like 9/11, USS Cole, US embassy in Kenya, the Madrid bombing, the 7/7 bombing in London were all insignificant?


And in which case where any of those attacks launched, based or support from Afghanistan? If you are using that logic then why aren't Canadian Soldiers in Saudi Arabia, where the real planning, staffing and funding for those attacks have come from?



IronMac said:


> Mau-Mau Uprising (1952-1960)
> Malayan Emergency (1948-1960)
> Philippine-American conflict (1899-1902)
> 
> That's *three* examples just off the top of my head.


Wow... could you pick out anymore conflicts that could possibly be more obscure? How about a list of successful Guerilla campaigns.

Algeria (1954-1962)
Angola (1975-1976)
Afghanistan against the USSR
Cuba
East Timor (1999)
EOKA (Cyprus, 1955-1960)
Eritrean War of Independence 1961 - 1991
Haitian Revolution [6]
Indonesia
Mozambique
Lebanon
Philippines' during the Japanese occupation of WWII
Rhodesian Bush War
Irish War of Independence 1919-1921
First Indochina War 1946-1954
Vietnam War 1959-1975
Nepali Conflict
The Partisans of Yugoslavia
Iraq In Operation Vigilant Resolve, Operation Matador, Anbar and Diyala campaigns in overall.[7] [8]
China (Communists vs. Nationalists)
American Revolutionary War
Nicaragua

Any of those sound remotely familiar?



IronMac said:


> It doesn't destroy my argument. Western forces do not deliberately target civilians whereas the Taliban do. Which side would you rather see win?


You still don't get it, which is a sad sad fact. You want the simple solution. Declare victory, the terrorist threat has been defeated and pull the troops home. That is pretty simple, because at this point the terrorist threat has been defeated and what we are involved in is an Afghan civil war.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> You mean the people that tried to speak at your level with warnings of "I told you so" with regards to Iraq?


You obviously have not read my writings on Iraq have you?

Dead men assume...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

da_jonesy

don't confuse the issue with facts


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> If you are going to strongly suggest that, you should STRONGLY review the facts. The fact is that Taliban is the Pashtun word for "students" or "seekers of knowledge" who are predominately Pashtun, which makes up the ethnic majority in Southern Afghanistan. While I agree that not everyone in the south agrees or supports them, the fact remains that a certain number do or they would be receiving any support or would not be growing in size. The Taliban are local as opposed to Al Queda who are not.


So, we're both agreed that the Taliban do receive "some" support from the local population right?



da_jonesy said:


> Where did you get that number? Load of crap. The Taliban confined themselves to the Pashtun regions from where they came.


Look it up. The Taliban had pushed the Northern Alliance to barely 10 percent of the countryside.



da_jonesy said:


> And in which case where any of those attacks launched, based or support from Afghanistan? If you are using that logic then why aren't Canadian Soldiers in Saudi Arabia, where the real planning, staffing and funding for those attacks have come from?


First off, some of the men who carried out 9/11 actually did meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan and he gave them the money and permission to do so.

In fact, if you look at the USS Cole attack and the embassy bombings, bin Laden was in Afghanistan. As for Madrid and 7/7, those attacks were not supported (insofar as we know) by al-Qaeda but when you allow someone to continue to live/have refuge in an area he becomes an inspiration to others to continue the struggle.



da_jonesy said:


> Wow... could you pick out anymore conflicts that could possibly be more obscure? How about a list of successful Guerilla campaigns.


Hey, you asked. If you don't like the answer then don't bother asking. Suck it up.



da_jonesy said:


> Algeria (1954-1962)


Actually, the French won here.




da_jonesy said:


> Philippines' during the Japanese occupation of WWII


You missed the class on WWII?



da_jonesy said:


> China (Communists vs. Nationalists)


Hrmm...the end war was not a guerrilla war. The end phase was a conventional war.



da_jonesy said:


> American Revolutionary War


Thought you wanted to stay within the 20th century? I mean, I could bring up other examples such as the Incan Rebellion, the Boer War, the Indian Wars, etc.



da_jonesy said:


> Any of those sound remotely familiar?


Did any of the ones I bring up sound familiar to you too? Or did u have to check wiki?



da_jonesy said:


> You still don't get it, which is a sad sad fact. You want the simple solution. Declare victory, the terrorist threat has been defeated and pull the troops home. That is pretty simple, because at this point the terrorist threat has been defeated and what we are involved in is an Afghan civil war.


Don't duck the question. Which side do you want to see winning?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> da_jonesy
> 
> don't confuse the issue with facts


I think that da_jonesy already has enough problems with facts.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> That is pretty simple, because at this point the terrorist threat has been defeated


Really, you don't keep up with the news do you? Or are you as blind as Bush and the other neocons?










That's from the latest terrorist attack in Britain.

BTW: I don't think much of the "War of Terror" being run by the Bushies. I just wanted to show how some people conveniently ignore the facts when it gets in the way of their arguments.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Really, you don't keep up with the news do you? Or are you as blind as Bush and the other neocons?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh look, this maybe homegrown, so why have to fight them over there? Or is this another lie that you like?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Oh look, this maybe homegrown, so why have to fight them over there? Or is this another lie that you like?


You're proving increasingly unable to follow any sort of argument. da-jonesy says that the terrorist threat is over, well, it's not.

BTW, when are you going to back up your jingoistic characterization of me? When are you going to provide a reasoned and cogent argument for bringing the troops home?

I don't think that we will see a response will we? No...it's easy for you to sit there sipping your latte and noting down the latest words on the placards marching past. What was the word that Quebeckers used for soldiers going off to WWII? Oh right..."zombies". But, we all know that you're not a zombie are you? No...we know where your true allegiance lies.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Maybe you should join (in good humour of course) VD with that moonbat avatar...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Losing Pakistan?*

After the threats of bombing Pakistan into the stonage by the Americans, why this should come as no surprise to anyone....



> *Taliban militancy could engulf Pakistan, Musharraf is warned*
> The document was discussed by Pakistan's National Security Council on June 4 while Musharraf was present, the document notes. It appears to be the first such report to emerge from the Pakistani government formally recognizing the seriousness of the spreading threat here from Al Qaeda and the Taliban, according to a Western diplomat.
> 
> The diplomat, who was not authorized to speak for attribution, called the document "an accurate description of the dagger pointed at the country's heart."


No wonder they killed Captain America...
http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/07/07/03/1228228.shtml


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> After the threats of bombing Pakistan into the stonage by the Americans, why this should come as no surprise to anyone....


What are you trying to say? That countries threatened by the US are doomed to fall to Islamic fundamentalism? Or is this just more blather?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> That countries threatened by the US are doomed to fall to Islamic fundamentalism?


Not all but the present situation because of Iraq seems to indicate this.

I don't think that Korea will fall to Islamic fundamentalism, I'm talking about the present situation around Iraq.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Unsuitable, unsustainable*



> *Unsuitable, unsustainable*
> 
> When Afghan children are forced to eat mud, it is clear we have squandered billions of dollars of aid


Shades of Iraq....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2088604,00.html


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Shades of Iraq....
> Unsuitable, unsustainable | Guardian daily comment | Guardian Unlimited


you don't understand AS
a small price to pay for record oil and m-i complex profits
after all moving the headquarters of Halliburton to Dubai ain't gonna be cheap
but worth it in the end with the lax accounting practices in that country so Dick Cheney can cash in his deferred millions without Halliburton having to openly declare it on their balance sheet


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you don't understand AS
> a small price to pay for record oil and m-i complex profits
> after all moving the headquarters of Halliburton to Dubai ain't gonna be cheap
> but worth it in the end with the lax accounting practices in that country so Dick Cheney can cash in his deferred millions without Halliburton having to openly declare it on their balance sheet


It would seem that spending like a Liberal to win votes in the way Harper is going...


> Nova Scotia: 4 announcements worth $3.1-billion.
> Saskatchewan: 4 announcements worth $1.51-billion.
> New Brunswick: $221-million.
> B.C.: 9 announcements worth $103.9-million
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...tives_spending_070705/20070705?hub=TopStories

Harper, of course if full of platitudes that appeal to the feeble minded...


> "We just had the tragic loss of six soldiers. These are Canada's finest people out there protecting our country's interests and doing a tremendous job trying to help people who live in a terribly deprived country that's just fraught with violence. Canada's soldiers are prepared to sacrifice themselves for the security of the Canadian people and of human beings around the world"


Of course Harper is the great divider, he never fails to deliver


> *Harper calls Sask. NDP government 'ungrateful'*
> 
> "But let me also assure you, friends, that not all of the money went to this ungrateful NDP government in this province. In fact, for every dollar that went to them, about two or three dollars went to the people of Saskatchewan.''
> 
> But Harper said yesterday _he's not sure he would have expected Calvert at the announcement, even if the premier were in the province._


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...06/harper_sask_070706/20070706?hub=TopStories

Of course that was in Sask... seems that Harper has another story for the good folks down in Halifax


> "The people of Nova Scotia and the people of other provinces don't expect us to continue bickering about this," Harper told reporters. "_They expect us to get on with business and work together_, and that's what we're prepared to do."
> 
> The refit announcement was a _tightly controlled event_ on the flight deck of HMCS Halifax. The ship was positioned to put the Halifax skyline over Harper's shoulder. The nearest protester was about a kilometre away, outside the dockyard gate. The audience consisted of the ship's crew, navy brass and reporters, _who could only ask questions if an official from the prime minister's office called their name._
> 
> ...


http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=42646&sc=89

Nice to see Bush/Rove tactics being used here...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Shades of Iraq....
> Unsuitable, unsustainable | Guardian daily comment | Guardian Unlimited


Entirely ignoring the last paragraph of the article but it's typical and expected.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> Achieving peace in Afghanistan is not an impossible task. But the mistakes of Iraq are being repeated; without a change of course the consequences are too awful to imagine.


We have done nothing to change our tactics and are heading down the same Iraqi path... what is there to comment on?
Your "boys" want to be "stay the course" and we will fail because of that.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> We have done nothing to change our tactics and are heading down the same Iraqi path... what is there to comment on?
> Your "boys" want to be "stay the course" and we will fail because of that.


Then, why don't you suggest an alternative that has a reasonable chance of working? Your "bring them home" blather assures victory for the enemy.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

IronMac said:


> Then, why don't you suggest an alternative that has a reasonable chance of working? Your "bring them home" blather assures victory for the enemy.


"bring them home blather" ??

since when is keeping our troops out of harms way unless absolutely necessary "blather?"

more chicken hawk rhetoric

once again for those hard of reading; Afghanistan doesn't represent a security risk to Canadians

Furthermore, only 6 Canadians died while we were there on a peace keeping mission (even though HOWEVER somehow believes it as fact that the mission was never peacekeeping) and under Herr Harper and his new "search and destroy" mission for our troops, our casualties have gone up by a factor of 10

Karzai is a U.S. installed puppet leader a la "Shah of Iran" and just look at how well that policy turned out, eh?

My question to you is; "How many more Canadians must die before you realize this "mission" is foolhardy and our soldiers are only there so the U.S. can release their troops into Iraq

cannon fodder is a very poor was of showing our troops respect
keeping them alive and ONLY putting them in harms way when our security is threatened is TRULY respecting our troops

perhaps I'll put this into language that even SINC can understand
did you keep smoking after your heart attacks?
no, you realized that is was stupid and stopped smoking since smoking was a totally unnecessary risk to your health


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Then, why don't you suggest an alternative that has a reasonable chance of working? Your "bring them home" blather assures victory for the enemy.


This mission has no chance of working because the Americans have decided that Iraq was more fun.
The strategic approach is not focused on reconstruction (I really don't need to hear blather about "securing an area - it has not worked).
The mayor of Kabul (or is that president?), is nothing more than a puppet.
We have lost the high moral ground by allowing torture of "prisoners".
Our credibility is lost. Harper and his merry band of buffoon assured that by stonewalling on the torture of prisoner question.
Karzai and Musharraf both talk to the Taliban in the hopes of peace - why do we have to demonize the Taliban to such a level. Lets face it, the Taliban are rather weak. 

After five years, the winning conditions (after the initial invasion) have been squandered. 

Lack of soldiers, lack of resources, lack of planning, wrong objectives are why we have lost. I'm not suggesting that Canada do more, but it would have been up to the Americans to really support this and they have not.

Glossing over the reality of what is happening is a disservice to our soldiers.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you don't understand AS


Maybe a 3 Star Lieutenant General can better explain what supporting the troops means...



> *'Supporting the troops' means withdrawing them*
> Gen. William Odom writes that opponents of the war should focus public attention on the fact that Bush’s obstinate refusal to admit defeat is causing the troops enormous psychological as well as physical harm.


http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00192
_Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. As Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988, he was responsible for the nation's signals intelligence and communications security. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer._


Given that the Iraq/Afganistan conflict seem interchangeable this was also interesting


> Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:
> 
> 1) We would leave behind a civil war.
> 2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.
> ...


http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Ask_this.view&askthisid=129


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> once again for those hard of reading; Afghanistan doesn't represent a security risk to Canadians


Really? Letting al-Qaeda have a sanctuary is not a security risk?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> This mission has no chance of working because the Americans have decided that Iraq was more fun.
> The strategic approach is not focused on reconstruction (I really don't need to hear blather about "securing an area - it has not worked).
> The mayor of Kabul (or is that president?), is nothing more than a puppet.
> We have lost the high moral ground by allowing torture of "prisoners".
> ...


So, after all of that blather, you have no alternative? Figures. :clap:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

IronMac said:


> Really? Letting al-Qaeda have a sanctuary is not a security risk?


did Al-Qaeda attack Canada?
did Afghanistan attack Canada?
if Al-Qaeda is so important why isn't the U.S. there in massive force, but instead they're in Iraq and now rumbling about attacking Iran?

crossing the street is a bigger security risk than is Al-Qaeda right now

oh and those latest attacks in UK were conducted by people in the UK
so do we need to take the fight to the streets (aka "libreate") of London?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> did Al-Qaeda attack Canada?
> did Afghanistan attack Canada?
> if Al-Qaeda is so important why isn't the U.S. there in massive force, but instead they're in Iraq and now rumbling about attacking Iran?
> 
> ...


Yes, Al Qaeda killed 25 Canadians in New York on September 11, 2001, as well as many people from all around the world, but mostly from the US.

I don't know what makes you think that crime isn't worth pursuing.

I also don't know what makes you think there aren't enough US troops in Afghanistan.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Yes, Al Qaeda killed 25 Canadians in New York on September 11, 2001, as well as many people from all around the world, but mostly from the US.
> 
> I don't know what makes you think that crime isn't worth pursuing.
> 
> I also don't know what makes you think there aren't enough US troops in Afghanistan.



so your logic dictates that any Canadian killed in the world by another power means Canada needs to invade that country?

the fact that USAma bin Laden hasn't been caught makes me think there aren't enough U.S. troops in Afghanistan, or perhaps Bush is going to pardon USAma bin Laden as he did Scooter Libby?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> crossing the street is a bigger security risk than is Al-Qaeda right now
> 
> oh and those latest attacks in UK were conducted by people in the UK
> so do we need to take the fight to the streets (aka "libreate") of London?


Boy, am I ever glad we've got Doris Day and not you in charge of national security. Even Doris knows Al-Qaeda is a very real threat. As for those "locals" as you call them in Britain, didja ever stop to think where they were schooled in their quest to kill?

Wow Spec, I can't believe you can be so naive.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Boy, am I ever glad we've got Doris Day and not you in charge of national security. Even Doris knows Al-Qaeda is a very real threat. As for those "locals" as you call them in Britain, didja ever stop to think where they were schooled in their quest to kill?
> 
> Wow Spec, I can't believe you can be so naive.


wow i can't believe you think a guy who believes man walked with dinosaurs and that the Earth is only 6000 years old is a good person to have in charge of national security

perhaps if Canada ever suffers some sort of attack he might just whip out his Bible and ask the Lord to intervene

maybe parting the Hudson Bay or pillars of fire
I hear God does these things once in a while


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> wow i can't believe you think a guy who believes man walked with dinosaurs and that the Earth is only 6000 years old is a good person to have in charge of national security


No, no Michael, read it again. What I said is better him than YOU in charge of our security. And I don't even like Doris. But given your statements, better him than you.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Another specious non-argument. Why generalize about every other situation from this one? These were specific circumstances. 

As for the second paragraph--are you okay?



MACSPECTRUM said:


> so your logic dictates that any Canadian killed in the world by another power means Canada needs to invade that country?
> 
> the fact that USAma bin Laden hasn't been caught makes me think there aren't enough U.S. troops in Afghanistan, or perhaps Bush is going to pardon USAma bin Laden as he did Scooter Libby?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> did Al-Qaeda attack Canada?
> did Afghanistan attack Canada?
> if Al-Qaeda is so important why isn't the U.S. there in massive force, but instead they're in Iraq and now rumbling about attacking Iran?


The answer is of course NO - but some pepperpots would like to have you believe that this was an attack on Canada.
Of course they usually fall silent when it's pointed out that Israel killed a vacationing family in Lebanon and that seems okay with them...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Another specious non-argument. Why generalize about every other situation from this one? These were specific circumstances.
> 
> As for the second paragraph--are you okay?


you indicated that your reason for keeping our troops in Afghanistan was the death of 25 Canadians

I was wondering if the death of Canadians elsewhere were reason enough for military action

I didn't realize that deaths of Canadians in other theatres by other military organizations was considered "generalization"

dead people are dead people, aren't they?
or is it different if the killer military has a good PR person?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> The answer is of course NO - but some pepperpots would like to have you believe that this was an attack on Canada.
> Of course they usually fall silent when it's pointed out that Israel killed a vacationing family in Lebanon and that seems okay with them...


but there are those like SINC that would blame these victims for being there in the first place, and because probably didn't speak English anyway and therefore weren't "real" Canadians and therefore not worthy of retribution for their deaths

I just wonder what SINC would say if these poor people were fat as well


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> I also don't know what makes you think there aren't enough US troops in Afghanistan.


This overly optimistic s.o.b seems to think at least double...


> From the military perspective, Retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie said the number of NATO troops in Afghanistan needs to be doubled in order to enhance the security of Canada's soldiers and to guarantee the projects that do come about aren't destroyed by the Taliban.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...nistan_mission_070708/20070708?hub=TopStories

And these guys may depress you


> The Senlis Council policy group says the work of Canadian soldiers is being undermined in southern Afghanistan because development funds aren't making it to ground level in Kandahar.
> 
> McCormick, who lives in Kandahar, said despite what is being said in the House of Commons, he is seeing few CIDA development projects carried out in southern Afghanistan.
> 
> "Instead when I walk into the villages and refugee camps, which I do daily, I'm seeing children dying of starvation."


same source as above.


That leftist rag called the Toronto Star has a fairly grim overview.


> Does this sound familiar? "A war with no visible payoff against an opponent who poses no direct threat will come under increasing criticism as battle casualties rise and economic costs escalate .... "
> 
> It was written more than 30 years ago, after the end of the ill-fated Vietnam War, in one of the first analyses of battles between states and insurgents or guerrillas who are weak in military might but pumped up on resolve. Experts call them asymmetrical wars.
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/233617

I'm not sure I like the last part, it sounds like we'll be getting a lot of propaganda, lies or even some conspiracies theorist wet dream...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I just wonder what SINC would say if these poor people were fat as well


I'd simply say they're as fat as MM.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The answer is of course NO - but some pepperpots would like to have you believe that this was an attack on Canada.
> Of course they usually fall silent when it's pointed out that Israel killed a vacationing family in Lebanon and that seems okay with them...


The Israeli soldiers that were kidnapped, as the precursor of the incursion into Lebanon, remain in the hands of terrorists, presumably being tortured for another year.

I don't suppose you give a rat's ass about that.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> The Israeli soldiers that were kidnapped, as the precursor of the incursion into Lebanon, remain in the hands of terrorists, presumably being tortured for another year.
> 
> I don't suppose you give a rat's ass about that.


I don't remember Lebanon kidnapping the soldiers.... 
So are you equating soldiers with a family that was bombed? Trying to see what kind of "equivalency" you are trying to establish.

A few weeks ago, I was optimistic that one of the soldiers would be returned. 
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3422828,00.html


Of course, we can debate if they were kidnapped or actually taken while they were across the border...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> The Israeli soldiers that were kidnapped, as the precursor of the incursion into Lebanon, remain in the hands of terrorists, presumably being tortured for another year.
> 
> I don't suppose you give a rat's ass about that.


did the Lebanese or terrorist(s) in Lebanon kill that Canadian family?

I do give a rat's ass about that Canadian in a UN outpost that was repeatedly assured by the IDF they wouldn't be bombed, but eventually were bombed by IDF and he was killed

Yeah, I know; "collateral damage", "fog of war" blah blah blah

or perhaps; "terrorists were using the UN outpost as shield"?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

> The Senlis Council policy group says the work of Canadian soldiers is being undermined in southern Afghanistan because development funds aren't making it to ground level in Kandahar.
> 
> McCormick, who lives in Kandahar, said despite what is being said in the House of Commons, he is seeing few CIDA development projects carried out in southern Afghanistan.
> 
> "Instead when I walk into the villages and refugee camps, which I do daily, I'm seeing children dying of starvation."


I believe the original promise in the early days for Afghanistan's reconstruction was at least $30 Billion. To date only a tiny fraction of that has been spent yet the amount spent on the military adventure dwarfs that figure. I doubt if the countries who promised the money are even speaking about it any more.

Trying to win hearts and minds with the barrel of a gun. No wonder the resistance is growing. But let's not think about that and just support our boys, eh? 

Even though our very policies are ensuring they will be seen as occupiers, not liberators and guaranteeing many more body bags the longer we are there. As in all wars of occupation, the soldiers have become expendable cannon fodder.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> *Hillier muzzles military over detainees*
> OTTAWA — The office of General Rick Hillier, Canada's top soldier, has halted the release of any documents relating to detainees captured in Afghanistan under the federal Access to Information Act, claiming that disclosure of any such information could endanger Canadian troops.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070709.wdetainees09/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

A few months ago, this information was available, what has happened since? ... Oh yea, it was shown that Canada's New Government and politicos were totally incompetent....

More propaganda, more muzzling and less accountability. 

This conclusion seem apt in describing this little adventure


> President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans’ demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened — the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/opinion/08sun1.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
Another ham-fisted move that underlines the mission by a political move. Hillier is a joke of a soldier.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> That leftist rag called the Toronto Star has a fairly grim overview.
> 
> TheStar.com - News - Why military might does not always win
> 
> I'm not sure I like the last part, it sounds like we'll be getting a lot of propaganda, lies or even some conspiracies theorist wet dream...


It's natural that you "missed" the part where it says that the majority of such conflicts can be won. It's a 61% success rate. :clap:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> globeandmail.com: Hillier muzzles military over detainees
> 
> A few months ago, this information was available, what has happened since? ... Oh yea, it was shown that Canada's New Government and politicos were totally incompetent....
> 
> ...


perhaps it's a new position; "comedian in chief"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> perhaps it's a new position; "comedian in chief"


Given that this was the guy who was focusing on Jungle Warfare (for training the troops), maybe we should sent him on a few Arctic patrols...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> It's natural that you "missed" the part where it says that the majority of such conflicts can be won. It's a 61% success rate. :clap:


Umm and you misread 


> A new study suggests that involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan might be doomed from the outset.
> 
> It turns out that a major power is much more likely to fail when its war aim requires some sort of co-operation on the part of the adversary or the citizens on the ground, in order to change a despised foreign or domestic policy, for example, or quell sectarian violence, or prop up a regime that's on shaky ground.
> 
> ...


Yay! 20% chance.....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Winning hearts and minds...*



> Board won't probe claims of Afghan abuse
> 
> The board of inquiry handling the military probe into Canada's handling of Afghan prisoners won't look into whether detainees were tortured or abused in custody, according to a report.
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...stigation_Afghan_abuse_070625?s_name=&no_ads=

Makes it easier in the propaganda war, I guess....


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Umm and you misread
> 
> Yay! 20% chance.....


Looks like you're the one who misread...it's 20% in Iraq and *not* Afghanistan.


----------

