Obama, Harper, and Afghanistan

Army Guy · November 6, 2008

I'm not talking about 5,000 people overall, but 5,000 infantry, fill out the current regiments and add another.
Actually, I'd like to see more like another 3 regiments, but clearly that's not going to happen any time soon.

Now that would be a good day in the CF...just to fill out existing Regiments, would be a good day...But it would mean doubling the size of the current army, by atleast another 3 Brigades. Approx another 15,to 20 K of pers. And as nice as the Cons have been they are not that nice....

Last I heard (earlier this year on either CBC or CTV), the army has actually shrunk since 2005 by 30 people. Maybe things are improving, I don't know.

It's true, recruiting is hitting all thier goals, set a few years ago to actually increase our size, but here is the catch, the avg age in our military is well over 37 years old, what this means is while we have increased intake, retiring members are out pacing them. DND can not process them fast enough.

And while it would be nice to get more Infanteers, and other combat trades in....for everyone we hire we need to hire 5 to 10 support pers along with them...Some trades such as mechanic's for instance are just above the 50 % manned mark, and thier training is over a year long....and todays tech and equipment an Infantry regiment does not go far without these guys, they are already at 50 % doing twice as much with half the guys...and they are burning out...and getting out....

Add more fuel to the fire most if not all our combat units only have half to a third of their proposed vehs, and other equipment....that means it is in constant use, to coin a phase we drive it until it explodes, then the mechs get to look at....so every problem is a major one, very little in the way of small fixes....

and this is just one example...hence why i'm a little scepticle when it comes down to the rest and rebuild phase...because just to build us up to where we are suppose to be today, is going to take major funding, more funding than the cons can dream of...

Sorry did'nt mean to paint such a gloomy picture, but it is going to get worsr before it gets better....

Army Guy · November 6, 2008

Bluegreen:

I find it distasteful, and cynical that the arguments for waging a war in somebody else's country should be that it's a good excuse to retool our army, or that we need to kiss another countries ass. Either we have sound reasons to be there, and a reasonable probability of achieving our objectives, or we should get out.

You find it distastful and cynical that we need a war to retool our military, put yourself in our soldiers boots, for just one day, the Military has been screaming for 20 years that our military is approaching rust out, and it has taken this conflict to get what little table scraps have been thrown our way....

I don't find it distastful, i find it disgusting. That good men and women need to pay for this very equipment with thier lifes, equipment meant to protect and defend this nation, and everyone in it...some thing that should be automatically given to us.

Just think for a moment the level of dedication it takes to put your life on the line just to get some of the equipment you'll need to defend the same people who would not equip us properly in the first place....

And while you may think we are kissing other countries asses, i would perfer to call it professional courtesy extending our hand out and saying thanks...they did not have to be there when we needed them , they did not have to assist Canadian soldiers on a daily basis be it with arty support, air support, helo escort, helo transport, tank support, you name it, and yes we have also extended some of that to our allieds,

We are after all on the same team, fighting for the same goals. we just happen to be the poor cousin....

Argus · November 6, 2008

Wouldn't that mean about 25,000 or more in total?

Perhaps. I'm okay with that. Remember that the current size of the military is about 55k with a population of about 34 million. It was around 89k in Mulroney's time, and, I think, about 130k in Trudeau's time (when our population was about 21 million).

bluegreen · November 6, 2008

Bluegreen:
You find it distastful and cynical that we need a war to retool our military, put yourself in our soldiers boots, for just one day, the Military has been screaming for 20 years that our military is approaching rust out, and it has taken this conflict to get what little table scraps have been thrown our way....

You missed the point I was making. Retooling the military is a seperate issue from 'should we be fighting this war?' I was questioning whether we should be there in 2012, not what we need to have if we are going to be there. I agree that it was shameful to commit the Canadian Forces to a war they were not equipped to fight. The arms, equipment, and training of the forces should reflect Canada's strategic 'defense' requirements, anything less is a waste of our money, and as you pointed out, lives.

The second misunderstanding in your response was w.r.t. the ass kissing I referred to in prior post. The ass kissing is at the political level, not operationally. I am happy to assume that the forces are following their orders with competence, and diligence. Not being a soldier, I cannot judge whether they are, or not. It's a no brainer that allied forces should lend all and any assistance required, requested, or needed in the field. Once we're there, we must do our best after all.

The true question that needs debating is why the hell are we actually there? Canada isn't Santa Clause, and when the world comes the the door saying trick or treat, we should be careful before we shell out however many thousands of troops, and billions of dollars. Our political leadership laid a great bigger smacker of a kiss on the butt of our allies to the south when they said Ready? Aye ready! When in fact we were woefully unready.

There are an awful lot of places where we could be doing good, but that isn't enough reason to fight a war. We have to have sound, and objective reasons to act.

Alta4ever · November 6, 2008

So true .
and my generation does have a opinion it is the Environment and future technology's but we also know it will take something drastic! these old baby boomers still hold the vote for Canada it will take Harper to run a deficit showing the tories do not hold a platform, this economic crisis and lies will be what will give us the opertunity for change. mark my word Canadians will look at harper the same as bush and changes will be made to parliment.

we have already shown a very strong green movement, in time I have faith we will put the dinasours to rest they refuse to listen or care about us we have seen the cuttbacks, the increased to tuition no incetive for our generation. This economic greed has shown the greed in our elders and how they do not care for us, they even want to privtize our health. mark my word next election will be about change

The green moment is dying out, poeple are more concerned with the money in their pocket then about the amount of c02 in the atmosphere.

Its time that the green movement forget about the gorical and get back to fighting for a clean enviornment less toxic waste fewer nuclear power plants. But for the most part the green movement seems to be happy that it has been hijacked by the socialists, and facists that seem to have more concern about controlling peoples lives and eroading their freedoms then, reducing the posions put into our ecosystems.

Alta4ever · November 6, 2008

So true .
and my generation does have a opinion it is the Environment and future technology's but we also know it will take something drastic! these old baby boomers still hold the vote for Canada it will take Harper to run a deficit showing the tories do not hold a platform, this economic crisis and lies will be what will give us the opertunity for change. mark my word Canadians will look at harper the same as bush and changes will be made to parliment.

we have already shown a very strong green movement, in time I have faith we will put the dinasours to rest they refuse to listen or care about us we have seen the cuttbacks, the increased to tuition no incetive for our generation. This economic greed has shown the greed in our elders and how they do not care for us, they even want to privtize our health. mark my word next election will be about change

I hope the next election is about change, change to a smaller less powerful government, reduction of the centralized planning and errosion of provincial rights that Trudeau started.

Army Guy · November 7, 2008

You missed the point I was making. Retooling the military is a seperate issue from 'should we be fighting this war?' I was questioning whether we should be there in 2012, not what we need to have if we are going to be there. I agree that it was shameful to commit the Canadian Forces to a war they were not equipped to fight. The arms, equipment, and training of the forces should reflect Canada's strategic 'defense' requirements, anything less is a waste of our money, and as you pointed out, lives.

No i got your piont, loud and clear, and it was not my intention to suggest we stay in Afgan just to get retooled, i was refering to the waste of time it would be to give us a rest and not accomplish anything in that time period, using that rest period to get rested, and regrouped, and retooled OK..when in reality all that would get done is the rested portion as we can not afford to retool, or regroup....and much more worthy taskings could be accomplished by remaining in Afgan and continuing our work here....

I agree that it was shameful to commit the Canadian Forces to a war they were not equipped to fight.

But that commitment was made anyways, which does make it part of the issue.....DND had explained to the government on serveral occasions that we were not equiped or manned for a moderate threat battle field. Knowing that we still got our marching orders....One would expect that the government would have set in motion a planed rebuilding phase on the fly....but they did not, and it took the lives of soldiers to actually get the government to purchase some of the equipment we needed, Ilits jeep replacement, etc etc....

The arms, equipment, and training of the forces should reflect Canada's strategic 'defense' requirements, anything less is a waste of our money, and as you pointed out, lives

Our Military has never reflected our Strategic defensive requirements, if it had we would not be in the state it is in today. Our Militaries shape and condition is the way it is because that is they way the people in Canada want it to be in, and the government is all to willing to shovel funding into projects that get the most votes or pay back....and while i agree there are several projects that funding should be pumped into, such as health care and education....we still need to keep our defense near the top of the list....

The second misunderstanding in your response was w.r.t. the ass kissing I referred to in prior post. The ass kissing is at the political level, not operationally. I am happy to assume that the forces are following their orders with competence, and diligence. Not being a soldier, I cannot judge whether they are, or not. It's a no brainer that allied forces should lend all and any assistance required, requested, or needed in the field. Once we're there, we must do our best after all.

I made those comments with this in mind serveral posters had commented we have done our more than our part, and have been in the front lines for far to long....

We as a nation have signed a defensive agreement, we all know that, but this mission is not over, and there is still alot of hvy lifting to be done, and who knows where we will be in 2011, perhaps the mission will have moved on to a peacekeeping phase, but at this time it is still unknown...and although we have been involved in most of the fighting, the job is not over....and we would not have lived fully up to our defensive agreements or have we ?

You can't say that in the halls of NATO, or other western governments there has not been talk of having another look at what makes up the NATO alliance, to relooking at the defensive agreements, and who is a free loader and who is carrying the load....and when or if Nato

survives this mission, should we not be worried on which side of the coin we are on....can we risk not having a defensive pact , paying of our own defense ?

The true question that needs debating is why the hell are we actually there? Canada isn't Santa Clause, and when the world comes the the door saying trick or treat, we should be careful before we shell out however many thousands of troops, and billions of dollars. Our political leadership laid a great bigger smacker of a kiss on the butt of our allies to the south when they said Ready? Aye ready! When in fact we were woefully unready.

I think the WHY part has been debated to death, everyone knows WHY we are there, and has since lost interested in the mission, and want to move on, try something new....it's not becasue the mission has changed because it really has'nt changed much over the years....

Canada is not Santa Claus, excellent piont, one in which i agree totally....But at the start of this mission most Canadians thought it would be cool to play santa....not fully understanding what it meant to go to war, or what effort was required to rebuild a nation...

Yes our leadership did kiss alot of US ass, but not for the reasons you think, they where kissing US ass because they where greatful for an out ,of IRAQ, thank you "kiss" thank you "Kiss", yes we will go to afgan, it was not until after the phone hung up did crieiten ask where is Afganistan, and what is the problem dere.....

Things are getting better in Afgan, i know right now things are a little cloudy, there are days i even ask myself are we winning....is it worth it....and then you see the regular Afgan people , at open markets, going to school, traveling, moving about....when it was not long ago when all of that is imposiable....i'm on my third tour now, and things have changed for the better, but it won't happen over night, it will take years ,decades, for it back to normal....

Topaz · November 7, 2008

I would think this war and its expenses would have to depend on the money available and what our economy is like and how much of a deficit Harper wants to make. There's a real possibility that GM and Ford will no longer exists and that will throw thousands of people into lines for EI and then when that runs out its welfare lines and therefore the government revenues are going way down since income tax is the major revenue for the government. When Dion said Canada could be in trouble and the Harper said no problem, looks like he was wrong because Harper's thorn is going to be the manufacturing sector which could lead us to economy disaster. The war can't be won by military only and I hope Obama will at least try to talk to the Taliban but if that fails then he has no other option and it may end up the US's war creating more of a debt for them.

M.Dancer · November 7, 2008

. There's a real possibility that GM and Ford will no longer exists and that will throw thousands of people into lines for EI and then when that runs out its welfare lines ....

Are you implying that autoworkers are too stupid to look for a job so they will sit on their arse and just collect social assistance?

Oleg Bach · November 7, 2008

Are you implying that autoworkers are too stupid to look for a job so they will sit on their arse and just collect social assistance?

Hey..with Mr. re-distribute the wealth Obama in supposed charge. Auto workers who paided into the public purse will now draw on it - or will someone come and steal the pensions not to mention empty the coffers that are UIC? Anything can happen. For instance the teachers pension fund in Ontario from what I understand is held by a private Canadian auto parts company - Is it possible with no auto sales that what's his name might just dip into your former grade eight teachers purse.. The entiled elite will do what they please and there is not much you can do about it. What the heck - If you can send a welfare check that fills the golden buy out packages for corporate exectives - in the amount of 100 billion bucks it would only be fare to send 550 dollars a month to out of work auto assembly guys..

OddSox · November 7, 2008

Things are getting better in Afgan, i know right now things are a little cloudy, there are days i even ask myself are we winning....is it worth it....and then you see the regular Afgan people , at open markets, going to school, traveling, moving about....when it was not long ago when all of that is imposiable....i'm on my third tour now, and things have changed for the better, but it won't happen over night, it will take years ,decades, for it back to normal....

Thank you.

Now back to the regularly scheduled programming...

bush_cheney2004 · November 7, 2008

...Yes our leadership did kiss alot of US ass, but not for the reasons you think, they where kissing US ass because they where greatful for an out ,of IRAQ, thank you "kiss" thank you "Kiss", yes we will go to afgan, it was not until after the phone hung up did crieiten ask where is Afganistan, and what is the problem dere.....

:lol: This is just precious...and spot on. Salute!

Oleg Bach · November 7, 2008

Thank you.
Now back to the regularly scheduled programming...

No no no - thank you...great to have a corrector...Afghanistan will continue as long as their are lucrative military contracts to be had - IF - the left is so intent on saving abused woman from other cultures and the children "so a little girl can go to school" and become a man hating eccentric feminist - THEN the Canadain administration should change their "turn a blind eye policy" - to the thursday night raping of young boys in Afghanistan...what hypocracy on the part of man hating liberals...OK to save the females and it's OK to destroy the young males - how damned base can you get - I say get the hell out of that rock quary.

Smallc · November 8, 2008

There's a real possibility that GM and Ford will no longer exists and that will throw thousands of people into lines for EI and then when that runs out its welfare lines and therefore the government revenues are going way down since income tax is the major revenue for the government.

They won't be allowed to fail.

Argus · November 8, 2008

This is just precious...and spot on. Salute!

Not so spot on. Didn't I read not too long ago that the death rate among Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan was HIGHER, than for US soldiers in Iraq?

Kitchener · November 8, 2008

I agree that it was shameful to commit the Canadian Forces to a war they were not equipped to fight. The arms, equipment, and training of the forces should reflect Canada's strategic 'defense' requirements, anything less is a waste of our money, and as you pointed out, lives.

Still worse, it was shameful to go in with no clear idea of what victory would comprise, nor how our military presence could bring it about.

Oleg Bach · November 8, 2008

Hate to break it to you but Iraq - and Afhanistan are NOT wars. A war is when both sides are squared of and BOTH are about to fight for their survival - because it is clear that the other wants to destroy you - Now did Afghanistan or Iraq threaten or show signs of destroying America and Canada? I believe not. Who put up the money to finance and subsequently train terrorists? Saudi Arabia....Did we attack Saudi Arabia? No....and why not - cos we love our money to much.. :lol:

bluegreen · November 8, 2008

Our Military has never reflected our Strategic defensive requirements, if it had we would not be in the state it is in today. Our Militaries shape and condition is the way it is because that is they way the people in Canada want it to be in, and the government is all to willing to shovel funding into projects that get the most votes or pay back....and while i agree there are several projects that funding should be pumped into, such as health care and education....we still need to keep our defense near the top of the list....
.............

We as a nation have signed a defensive agreement, we all know that, but this mission is not over, and there is still alot of hvy lifting to be done, and who knows where we will be in 2011, perhaps the mission will have moved on to a peacekeeping phase, but at this time it is still unknown...and although we have been involved in most of the fighting, the job is not over....and we would not have lived fully up to our defensive agreements or have we ?

You can't say that in the halls of NATO, or other western governments there has not been talk of having another look at what makes up the NATO alliance, to relooking at the defensive agreements, and who is a free loader and who is carrying the load....and when or if Nato

survives this mission, should we not be worried on which side of the coin we are on....can we risk not having a defensive pact , paying of our own defense ?

I think the WHY part has been debated to death, everyone knows WHY we are there, and has since lost interested in the mission, and want to move on, try something new....it's not becasue the mission has changed because it really has'nt changed much over the years....

Canada is not Santa Claus, excellent piont, one in which i agree totally....But at the start of this mission most Canadians thought it would be cool to play santa....not fully understanding what it meant to go to war, or what effort was required to rebuild a nation...

Yes our leadership did kiss alot of US ass, but not for the reasons you think, they where kissing US ass because they where greatful for an out ,of IRAQ, thank you "kiss" thank you "Kiss", yes we will go to afgan, it was not until after the phone hung up did crieiten ask where is Afganistan, and what is the problem dere.....

Things are getting better in Afgan, i know right now things are a little cloudy, there are days i even ask myself are we winning....is it worth it....and then you see the regular Afgan people , at open markets, going to school, traveling, moving about....when it was not long ago when all of that is imposiable....i'm on my third tour now, and things have changed for the better, but it won't happen over night, it will take years ,decades, for it back to normal....

WOW! real meaty stuff.

Thinking about all this tragi/comedy of fuzzy intentions, morphing 'defensive' alliances, arse kissing, I think that we really do need to examine the Why's of it all.

Perhaps NATO is a dead letter? Collective defense seems pretty obvious for a really big country like Canada, with so much treasure up for grabs, and such a small population to defend it with. What if NATO went back to being a guarantor of the security of the North Atlantic democracies, and please stick to a narrow definition of security?

Why should our collective security extend to beating the sh*t out of Tribesmen in Afghanistan at America's behest? I don't buy the terrorist argument. Talibani never gave a damn about the rest of the world, until their applecart was kicked over. We went there to deny safe haven, which has been done, but now it's all about girls schools, terrorists, and rebuilding.

It must really suck to see it up close, and anybody with a heart would want to help, but there are MUCH worse places in the world. Perhaps we've already invested so much blood and treasure, that it makes sense to finish the job? I do not believe that our version of the job can ever be finished though. The dynamic is all wrong. Afgan is a country but not a nation, and never has been. Even if we drained the whole country of weapons, they would just make new ones, and have at one another. And don't lets start on about the roles of Pakistan, India, Iran, Russia, China, and any future tea-kettle kickers. We are in SO DEEP over our heads, and don't even have an inkling of an Intelligence apparatus to inform us of what's actually happening.

Argus · November 8, 2008

Why should our collective security extend to beating the sh*t out of Tribesmen in Afghanistan at America's behest? I don't buy the terrorist argument. Talibani never gave a damn about the rest of the world, until their applecart was kicked over. We went there to deny safe haven, which has been done, but now it's all about girls schools, terrorists, and rebuilding.

The problem is you don't do something tangible to make the changes stick as soon as we leave the place will again become a safe haven.

It must really suck to see it up close, and anybody with a heart would want to help, but there are MUCH worse places in the world.

Name three.

Perhaps we've already invested so much blood and treasure, that it makes sense to finish the job? I do not believe that our version of the job can ever be finished though. The dynamic is all wrong. Afgan is a country but not a nation, and never has been. Even if we drained the whole country of weapons, they would just make new ones, and have at one another. And don't lets start on about the roles of Pakistan, India, Iran, Russia, China, and any future tea-kettle kickers. We are in SO DEEP over our heads, and don't even have an inkling of an Intelligence apparatus to inform us of what's actually happening.

Quite true. However, we in the West tend to be idealistic, and want to help others. We see our society as so much better, richer and culturally advanced, and we want to help others to reach the same levels. The problem is that these people's valu esystem is so widely divergent from ours that they are just not going to cooperate. And without their cooperation, well, you can't make a people value democracy and compromise. I think, ultimately, any effort at making Afghanistan a democracy is doomed and always was doomed. They need to put a strongman in place, preferably one with a little more finesse than most - ie, a Hosni Mubarack type as opposed to a Saddam Hussein, and then get out.

Oleg Bach · November 8, 2008

Great peace makers can also punch you out in a bar fight. It's all about honourable conduct and respect - our defence should be based in honour and friendship - all modern war is about money....If America handed over all the military spending to the Iraqi people - there would be peace and they would be out growing flower - but then who would manufacture weapons and use their wage to shop at Walmart? We fight for things we don't need - and need to strive towards what sustains life...war is dated......If you have to resort to war to prove your manhood or to stimulate your economy - means you are really not fit for public office...it means you are stupid.

bluegreen · November 8, 2008

Name three.

Here's a stab:

South Sudan, for anybody Black, Christian, or Arab for that matter.

Darfur, for anybody black, whether Christian, Muslim, or Other.

Northern Burma.

Somalia.

Eritrean/Ethiopian border.

Parts of Sri Lanka. (Tamil Tiger bits)

South Western Bangladesh.

Of course, some of these places are merely just as bad a place as Afghanistan to be civilians in, some however are far worse. Is my point granted? or do I need to quote chapter and verse?

Also, many, or most of these places would make admirable safe havens. Does that mean that we hoist a neo-victorian banner, and 'civilise' the world at bayonet point?

Argus · November 8, 2008

Here's a stab:
South Sudan, for anybody Black, Christian, or Arab for that matter.

Darfur, for anybody black, whether Christian, Muslim, or Other.

I don't think you get to include different regions of the same country.

I'll grant you Sudan is a shithole for non-Arabs. But what exactly can we do there? The entire Muslim world is united in defending Sudan as a paradise on Earth where no human rights have ever or ever will be violated, and will not allow the UN to do anything about it - even if the Chinese and French weren't defending the Sudanese as well. In fact, when you think about it, that means most of the world feels Sudan is a wonderful country. What right do we, therefore, have to decide our morality is more important than theirs and intercede?

Northern Burma.

I doubt Northern Burma is worse than Afghanistan.

Somalia.

Probably about the same as Afghanistan. But I'm all for interceding there with a NATO and UN force - except I doubt you'll find many partners.

Eritrean/Ethiopian border.

No worse than Afghanistan, and probably better than some areas.

Parts of Sri Lanka. (Tamil Tiger bits)

Again, probably no worse than Afghanistan.

South Western Bangladesh.

Poverty stricken, but as far as I know at peace.

Of course, some of these places are merely just as bad a place as Afghanistan to be civilians in, some however are far worse. Is my point granted? or do I need to quote chapter and verse?

I'm not sure what your point is to begin with. Is it that unless we address every place in the world which is bad at the same time we can't simply try and make one place better all by itself?

so, many, or most of these places would make admirable safe havens. Does that mean that we hoist a neo-victorian banner, and 'civilise' the world at bayonet point?

The world would be considerably better off if we did, but I think we value the lives of our soldiers too much.

Oleg Bach · November 8, 2008

That's brutal...value our soldiers' lives too much? To respect the value of life is not a negative my friend. I wonder if you have a collection of antique soldiers? The very eccence of a great and powerful society is one that values all life. In the alternative - If we did not have the likes of Henry Morgantaler - there would be lots of expendable white trash to send off to war - either abort them at the begining or near the end of adulthood. Apparently the order of Canada was given to our very own Stalin who decimated his best troops out of fear that someone might be born or live that is actually intelligent. :blink: Shame on you.....why don't you go and stick your neck out - or send your percious son to die so others that are bored can have a sporting life...This type of elitism is akin to British generals sending off Canadian "colonialist" to be slaughtered and melt down the barrels of machine guns...with their lives. Oh yah - the term is cannon fodder - I guess in your mind we need more.

bluegreen · November 9, 2008

I'm not sure what your point is to begin with. Is it that unless we address every place in the world which is bad at the same time we can't simply try and make one place better all by itself?
The world would be considerably better off if we did, but I think we value the lives of our soldiers too much.

I guess my point was that there are a lot of nasty places. Whether they are marginally better, or worse, Afghanistan is not unique, nor especially deserving of our attention. In your' prior post, you said, and I'm afraid that I probably agree, that the best, or at least most probable outcome in Afghanistan is to establish a strongman. Basically, I don't see much difference between Taliban, and Strongman, except I guess we can claim a victorious war if it's OUR strongman, and said strongman might pay lip service to our most strongly presented requirements. At least so long as we continue to feed him whatever it is he lives on. ($$, Power, etc)

Pity the troops bleeding for a lie. In response to your' ideal of making this one place better off, because we have to start somewhere. I don't know. Canadian soldiers have to go where they're ordered to. If we tell them they must risk their lives and die to fulfil this task, then they will do it, but we are collectively responsible for their lives, and this ill considered venture has no happy endings for anybody concerned.

Some of the nasty places I listed might be more amenable to ungentle persuasion, but before giving orders to go there, there needs to be a clear, and rigorous moral basis to act. Furthermore, there should be some reasonable expectation of success, and a criteria to evaluate same.

These are some of the reasons I prefer a well defined defensive security agreement for Canada (NATO, pre Kosovo), and whatever else we want to do can be taken case by case. I hope though, that we have learned that going to war is a dangerous, and bloody serious undertaking and I think that the unintended consequences of Afghanistan will haunt us for quite awhile to come.

Army Guy · November 10, 2008

WOW! real meaty stuff.
Thinking about all this tragi/comedy of fuzzy intentions, morphing 'defensive' alliances, arse kissing, I think that we really do need to examine the Why's of it all.

You can debate this until hell freezes over, and it's all going to boil down to a cost, a huge cost, one that Canadians are not willing to pay....

Perhaps NATO is a dead letter?

And if it is, what do you think that means for Canada?

Collective defense seems pretty obvious for a really big country like Canada, with so much treasure up for grabs, and such a small population to defend it with. What if NATO went back to being a guarantor of the security of the North Atlantic democracies, and please stick to a narrow definition of security?

You make it sound like NATO is not doing that today, the reason we are in Afgan today was that the US went to war under art 5 of the NATO defensive pact, an attack on one is an attack on all....yes in that process we removed the Taliban government, but we also have a responsibility to rebuid what we've destroyed. or leave the country a smoking hole....ripe for more of the same problems.

Why should our collective security extend to beating the sh*t out of Tribesmen in Afghanistan at America's behest?

You have read about NATO defensive pact, and you are familar with Art 5 i assume...if you are then please walk me through it, why are we involved in Afgan...

It must really suck to see it up close, and anybody with a heart would want to help, but there are MUCH worse places in the world.

Yes there is many spots in the world that are as much or worse off than the Afganistan. So what is your piont here, that we have spent enough cash in Afgan time to move on, we've buried enough soldiers, time to move on so we can bury some more else where ....We are not in Afgan because we've decided to save Afganistan, that it was on some list of states that needed saving....we are there to rebuild it because we've kicked the crap out of it....and we want to rebuild it so we don't have to come back....

And while you are pretty good at compling lists of countries in need. Name one out of your list that is not going take the same level of commitment we are giving Afgan, i mean military commitment, tanks , jets , soldiers, bombings etc etc etc....name one that we can get away with by just bringing in food, teddy bears , and candies....

Afgan is a country but not a nation, and never has been.

I know alot of Afgans that would think differently....

Even if we drained the whole country of weapons, they would just make new ones, and have at one another. And don't lets start on about the roles of Pakistan, India, Iran, Russia, China, and any future tea-kettle kickers. We are in SO DEEP over our heads, and don't even have an inkling of an Intelligence apparatus to inform us of what's actually happening.

Is that fact or opinion, if it's fact perhaps you can give us a link...

Pity the troops bleeding for a lie. In response to your' ideal of making this one place better off, because we have to start somewhere. I don't know. Canadian soldiers have to go where they're ordered to. If we tell them they must risk their lives and die to fulfil this task, then they will do it, but we are collectively responsible for their lives, and this ill considered venture has no happy endings for anybody concerned.

We're not bleeding for a lie, where bleeding for a cause that you've given up on, that you've swept under the carpet....And don't give us that soldiers go where they are ordered to and we the people are responsible for thier lives crap ....if thats the case you've failed us miserably...you sent us on this mission and then forgot us...because you no longer supported the mission....

Canadian soldiers believe in the mission, no question about that fact... ask any of them, not because we have to, or that we've been ordered to,

but because you gave it to us and we will accomplish it, regardless of how hard it is , despite if you support it or not....we don't quit, we don't don't whine, we get the job done....

I hope though, that we have learned that going to war is a dangerous, and bloody serious undertaking and I think that the unintended consequences of Afghanistan will haunt us for quite awhile to come

Did we need Afganistan to relearn that, have we forgotten those past conflicts already, what makes you think that Afagn will be any different , war and it's effects will not be forgotten by those that have felts it's touch one way or another, for the rest of Canadians it will soon fade from thier minds to be replaced by something else....Have a good Rememberance day.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Army Guy