Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
jdobbin

Afghanistan

Recommended Posts

Yes, I understand that.

I think that both the tax-payers and the military are vulnerable to abuse by the government. That is precisely what I think is wrong.

I don't think you do understand, Why would you be taking out your frustrations on the military, I think you should take a few extra seconds to rephrase your responses. And piont them at the guilty parties.

I do not see the difference between foreign mercenaries and Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

You continue to implicate that the CDN military controls it's own destiny, it does not....If your unhappy with our governments decission regarding Afgan then that is your right as a tax payer, and voter.

But we in the military have little choice where our government sends us, were not asking you to support the war, what we are asking you is show "us" your support...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black dog;

Let's not kid ourselves about this "for our own safety" bullshit. The third world has no means of threatening western hegemony.

Sometimes you suprise me BD, I think 9/11 proved beyond a resonable question that the third world has always had the means to threaten and strike the west.

Mere speaches by some of the worlds crackpots have sent the west into a lather, how many Bils did we spend in the early 70's on airport security, trying to detect hyjackers, After 9/11 what is the cost of security measures taken todate, world wide i'm guessing hundards of bils... And that was just and few words and the actions of a few cowards. hell a VHS tape brings up the threat to yellow. " these are threats" and most a valid and costing all of us bils...taking away money spent on something else...

The threats are real, 9/11 was a wake-up call ,what is it going to take a large smoking hole to prove "yes they are a threat" and we need to do something.

9-11 was a drop in the bucket, casualty wise, it's trauma more to do with the fact that it was "us" getting it instead of "them" for once.

3000 dead in one attack is a drop in the bucket, then why are we concerned with things in lebanon, i don't get your comparison... Why are you so understanding towards the underdog...It's time we stand up and tell these cowards "Enough" GAME ON, and fight them by thier rules...

Really, Afghanistan, Iraq, and events now involving Syria, Iran, Israel and Lebanon are all part of a new Great Game conerning access and control over the most important resource in the world.

I think there is more to it than the quest for OIL, and control over the entire region...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How? and why?

How, theres got to be thousands of ways you can support our troops, go to DND web site, e-mail the troops get the answers straight from the horses month....

Why ? Because these guys need your support, they need the support of every Canadian. They want to know that every Canadian has thier back, and that you do give a shit about what they are doing...and if you don't believe in what they are doing they want to know what you are doing to change that.

Many years of neglect towards our military, have cast a large shadow over those beliefs that Candians at home do have our backs. Most in the military believe that this neglect was OK with the general population, and that they are just as responsiable for our current state.

There is not many jobs out there that has unlimited liability,(meaning you may be asked or ordered to die) while carrying out your duties. In the Canadian military we have "all" volunteered for this job, we ask for little in return except your support, and the knowledge that you do have our backs.

Why would you want my support?

Because they need all the support Canada can give them. There choices of where and how they are deployed are very limited, they need to know that if our government does makes bad choices that the people of Canada will have thier back, and have those decissions reversed. It's very hard to go outside the wire when you know your countrymen don't support you , be it buying equipment that will save lives, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sometimes you suprise me BD, I think 9/11 proved beyond a resonable question that the third world has always had the means to threaten and strike the west.

So they kill a couple of thousand people. Big deal. Doesn't change the military, political and economic balance one iota.

3000 dead in one attack is a drop in the bucket, then why are we concerned with things in lebanon, i don't get your comparison

Just because the loss is not significant in term sof the overall population or the afore mentioned military, political and economic situation, does not mean its not a tragedy. I don't think I implied otherwise.

It's time we stand up and tell these cowards "Enough" GAME ON, and fight them by thier rules

IOW: to defeat the terrorists, we must become terrorists. To protect our values, we must abandon them. To save the village, we must destroy it.

I think there is more to it than the quest for OIL, and control over the entire region...

I can't think of anything bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BD:

So they kill a couple of thousand people. Big deal. Doesn't change the military, political and economic balance one iota.

So why does that only apply to the under dog, and not to the west. or for that matter Israel in it's operations in Lebanon. whats a few thousand, The world almost had a stroke at those killed in one bombing, shit it even earned a 48 hour bombing cease fire....What has changed since korea, and WWII or the bombings of dresden, and berlin that killed tens of thousands in one night. The genva convention has changed little since then. is it that we grew morals since then.

Just because the loss is not significant in term sof the overall population or the afore mentioned military, political and economic situation, does not mean its not a tragedy. I don't think I implied otherwise

Thats not what i was implying, tragic yes, but why does it not apply to both sides.

IOW: to defeat the terrorists, we must become terrorists. To protect our values, we must abandon them. To save the village, we must destroy it.

As soon as a soldier enters a combat zone he drops most of his values, morals, and what he has been taught as right or wrong....where do we in our culture kill the enemy without second thought..By any wpn available...Killing is killing regardless on how it is done the result is the same your dead. be it by napalm, WP, or direct machine gun fire.

So yes to protect our values we must abandon some of our values to get the job done. We must be willing to do what it takes to defend our rights and freedoms and to serve as a warning to others that might threaten us.

Imagine a terrorist afraid to start his car, or go to the mall to shop if he knows that he is a target. that his family and friends will be subject to the same terror. Would it make him think twice...i mean he's going to be disappionted once already when he finds out there out of virgins...but what will he think if he knows that his family and friends are not safe...

What will his family and friends be telling him, it is not worth the risk to them... will it break the current cycle of violence...would it be worth it if we could end this ?

can't think of anything bigger.

Containing thier problems to thier region might be bigger. Do we really want Iran with Nuk wpns, were we better off with mass killers like sadam, taliban,etc...Keeping our cities safe i would hope is a bigger driving force. Not to mention our responsibilities to ensure mass killers are kept in check somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So why does that only apply to the under dog, and not to the west. or for that matter Israel in it's operations in Lebanon. whats a few thousand, The world almost had a stroke at those killed in one bombing, shit it even earned a 48 hour bombing cease fire....What has changed since korea, and WWII or the bombings of dresden, and berlin that killed tens of thousands in one night. The genva convention has changed little since then. is it that we grew morals since then.

"They" don't have the means to threaten our way of life. We could wipe them off the planet.

As soon as a soldier enters a combat zone he drops most of his values, morals, and what he has been taught as right or wrong....where do we in our culture kill the enemy without second thought..By any wpn available...Killing is killing regardless on how it is done the result is the same your dead. be it by napalm, WP, or direct machine gun fire.

So yes to protect our values we must abandon some of our values to get the job done. We must be willing to do what it takes to defend our rights and freedoms and to serve as a warning to others that might threaten us.

I don't think excessive violence is a deterrent. The west has been using violence against the third world, either directly or by proxy, since colonial times, which is partly why we have the problems we have today.Now, I suppose one could deter terrorism by resorting to the kind of brutal tactics that the ancient Romans or Soviets used to keep reclatirent populations in line, but then we can kiss whatever claims of moral superiority goodbye.

Imagine a terrorist afraid to start his car, or go to the mall to shop if he knows that he is a target. that his family and friends will be subject to the same terror. Would it make him think twice...i mean he's going to be disappionted once already when he finds out there out of virgins...but what will he think if he knows that his family and friends are not safe...

What will his family and friends be telling him, it is not worth the risk to them... will it break the current cycle of violence...would it be worth it if we could end this ?

Tell me: do most terrorists seem particularly concerned with the prospects of their own survival?

Containing thier problems to thier region might be bigger. Do we really want Iran with Nuk wpns, were we better off with mass killers like sadam, taliban,etc...Keeping our cities safe i would hope is a bigger driving force. Not to mention our responsibilities to ensure mass killers are kept in check somehow.

Mass killers like Saddam aren't the problem. It's relatively easy to keep state actors in check because they always have something to lose. The problem is non-state actors like Al Qaeda and the pepole they inspire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is now being revealed that Canada was the one that lost a Canadian soldier in today's suicide bombing.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...han-attack.html

If Harper isn't worried, he should be. The increasing numbers of dead and NATO's own 4 month deadline will put the pressure on him for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is now being revealed that Canada was the one that lost a Canadian soldier in today's suicide bombing.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...han-attack.html

If Harper isn't worried, he should be. The increasing numbers of dead and NATO's own 4 month deadline will put the pressure on him for sure.

Fighting terror is not the same of watching Hockey Night in Canada. It doesn't end at the end of three periods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fighting terror is not the same of watching Hockey Night in Canada. It doesn't end at the end of three periods.

Reagan pulled out of Lebanon. Nixon pulled out of Vietnam.

The NATO General in charge has given a timetable of four months. At what point do you decide that you might not be able to achieve your goals in a place?

Should either U.S. President I've mentioned kept troops in Lebanon and Vietnam? Should U.S. troops remained there today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fighting terror is not the same of watching Hockey Night in Canada. It doesn't end at the end of three periods.

Reagan pulled out of Lebanon. Nixon pulled out of Vietnam.

The NATO General in charge has given a timetable of four months. At what point do you decide that you might not be able to achieve your goals in a place?

Should either U.S. President I've mentioned kept troops in Lebanon and Vietnam? Should U.S. troops remained there today?

My view is that re-colonization, with a high degree of local control, is underway. Maybe never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My view is that re-colonization, with a high degree of local control, is underway. Maybe never.

Perhaps that was the winning policy they should have tried in Vietnam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is that re-colonization, with a high degree of local control, is underway. Maybe never.

Perhaps that was the winning policy they should have tried in Vietnam.

The problem in Viet Nam was the decision, before we got involved, not to win the war, but to fight the war to a draw, and not invade North Vietnam. Perhaps the presence of a still existing Soviet Union limited our options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem in Viet Nam was the decision, before we got involved, not to win the war, but to fight the war to a draw, and not invade North Vietnam. Perhaps the presence of a still existing Soviet Union limited our options.

It was fear of China. If you read some of the recollections of the people back then, there was a fear that China would send massive amounts of soldiers across the border of the U.S. got anywhere near China's borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was fear of China. If you read some of the recollections of the people back then, there was a fear that China would send massive amounts of soldiers across the border of the U.S. got anywhere near China's borders.

In the early days of the war, yes. Eventually the Soviet Union developed a "presence" at Haiphong harbor, so that any attack by the US would have created a direct US-Soviet confrontation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the early days of the war, yes. Eventually the Soviet Union developed a "presence" at Haiphong harbor, so that any attack by the US would have created a direct US-Soviet confrontation.

Not just the early days of the war. When Nixon ordered bombing, they were afraid to bomb too close to the border for fear China would pour across with soldiers and then it was game over. Even 400,000 soldiers couldn't hope to hold against a million unless nuclear weapons were deployed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me that is not good news. To hear NATO saying that in 4 months they will be able to determine if they can maintain control of Afghanistan. The Taleban could be back in power within a year.

At that point I will say the War on Terror has failed. This would send a ripple effect throughout the Middle East as well. Iraq would be next, but that would take longer to find out that they are not being effective at reducing the violence at all. (looks like it is increasing more and more) If that happens, I would expect countries that are anti-west, will step up the rhetoric and would vailidate their tactics as terrorsists. All this resulting into the loss of the War on Terror.

The beacon of democracy is growing dim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me that is not good news. To hear NATO saying that in 4 months they will be able to determine if they can maintain control of Afghanistan. The Taleban could be back in power within a year.

*snip*

The beacon of democracy is growing dim.

I think we have to consider long-term involvement, say, the maintenance of bases, if necessary, without the permission of the "host" countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me that is not good news. To hear NATO saying that in 4 months they will be able to determine if they can maintain control of Afghanistan. The Taleban could be back in power within a year.

*snip*

The beacon of democracy is growing dim.

I think we have to consider long-term involvement, say, the maintenance of bases, if necessary, without the permission of the "host" countries.

True. How does that play out? IF NATO decides to pull out, what then of the permanent foriegn bases there? Personell gets pulled and they mothball it? Or hole up in it and shoot anyone that comes close?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True. How does that play out? IF NATO decides to pull out, what then of the permanent foriegn bases there? Personell gets pulled and they mothball it? Or hole up in it and shoot anyone that comes close?

Short run, the latter. Every now and then the base could be "strengthened" so as to send appropriate signals. In short, I propose controls of a colonial variety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short run, the latter. Every now and then the base could be "strengthened" so as to send appropriate signals. In short, I propose controls of a colonial variety.

How does colonial rule work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short run, the latter. Every now and then the base could be "strengthened" so as to send appropriate signals. In short, I propose controls of a colonial variety.

How does colonial rule work?

Read up on the history of your country from 1763 to 1867 (and by some measures 1982). I'm a bit ignorant about Canada myself. Maybe you could teach me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read up on the history of your country from 1763 to 1867 (and by some measures 1982). I'm a bit ignorant about Canada myself. Maybe you could teach me.

I mean applied in modern times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...