French leader proposes vote on Afghanistan troops

[PoliticalCitizen]

We are killing them at a rate of 10x our lossess, rinse repeat.

Al Qaida smert?

Is that why we're there? To kill Afganis?

10x - that sounds very much like Israel's retaliation policy.... Are we trying to become as murderous as them?

I guess at least we won't have to build an apartheid wall... we have oceans and US around us...

[DogOnPorch]

Is that why we're there? To kill Afganis?

10x - that sounds very much like Israel's retaliation policy.... Are we trying to become as murderous as them?

I guess at least we won't have to build an apartheid wall... we have oceans and US around us...

No, we're there to eliminate Taliban elements while providing relief and rebuilding work. The high kill ratio is the result of a professional army engaging partisan elements. Better weapons...better support...above all, better leadership and training = a lot of dead terrorists.

Kill ratios of 100-1 were reached during some battles in Korea involving Canadians. The Red Chinese were plain ol' rotten troops back then capable only of frontal attacks. Anything else was too difficult to manage. The USAF encounter similar kill ratios in the skies of Korea during the classic MiG vs Sabre engagements.

War isn't fair. You might think it should be...but it simply isn't. When your enemy is in a weakened state, that's when you grind the boots into him. Remember, the idea is that you come home safe and sound. Imagine if we applied the 'war must be fair' rule to WW2. We wouldn't have done D-Day because the Nazis were having such a hard time with the Russians. If we opened that 2nd Front, we'd be fighting the Hun at an unfair advantage...and that's just not cricket.

----------------------------------------------------------

Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.

---Euripides

[Oleg Bach]

No, we're there to eliminate Taliban elements while providing relief and rebuilding work. The high kill ratio is the result of a professional army engaging partisan elements. Better weapons...better support...above all, better leadership and training = a lot of dead terrorists.

Kill ratios of 100-1 were reached during some battles in Korea involving Canadians. The Red Chinese were plain ol' rotten troops back then capable only of frontal attacks. Anything else was too difficult to manage. The USAF encounter similar kill ratios in the skies of Korea during the classic MiG vs Sabre engagements.

War isn't fair. You might think it should be...but it simply isn't. When your enemy is in a weakened state, that's when you grind the boots into him. Remember, the idea is that you come home safe and sound. Imagine if we applied the 'war must be fair' rule to WW2. We wouldn't have done D-Day because the Nazis were having such a hard time with the Russians. If we opened that 2nd Front, we'd be fighting the Hun at an unfair advantage...and that's just not cricket.

----------------------------------------------------------

Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.

---Euripides

Do you know how many grieving and angered Russian mothers there are who hate and resent the fact that their leaders sent their sons off to die in Afghanistan?...thousands! "War isn't fair" - that's silly - war is adventure and pure lucrative buisness - us tax payers pay for supplies while a small group of heartless shifty men make billions and the media releases touble talk like - "Highway Of Heros" - and "The dead soldier BELIEVED IN THE MISSION" - Have you had a good look at the eyes and faces of our troops - these dummies will believe anything they are told!

[AngusThermopyle]

- Have you had a good look at the eyes and faces of our troops - these dummies will believe anything they are told!

Do you actually read what you post?

Its rather ironic that you should condemn all serving members with such a descriptor when your posts are often barely legible. Not to mention the fact that you are as wrong as anyone else who indulges in such a vague and broad generalization of an entire group of people.

[DogOnPorch]

The bozo Red Army practically needed to phone the Kremlin before getting an artillery strike. That is if the Political Kommisar allowed it...and they actually had a working radio. No wonder the Afghanis took them down. Stupid system...not much better these days.

I should also point out that the average Canadian volunteer soldier's education would be much higher than a misfit Russian conscript...who makes up the bulk of Russia's military.

-----------------------------------------------

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

---Sir Winston Churchill

[eyeball]

Letting the politicians opinions decide how wars are fought results in more people getting screwed I think.

Never said poiticians. They are mainly lawyers and/or hardware store owners. Let the military fight wars.

Fair enough since you were also talking about strategy and tactics and laymen deciding how we fight a war. Of course experts in military strategy and tactics should within reason and the bounds of what's legal, decide how to fight a war.

Its why a country should go to war that is at the heart of the Fench proposal to put the decision to do so in the hands of the voters. Conventional wisdom indicates we should have faith in the infallibility of the market. In a lot of respects a democracy is like letting the market decide. It stands to reason that if a proposal to go to war is sound people should buy it. If it isn't they will reject it. We should be so lucky to be given the same choice and responsibilty.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Well, it looks like the Talibanis are getting better at killing our soldiers... after so many years of practice..

[DogOnPorch]

Well, it looks like the Talibanis are getting better at killing our soldiers... after so many years of practice..

Frankly...and I don't mean to sound callous...our casualties are light for the length of time engaged. Taliban casualties are more or less unknown, but thought to be high. Maybe higher than they can sustain? We also don't know.

They use mines and ambushes to get our troops. They will not engage in open battle nor should they from a tactical point-of-view. They slip into the border areas of Pakistan if things get too hot. They do not wear uniforms. They have the support of a certain percentage of rural Afghanis who aid them in their operations. They enjoy the support of a certain percentage of like-minded groups around the globe...some "possibly" located in Canada just to add irony to injury.

All of the above adds up to a very hard to fight conflict. A conflict we've been 'fighting' way too long. Or not fighting...which would be a lot more accurate. Between all NATO (et al) nations in Afghanistan, there's simply not enough troops to carry-out meaningful offensive actions. Instead, we sit in a sort of defensive-patrol like manner, where convoy and construction protection becomes key.

To make it EVEN more crazy stupid, I believe some figures came out that there are more mercenaries in Afghanistan than actual soldiers. These mostly independent groups have some rather dubious motivations that may or may-not help in what our soldiers are trying to accomplish. We're just not going to win any war this way...but pulling out is a sure, certain defeat. So what to do? It gets to be like the same choices LBJ and Nixon had to make re: Viet-Nam if you actually want to 'save' this country from Commun....errr...'radical' Islam. Assuming it's even possible, that is.

I suppose you could say it's more a case of me being more anti-defeat than pro-war...losing this one could have unpredictable repercussions that our children and grandchildren will be dealing with.

-----------------------------------------------------------

At any street corner the feeling of absurdity can strike any man in the face.

---Albert Camus

[Moonlight Graham]

As for letting the public...and thus a certain percentage of anti-war supporters deciding how wars are fought: we'll continue to lose wars as long as this situation continues. It's dangerous for the troops and a sure way to waste time. Face it, most of us have no qualifications to manage or fight a war...but this armchair is mighty comfy. Want to win? Get the media out of there and let the generals get the job done properly.

It's a war. These are enemies. Deal with them. They'll certainly deal with us if we don't.

What you said here is kind of frightening, don't you think? Ya its a war & they are the enemies, but they are also surrounded by millions of innocent civilians.

The gov't (and thus by extention the military also) works for us, they represent our will. We, the ordinary citizens, should decide when to go to war & when not to go to war. We do this through our elected representives. And though you may not like it, anti-war supporters have as much say as the pro-war supporters. And history has shown that sometimes the anti-war supporters have been right.

Obviously we need to leave the day-to-day operations and & general strategies up to the military, but we must also also have a say in what our military does, ie: which wars it fights & the basic behaviour/rules they must follow (ie: Geneva Conventions & other human rights issues). I'm sure there are a few generals who, if left unchecked & able to do whatever they wanted, would just carpet bomb the hell out of Afghanistan in order to get the job done quickly & easily with little regard for civilians & infastructure.

I agree, most of us have no idea how to fight & win a war, but we do know right from wrong. That's why i think its a great idea the media is in there, so they can keep our military (and gov't) honest, not to mention send the pictures & stories of war back home so we all aren't living in our la-la land bubbles & we can see ourselves the true impact of war.

[Moonlight Graham]

We are killing them at a rate of 10x our lossess, rinse repeat.

Al Qaida smert?

But we're never going to get them all. Even if Afghanistan were 100% successful, how many other countries would we have to invade? They're still in our country for cripes sake!!

Even if we were to export or jail every terrorist-linked immigrant/refugee in every western country in the world, you're still going to have home-grown terrorists, like the ones that were training near Toronto for an attack within Canada.

Why were they pissed off? They said because Canada was among the countries in Afghanistan killing other muslims. Heck, even if we were to kill every terrorist that existed in the ENTIRE WORLD right now, we would do something stupid again at some point in the future that would get more Muslims PO'd & another generation of Muslim extremists would be created. Most of us don't understand or really give a poop about Islam. Militarily occupying or even having a military presense within a muslim country is a big no-no for a lot of them. We didn't give a crap that when we launched attacks & set up military bases within Saudi Arabia near Mecca & Medina (Islam's 2 holiest sites) during the Gulf War, & that a great many Saudi's & muslims became PO'd (including Bin Laden).

It's like we kicked a couple of honey-bee nests and one of the bees stung us, & instead of just trying to avoid the nests, we instead got really angry & decided to kill all the bees in the world. I'm sorry but there's no freaking way we're going to kill all the bees, we're just going to end up making more of them angry.

[Moonlight Graham]

But if you insist on such logical fallacies, why didn't Canada "invade" Saudi Arabia?

I'm sure you'd agree that would be a pretty short invasion.

[eyeball]

We're just not going to win any war this way...but pulling out is a sure, certain defeat. So what to do? It gets to be like the same choices LBJ and Nixon had to make re: Viet-Nam if you actually want to 'save' this country from Commun....errr...'radical' Islam. Assuming it's even possible, that is.

I suppose you could say it's more a case of me being more anti-defeat than pro-war...losing this one could have unpredictable repercussions that our children and grandchildren will be dealing with.

Notwithstanding the shame and pain of ever having gotten involved in the first place, America isn't having to deal with any downside to its decision to pull out of Vietnam.

The main thing our leaders will have to face upon our withdrawl from Afghanistan will be the fact that so many Canadians died in vain. That said its possible Canada may have to pay reparations to Afghanistan in the future, which is another good argument for getting out ASAP.

[M.Dancer]

That said its possible Canada may have to pay reparations to Afghanistan in the future, which is another good argument for getting out ASAP.

Given that we are their by the expressed request of the democratically elected Afghan goverment, I am forced to assume that you are expecting and hoping that we to surrender to the Taliban...

[DogOnPorch]

eyeball: Notwithstanding the shame and pain of ever having gotten involved in the first place, America isn't having to deal with any downside to its decision to pull out of Vietnam.

Oh really? Where's South Viet-Nam these days? Almost as soon as the US pulled out, the ARVN forces collapsed and a rout followed. Many thousands died...many thousands were forced to take to the boats to escape the Communists. Or doesn't that qualify as a 'downside' in your books? Maybe you're just looking at the Vietnamese restaurants that opened in your area after this event.

What you said here is kind of frightening, don't you think? Ya its a war & they are the enemies, but they are also surrounded by millions of innocent civilians.

Millions of civilians died in war. Leningrad alone saw two million dead civilians. But, I do find the way some people think war and civilians should be/could be seperate rather amusing. Innocent civilian. I submit that those two words really don't belong together. They are just a PC construct. Either you're a civilian in a war-zone...or you ain't.

----------------------------------------------

Keep smilin' through just like you always do...

---Vera Lynn

Edited August 26, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[eyeball]

Oh really? Where's South Viet-Nam these days? Almost as soon as the US pulled out, the ARVN forces collapsed and a rout followed. Many thousands died...many thousands were forced to take to the boats to escape the Communists. Or doesn't that qualify as a 'downside' in your books? Maybe you're just looking at the Vietnamese restaurants that opened in your area after this event.

I was responding to your comment about the repercussions that our children and grand-children might face.

South Vietnam like the rest of the country is apparently thriving these days. See what happens when people don't interfere in their business? The real miracle is the lack of any apparent resentment towards those who did. I also notice they don't seem to have any desire to invade or occupy anyone or go rushing about the planet trying to save it from itself.

These are smart people. We should take a clue.

[DogOnPorch]

I was responding to your comment about the repercussions that our children and grand-children might face.

South Vietnam like the rest of the country is apparently thriving these days. See what happens when people don't interfere in their business? The real miracle is the lack of any apparent resentment towards those who did. I also notice they don't seem to have any desire to invade or occupy anyone or go rushing about the planet trying to save it from itself.

These are smart people. We should take a clue.

South Viet-Nam was a country on its own. Saigon was the 'Paris of the Orient'. Communist Viet-Nam 'thrives' today thanks to the likes of Kathy Lee-Gifford and her ilk who use cheap labor to make running shoes and sport-tees. Hey, but at least a lot of people drive motorbikes in suicidal fashion. Good times. To be honest, though, they drove motorbikes in a suicidal fashion back when the Americans were there, as well.

See what happens when people don't interfere in their business?

Yeah...Pol Pot next door. Boat people. War with Red China. Dictatorships might be your thing, but they sure aren't mine. Lemme guess. You think the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is really democratic, too.

-----------------------------------

Without rules, we all might as well be up in a tree flinging our crap at each other.

---'Red' Forman: 'That 70s Show'

[DogOnPorch]

Given that we are their by the expressed request of the democratically elected Afghan goverment, I am forced to assume that you are expecting and hoping that we to surrender to the Taliban...

I agree. If eyeball's responses are an indicator, some can not wait for the tragedy that will ensue if NATO just pulls out and leaves the ARVN...errrr...Afghani Army to their own ends. It'll be a big 'I told yah so' at certain "innocent civilians" expense. Let's see how it all pans out. Perhaps Canada can send aid money that'll help construct more religious schools for boys and training camps for terrorists.

-----------------------------------------------

Can you hear them?

They talk about us

Telling lies

Well that's no surprise

---Our Lips Are Sealed: The Go-Gos

[eyeball]

Kathy Lee Gifford can thank some meddlesome super-power for using their economic clout to hammer down the trade barriers that might have stopped this sort of exploitation.

Given that we are their by the expressed request of the democratically elected Afghan goverment,

No, we arrived there in 2001-2, Karzai was installed and apointed in 2002 and elected in 2004. Karzai's ability to use Western funds and help to get elected and other factors like a lack of any meaningful media to disseminate his opponent's views make the democratic context worse than...Iran in 1951 comes to mind.

I am forced to assume that you are expecting and hoping that we to surrender to the Taliban...

You know what they say about assuming and asses.

[M.Dancer]

You know what they say about assuming and asses.

They grown kelp and poison people who assume it's good

[M.Dancer]

No, we arrived there in 2001-2, Karzai was installed and apointed in 2002 and elected in 2004.

Being wrong must be a familiar fall back position for you. Welcome home.

[eyeball]

Being wrong is a familiar fall back position for an old assumer like me.

In December 2001, political leaders gathered in Germany to agree on new leadership structures. Under the December 5 Bonn Agreement they formed an interim Transitional Administration and named Karzai Chairman of a 29-member governing committee. He was sworn-in as leader on December 22. The Loya Jirga of June 13, 2002, appointed Karzai Interim holder of the new position as President of the Afghan Transitional Administration.

---

Karzai was a candidate in the October 9, 2004 presidential election. He won 21 of the 34 provinces, defeating his 22 opponents and became the first democratically elected leader of Afghanistan.

source

Canada did not have a significant role in the first few months of the invasion of Afghanistan that began on October 7, 2001, and the first contingents of regular Canadian troops arrived in Afghanistan only in January-February of 2002.source

[M.Dancer]

Amzingly you have the facts stil arrive at an erroneous conclusion. Must have something to do with your arsenic consumption.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm sure you'd agree that would be a pretty short invasion.

Probably, but the power of righteous goodness compared to the eeevil Americans in Iraq would win the day in Saudi Arabia.

[DogOnPorch]

OK, eyeball. How would you solve this 'Laughghanistan' situation if you had free reign?

---------------------------------------------

Nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot.

---Inspector Harry Callahan: Magnum Force