carepov

Did the American public have the right to call Vietnam a failure? Canadians, military or civilians, do have the right to call the mission a failure. Yes, we all share some responsability, and yes we can be critical of ourselves. What do you think about my position that the War in Afghanistan was ruined due to the invasion of Iraq?

All the more reason to send in more military ressources to increase logistics capacity, security, etc... Wrong, I do not wish to write any cheques. I simply wish that the ones that the USA wrote to pay for Iraq would have gone to win the war in Afghanistan. I agree.

You cannot "hedge a bet because of hindsight" this is nonsensical. At the outset the WOT was very successful. IMO, had it not been for the major strategic blunders of the USA (invading Iraq) the WOT would have been very successful. With the benefit of hindsight I have ranked the following WOT options from best to worst: 1. Invade Afghanistan and wage war intelligently 2. Do nothing, or next to nothing 3. Do what we did

This was a big mistake. Sure, it was neither a complete failure nor a complete sucess. All wars have varying degrees of sucess, even Vietnam IMO, the way in which the War on Terror was fought, the USA, the West and the ME all would have been better of had the War not been fought at all. i.e it was/is a failure.

To me, success would be either: a.) Better results (more security, more sustainable improvements that would ensure long-term security) b.) The same results at about 1/3 to 1/2 the cost (time, blood and treasure)

Sure, a lot was accomplished and I agree that the war was justifiable. I also share Army Guy's lament that Canadians and other countries gave up and "cut and ran" despite promising otherwise. The war was a failure because not enough was achieved at too great a cost. Let's say your team is helping a family. This family lives in a rat-infested shack and is harbouring gun-smuggling gangsters with a meth lab in the basement. You kill the gangsters - mission accomplished, right. Hoping for long term sustainable improvements, you start building a new house and destroy the lab. You end up building a house that is slightly better than what the family had but at a cost that could have built several great homes for several families, perhaps the entire block. Also, new gangsters return, no-longer gun-smuggling (yet) but still mixing up meth. Mission accomplished?

It means we accomplished not enough at too much cost.

You mis-understood me, yes Canada made mistakes that cost lives and deserves criticism. Canada's mistakes did not cost us the war because our influence is so limited.

Yes, it is silly to over-analyze Canada's role. The war in Afghanistan was a failure because of the mistakes made by the USA. Other countries made mistakes too but none that cost us the war.

We both know that the only military that really matters is that of the USA.

OK, I do tend to exaggerate, not the whole world. But still there was overall support for Afghanistan, less than the Gulf war as BC said, but way more than Iraq. The most obvious evidence of this support are the numbers of countries sending troops and the UN approval. In Canada, the Liberals, PC and Reform approved of the mission while only the NDP opposed. Did any major Western political parties oppose the war?

It seemed to me that the practicaly the enitire world founf the war in Afghanistan to be justifiable in 2001/2002. Like I said, the war in Iraq in 2003 ruined it.

You don't think things could have gone better for the US and UK 2002-2014?

OK, well then let me revise: It certainly would have been a better bet to finish one war (Afghanistan) before massively escalating another (Iraq).

War is never a sure bet. It certainly would have been a better bet to finish one war before starting another.

For everyone. The War inAfghanistan would have been over in half the time.

Oh really. The size of the Swiss bank accounts of these so-called selfless leaders seems to contradict your theory.

What corporations would flee and why?

Imagine if all of the UK and US troops that were deployed in Iraq were instead depoyed in Afghanistan in 2002/2003. Based on the success of the Surge in 2009 we could of had way beeter results at far less cost.

Leaders usually do what's best for themselves, the interests of "their people" often overlap but are a secondary priority.

If some ressources used in the Iraq War had been deployed in Afghanistan instead... If the West/NATO cooperated more instead of arguing and mistrusting each other...

Our work in Afghanistan was ruined by the War in Iraq.

There is certainly a balancing act needed. However, I agree with Buffett, taxes for the rich in the USA are too low. I also think that taxes on the rich in Canada should be increased a bit. Perhaps there should "progressive taxtation" on Capital Gains, 50% exemption for the first $X then at a certain level capital gains are taxed as normal income? Stock options received by an employer should also be taxed as normal income.

Not much to disagree with there. The trouble is that "some people were voting from a position of ignorance" is not what KIS way saying. Also, no matter what the referendum question and no matter which side and on both sides of every election in all of history "some people were voting from a position of ignorance". Some people are very informed and voted yes because they value having a new country more than the sacrifices mentionned. Some people voted yes because it is in their own self-interest. Some people voted yes because they are so pissed off with the status quo. Some people voted yes because they felt there was no chance of separation and a large yes vote would allow Quebec to negotiate more independance/favors from Ottawa. etc....

Sure it would be problematic, I agree. I am mainly taking issue with labelling the majority of separatists as ignorant. What is ignorant are people that believe that if Quebec separates there will be a civil war or some kind of similarly dire consequences.