Afghanistan

White Doors · August 20, 2008

Bold is mine. How can you make that claim without going by the assumption that they ("wackos") want to attack us because of our general lifestyle (which is, so obviously, untrue)?

How can you claim it is untrue? (when it is so, like, true)

M.Dancer · August 20, 2008

Bold is mine. How can you make that claim without going by the assumption that they ("wackos") want to attack us because of our general lifestyle (which is, so obviously, untrue)?

Can you rephrase that? I read ---how can he not use an assumption that isn't true?

madmax · August 20, 2008

Oh great...Canada didn't even show up in numbers until early 2002, and then it was a very small number! The "get go" was in 2001...where was Canada's tactical air, armor, or artillery? Those brave souls that did show needed to hitch a ride, but had jungle cammies! (No fault of their own...must be the idiots in Ottawa.)
Those precious months saw far fewer Canadians compared to Americans.....just check the body count. Check the early ISAF missions compared to now. By your own admission, you are still running around with hundreds instead of many thousands....and your other NATO patners will let you do it. But at least now it is find, engage, and kill the Taliban.

Sounds like your expectations are dependent on the Americans...again. How typical.

February 2002 to be exact.

Canada's JTF2 was in Afghanistan in 2001(which was supposed to remain secret). The US was pooh poohing any military cooperative efforts choosing to work with Bombs and Money as the main force to aid the Northern Alliance in reclaiming the country. Must hurt to have to save face by changing sides, to the sides backed by Russia and Iran and to a lessor extent India.

Canada didn't create the Taliban. Canada didn't support the "holy warriors" as the means to trip up the USSR. The US set a fire and after it burned the USSR, walked away and left the country in chaos and the flames spread.

The creation of the mess in Afghanistan, the support for Mujahideen terrorists was not Canadas doing. Canada was not entertaining Taliban Guests. George Bush Was.... The Nuturing of Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan was the work of the USA and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Ah yes Saudi Arabia...., and the Bin Ladens who Bush felt needed to be allowed to fly home from the USA without question.

Afghanistan was a farce of an effort, and Rumsfeld went in weak and wimpy. All show, no solutions. AND IT SHOWS. The only thing worse then this is IRAQ. No Stabilizing efforts. CHAOS was FREEDOM. ANARCHY was FREEDOM.

The failed policy of the Bush Administration is their own doing. If they were serious about cleaning things up at the beginning we wouldn't be facing the disaster that is the US foreign policy of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just because you carry the name as a handle, is no reason to endorse two clowns. They will go into the history books as the worst administration in American history. The most incompetent Administration in American history. And the most secretive administration in American History.

They were successful bullies and they bullied their own into believing myths and lies.

If the Bush administration had been serious about a coordinated effort, they would have received it. They weren't, nor could their actions be supported by other nations who could see the attempt to finger Iraq as a cold aggression to obtain Iraqs Oil.

Complain if you like about the state of our military. I will commend those who have served over there and have little support here for their efforts. They receive nothing but platitudes and posturing from the government, and one could argue that they are serving over there more on your behalf more then ours. If the US were to pull out tommorrow, we would not be there.

I am not going to blame them for the incompetence of the Bush administration anymore then I will blame them for the lack of support from home or the state of our military.

Those are political issues. Afghanistan is a political issue, and it will continue to fail following the Bush/Cheney program.

madmax · August 20, 2008

They were random and scattered. Now we have given them a goal and made far easier for us to kill them. All in all it's a Martha Stewart scenario.

A Martha Stewart Scenario? What dat?

Isomorphic · August 20, 2008

How can you claim it is untrue? (when it is so, like, true)

Do you seriously think that it's as simple as - "they don't like us, our freedoms, our way of life, etc., therefore they want to kill us"?

Can you rephrase that? I read ---how can he not use an assumption that isn't true?

I was asking Argus, who said, "If they didn't have those places to go to they'd be blowing themselves up in New York and London instead - or maybe Toronto. " whether he can make that claim without assuming that they want to attack us "just because".

Edited August 20, 2008 by Isomorphic

M.Dancer · August 20, 2008

A Martha Stewart Scenario? What dat?

A Good Thing
A Good Thing, is a humorous phrase for anything that is seen as good or desirable. The phrase is particularly used when the writer wishes to emphasize information supposedly unknown to the reader, such as when making a recommendation.

For example: homemaking adviser Martha Stewart recommends tools and techniques with the phrase "It's a Good Thing."

This is the opposite of a Bad Thing.

M.Dancer · August 20, 2008

Do you seriously think that it's as simple as - "they don't like us, our freedoms, our way of life, etc., therefore they want to kill us"?
I was asking Argus, who said, "If they didn't have those places to go to they'd be blowing themselves up in New York and London instead - or maybe Toronto. " whether he can make that claim without assuming that they want to attack us "just because".

I don't recall Argus making that claim. They want to kill us for a whole number of reasons. Our way of (non islamic) life is just one of them.

Isomorphic · August 20, 2008

I don't recall Argus making that claim. They want to kill us for a whole number of reasons. Our way of (non islamic) life is just one of them.

Right, I agree and I hope Argus does as well.

bush_cheney2004 · August 21, 2008

If the Bush administration had been serious about a coordinated effort, they would have received it. They weren't, nor could their actions be supported by other nations who could see the attempt to finger Iraq as a cold aggression to obtain Iraqs Oil.

Bullshit....you cannot give what you don't have..and you still don't have it. Iraq was invaded in 2003....not 2001.

Complain if you like about the state of our military. I will commend those who have served over there and have little support here for their efforts. They receive nothing but platitudes and posturing from the government, and one could argue that they are serving over there more on your behalf more then ours. If the US were to pull out tommorrow, we would not be there.

Yep...another "support our troops" platitude....but at least you have admitted the obvious about the role of America in Canada's "commitment".

I am not going to blame them for the incompetence of the Bush administration anymore then I will blame them for the lack of support from home or the state of our military.

Nobody is blaming them at all....incompetence can also be found in Ottawa.

Those are political issues. Afghanistan is a political issue, and it will continue to fail following the Bush/Cheney program.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Edited August 21, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

bush_cheney2004 · August 21, 2008

Come on BC, of course there were more US military than Canadian and probably always will be that way because the US puts more importance on their military than their people`s needs! Bush was out of Afg. too soon and went into Iraq were he has no business going!

Try as you might, there is no dodging such criticism if accusing the Americans of a distraction in Iraq. Afghanistan is a NATO mission, and as before, the Americans brought far more men and kit to the battle. If you think President Bush got distracted, why didn't Canada throw everything it had at the effort as well? No mechanized armor (Iltis jeeps don't count), tactical air, or significant artillery came to bear early on.

Gee, maybe those damn 'merkins should have ignored Japan just to concentrate on killin' Nazis!

After Nam, I hoped there would be more peace in the world but the US doesnt seem to want peace, afterall, there no money in it and why have a military if you dont use them???? BTW, IF Canada was attacked the US would come to help only for the reason to protect ITSELF from invasion!

Actually, Canada made a frickin' bundle on the Vietnam war....this has already been discussed in other threads.

M.Dancer · August 21, 2008

Gee, maybe those damn 'merkins should have ignored Japan just to concentrate on killin' Nazis!

Pretty well did. If manpower is the metric....what was it ? 4 men in Europe for every 1 in the pacific?

bush_cheney2004 · August 21, 2008

Pretty well did. If manpower is the metric....what was it ? 4 men in Europe for every 1 in the pacific?

I doubt that....more Navy in the Pacific theatre...but certainly more in Europe, at least later on. '42 was North Africa. The Americans were actually engaged more early on in the Pacific because of the PI.

Not much of Canada in the Pacific at all, sticking to this perverse way of thinking. Where was Canada? :lol:

Edited August 21, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

M.Dancer · August 21, 2008

I doubt that....more Navy in the Pacific theatre...but certainly more in Europe, at least later on. '42 was North Africa. The Americans were actually engaged more early on in the Pacific because of the PI.
Not much of Canada in the Pacific at all, sticking to this perverse way of thinking. Where was Canada?

Mainly dead or in Japanese POW camps.

I doubt that there was even more navy....The US navy in the important theatre were simulatneously conducting anti sub warfare in the atlantic and supporting operations ion Africa (and later italy) as well as helping the senior naval partner sweep the mediterranium of Italian and German boats.

It only seems like there weremore in the pacific because by thetime the US got around to the job, all the major naval surface battles in the atlantic were done. I have the figures somewhere in my possesion, they are recounted in one of Churchills volumes of the second world war...he convinced FDR that the important battle was Europe and Japan could wait...which of course is how it played out.

jbg · August 21, 2008

The French will probably suggest we surrender - like Dion and the Liberals have advocated.

How did Paris respond to a car's backfiring?

It surrendered.

bush_cheney2004 · August 21, 2008

...It only seems like there weremore in the pacific because by thetime the US got around to the job, all the major naval surface battles in the atlantic were done. I have the figures somewhere in my possesion, they are recounted in one of Churchills volumes of the second world war...he convinced FDR that the important battle was Europe and Japan could wait...which of course is how it played out.

No, it depends on the timeframe in question. US submarines did to Japan what Germany did to Britain, and that was early on. Ditto carrier task forces, amphib landings, etc. Americans do not remember great Atlantic naval battles compared to the Pacific, because they don't compare.

Trying to get back on topic, Iraq does not compare to Afghanistan either.....Iraq was engaged since 1991.

Edited August 21, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

Smallc · August 21, 2008

Iraq was engaged since 1991.

Yes, and Bush decided it was time to get married.

bush_cheney2004 · August 21, 2008

Yes, and Bush decided it was time to get married.

Yes, because President Clinton had already given Iraq the engagment ring.

Smallc · August 21, 2008

Yes, because President Clinton had already given Iraq the engagment ring.

Too bad the wedding wasn't called off. It probably would have been best for everyone.

bush_cheney2004 · August 21, 2008

Too bad the wedding wasn't called off. It probably would have been best for everyone.

Sure....Iraqi's sure do miss Saddam. Besides, Canada didn't attend the wedding either way.

Smallc · August 21, 2008

Sure....Iraqi's sure do miss Saddam. Besides, Canada didn't attend the wedding either way.

No, but if the married party isn't careful, the bank might have to repossess their house. I hear their in a great deal of debt.

White Doors · August 21, 2008

Do you seriously think that it's as simple as - "they don't like us, our freedoms, our way of life, etc., therefore they want to kill us"?

pretty much, yes. That is what they keep telling us. Infidels? ring a bell?

They want absolute power over their people to live under sharia and want to kill us because we are in the way and they want to establish a caliphate that rules the world.

'they' being the Islamic extremists.

Smallc · August 21, 2008

'they' being the Islamic extremists.

Yes, I don't understand why some people can't see that. 'They' hate us in every way because of who we are and what we do. Some people would love to take away any freedom that we have because they simply hate it. That can't be allowed. As GWB once said, freedom will be defended.

Edited August 21, 2008 by Smallc

myata · August 21, 2008

The Taliban , who are they, it would be a conservative est that only 60 % of those active in taliban are Afgans, the remaining 40% are muslims from across the muslim world, yes you'll find a few Canadians, Americans, Europeons,but mostly pakistanis making up this gang of criminals...
And yes they are evil alien beasts who want to control the masses thru fear and terror, they would not be happy with just doing it to themselfs they want control ,control over the entire country, the want the freedom to control others thru fear and force...nothing more....

Just look at thier tactics, and how they apply them, Stripping a man of all his skin with a dull knife takes hours, and hours to accomplish....it's sole goal was for the village to hear this man beg for them to stop, then beg them to end his life...instead they left him in the morning sun to bake and die a slow death....this is not an isolated incident, and has been done before....what drives a man or a group of men to do things this unimaginable his customs and traditions...show me one Muslim custom and tradition such as this....is he fighting for what he believes to be right....how does this act accomplish any of that....Asumming we can prove they are terrorists....give me a break...if it smells and tastes and feels like shit, it is shit....

So instead of asking do we have a moral right to help....We should be asking ourselfs do we have a right to watch this happen and do nothing, only to peer thru the glass every night on the news as thousands pay with thier lifes....so a few thousand can keep thier twisted sense of reality ....And while some will say yes , we should not interfer....Our government has stood up and said "we will help" we can not sit on our asses and watch....And while our government has not conducted a perfect mission, it is the majority that is pouting about this and that hampering the mission, in the end it is the afgan people who suffer...

No, nothing pretty about the picture you've drawn. But, when gory graphic emotional pictures are thrown as the last argument, it's sure time to ring the alarm bell.

First of all, the problem with emotional arguments is that nobody knows where they stop. E.g if tomorrow we discover some lost tribes of cannibal savages, should NATO urgently equip reeducation mission (granted with military support, as savages may take in the ideas of peace and democracy at first sight); or, if somebody draws serious emotional discontent with practices of deliberate killing of convicts, would that give them the right to seek forced reeducation?

But even more problematic is that it does not really explain or prove anything. We've already established here that NATO and government forces have enormous advantage over their opponents, in both numbers and technically. If the Afghanis themselves were as emotional as (some of) us about what's going on in their country, they would raise and add their forces to that of the government. And no, we aren't talking about abandoning homes, only the local militia to keep the militants at bay. With 10:1 NATO advantage, plus 20:1 local police, plus 2,000 adult males per 1 militant (that is, by the official story, that the numbers of militants are miniscule - otherwise we'll have to admit that we're taking sides in the local conflict), the current deteriorating security situation would be, plain and simple, logical impossibility. If the horrible stories like the one you cited (presuming it's recorded somewhere), would raise the blood of one out of ten locals, to make them take arms and defend - no, not even the government in Kabul, but their own homes - the numbers advantage would be something like 250:1. There would be no place for insurgents to go, outside of of some fringe areas (while as it appears they are spreading toward the capital). Small groups would be dealt with by local people; larger ones (of which there can't be many - again, by official numbers - there could be no more than 500 militans per "unstable" province = only a few large (~100) gangs per province) would be tracked and destroyed by local and NATO military and security forces.

But none of the above seems to be happening. The only logical explanation to that is that the official story is incorrect; wrong. Taleban does enjoy certain support among the local population, and we're fighting in an internal conflict between weak government that we support, and opposition that we don't like. Which seems to be acknowledged even by some of NATO officials ("this war is a sad necessity"). Note, not a glorious one; not a "reconstruction" and "rebuilding". So, isn't it the time to take off those rosy glasses? We're in a war, in a remote part of the world, fighting on one side with no clear perspective in sight.

bush_cheney2004 · August 21, 2008

No, but if the married party isn't careful, the bank might have to repossess their house. I hear their in a great deal of debt.

This is very common for newlyweds...sometimes all they have is LOVE! :lol:

GostHacked · August 21, 2008

Just a question, why is that the number one question people want to know...is it the cool factor, would you treat them any differently if they had or had not....anyways just curious ....I'm glad he has a clear concious, most do, but that still does not mean he's not having problems with dealing with it....be careful when aproaching this type of topic in the future, sometimes it can trigger unwanted responses...even from old friends....Family is number one, for sure....me and my wife have an agreement as soon as she had enough of my deployments i'd get out and do something else....behind every good soldier, is an excellent wife.......

For one, he is just a different type of human. I think it does bother him somewhat, or he would not have gotten out of it. He and I will still be friends at the end of the day. But in the 10 years we have not been in contact, both of our lives have drasticly changed. He may be disconnected from the battles, because of much of the stuff he did was remotley operated.

Small C

Yes, I don't understand why some people can't see that. 'They' hate us in every way because of who we are and what we do. Some people would love to take away any freedom that we have because they simply hate it. That can't be allowed. As GWB once said, freedom will be defended.

And by defending you mean, Patriot Act, FISA and warrentless wiretapping on US citizens.