Three More Soldiers Killed

LesterDC · December 14, 2008

Good point...I'd rather be killed by the Good Guys.

No... I was saying that we shouldn't nuke them..

As for the AlQaeda.. We are coming to fight you, that is what you get for attacking a NATO ally

August1991 · December 16, 2008

Most European governments are weak and have no courage for anything the least controversial. The most cowardly of all are the Germans, French, Italians and Spanish, of course. They're content to let the Anglos do the heavy lifting while they march in parades back home to demonstrate their strength.

Argus, I have little patience for your petty bigotry.

Let's just drop a nuke of them and rebuild the country how we want it. Everyone's happy.

If this problem were so simple.

The families of all our soldiers, wounded, killed, or just in that situation have all my empathy and sympathy. But doing more of the same still isn't a solution.
Just wondering Mr., whether you noticed the condition of Afghani cities before the Allies even went into the country. Rubble is an understatement. I remember seeing a shot of an Afghani man standing in that rubble and saying that we were the cowards. Fighting a war from two miles up in the sky against a country that was already broke and busted by fighting the old USSR for so many years.

If someone bombed our cities into oblivion, what would you do when they finally decided it was relatively safe to send in their troops?

Afghan cities?

----

Speaker, I wonder what Galileo, Copernicus or Voltaire would say to you, or to an Afghan.

The young men and women in our armed forces posted to Afghanistan are involved in both a standard NATO mission and a great endeavour. In this modern world, theise ordinary soldiers and families are now public. I don't know if the families want this publicity but I think we should all know the public endeavour of their children.

I enjoy my freedom to choose, and I thank those who defend this freedom. I want my children to be free to choose. I want immigrants to Canada to be free to choose.

This freedom is so precious that we must defend it strongly by whatever means we can - in newspapers, weblogs or using our military. On this point, I think western Left and Right can agree.

Edited December 16, 2008 by August1991

speaker · December 16, 2008

August1991, I wonder what Ghandi, Einstein, or Pearson would say to you.

That said, I don't know that we disagree that much. My comments about the afghani cities was a response to Mr. Canadas wierd reference to the cowardice by which the Afghani militants are fighting. It's a matter of perspective. From their point of view the allies shock and awe campaign, blitzkreig, was a cowardly way to fight.

I expect the Polish Army felt the same at the start of the second world war.

I'm also saying enough is enough. The destruction of the Afghani cities and lives should work if you believe in the concept of deterrance. What other countries might allow militants to operate with sanction knowing how much overkill the Allies are going to respond with?

At worst fanatics will have to operate from hiding, and that isn't anything new. Guerilla warfare has existed since the first organization forced it. Some hazards we have to deal with.

August1991 · December 17, 2008

I expect the Polish Army felt the same at the start of the second world war.

Are you suggesting that NATO's invasion of Afghanistan is comparable to Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland?

Heck, do you think Bush's invasion of Afghanistan comparable to Brezhnev's invasion of Afghanistan?

At worst fanatics will have to operate from hiding, and that isn't anything new. Guerilla warfare has existed since the first organization forced it. Some hazards we have to deal with.

We do, don't we. But it's not as simple as you say. Army Guy has explained this to me on several occasions.

----

In the midst of the Cold War, in the 1970s or so, people feared "nuclear winter" - now, we fear "global warming".

I fear that people will lose sight of our soldiers' activities in Afghanistan. In my mind, we should support them unconditionally and they should only come home when they tell us that the job is done or that others can take care of the situation.

Make no mistake. If our soldiers do not prevail in Afghanistan, our children and grandchildren will pay a far, far greater price.

August1991, I wonder what Ghandi, Einstein, or Pearson would say to you.

No civilized city exists without a police force. I have no qualms about others using force. I never liked ordering it myself. Edited December 17, 2008 by August1991

speaker · December 17, 2008

I expect it's safe to say that blitzkreig was a pale shadow compared to the expense and armament thrown into shock and awe. I expect that the social infrastructure damage and civilian casualties were also minor in comparison.

I suport the soldiers, and wish them all the luck in the world.

But enough is enough and too much is too much. Let's bring them home and concentrate on rebuilding our good name, provide for the rebuilding of Afghanistan, and work at defending ourselves from home, where we should be.

I think it has been proven in trial that giving unqualified support to this kind of war is the same as giving orders for it''s conduct.

White Doors · December 17, 2008

I expect it's safe to say that blitzkreig was a pale shadow compared to the expense and armament thrown into shock and awe. I expect that the social infrastructure damage and civilian casualties were also minor in comparison.
I suport the soldiers, and wish them all the luck in the world.

But enough is enough and too much is too much. Let's bring them home and concentrate on rebuilding our good name, provide for the rebuilding of Afghanistan, and work at defending ourselves from home, where we should be.

I think it has been proven in trial that giving unqualified support to this kind of war is the same as giving orders for it''s conduct.

You do know that 'Shock and Awe' was done in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, correct?

I happen to think we are building our good name by being in Afghanistan.

Funny you would think that is tarnishing it somehow.

Well, as they say, when the going get's tough, the weak give up.

madmax · December 17, 2008

Are you suggesting that NATO's invasion of Afghanistan is comparable to Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland?

That is over the top. There is no comparison, besides the USSR joined in for their share in Poland.

Heck, do you think Bush's invasion of Afghanistan comparable to Brezhnev's invasion of Afghanistan?

No that is very difficult to answer. Brezhnevs was toppling his own puppets, one of which was a psycho crazy SOB, who wasn't doing an effective job of stopping the rise of Islamic Extremists, who were winning a significant number of seats. The crazy marxist was ticking off the rural country folk, erm, soon to be holy warriors, by confiscating their land. In the meantime, the leaders were killing off friend relatives and allies to maintain power.

Brezhnev went in with force, toppled the unloyal ambitious idiot, and put in a new loyal puppet.

(This sounds alot like the problem in Modern Iraq and the US)

and the mess continued..... for 10 years.

Bush's invasion of Afghanistan had great potential, and could have been a success. The Taliban were harsh, and disciplined, but generally to extreme for the public. They would have been happy to have their Islamic Society with a kite or two, the radio playing, and the choice to kill your wife at home, vs in the public soccer field.

But something happened. Chaos, instability, and corruption became the replacement for the Taliban. And now people who don't like the Taliban, prefered the security of their reign, compared to the mass corruption of the Karzai government. Something that Hamid can't seem to reign in.

The USSR provided stability.

The 7 US sponsored terrorist groups, helped drive the USSR out.

The chaos that followed to fill the vacuum, led to the creation of Pakistani madrassa trained orphans, to return to Afghanistan to reclaim the country for the new Taliban insurgency.

I would say that Breznhev helped keep the Islamic party from winning the country through elections. That he managed to hold the country in the USSR sphere for another 10 years, but accomplished nothing to prevent the growth of Islamic fundamentalism.

I would say the USA had helped create the Islamic Extremists we see today. And by going into Afghanistan to wipe out the Taliban, should have worked. They had as much local support as the USSR did when it came into Afghanistan.

Perhaps more damaging to the USA is their inability to provide stability. But then, Afghanistan is known as ungovernable.

I would say the invasions are comparable and so will be the endgame.

madmax · December 17, 2008

You do know that 'Shock and Awe' was done in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, correct?
I happen to think we are building our good name by being in Afghanistan.

Exactly where are we building our good name in Afghanistan?

I am not disputing you. I am looking for clarification on your statement.

White Doors · December 17, 2008

Exactly where are we building our good name in Afghanistan?
I am not disputing you. I am looking for clarification on your statement.

Well the majority of Afghans want Canadians there, so that is one - Afghanistan.

The UN wants us there, how many countries are in the Un again?

Nato wants us there, how many countries in Nato?

The only place where people curse the name of Canada becuase of us there are a few places in Kashmir, NE Pakistans and SW Afghan. Of course there is always Iran and Syria, but honestly, who gives a shit about what they think?

Ontario Loyalist · December 17, 2008

Well the majority of Afghans want Canadians there, so that is one - Afghanistan.

Based on what? The wishes of a puppet leader with ties to the oil and gas industry? Oh, hmmm, did I say oil and gas? Is it possible that we're there because of the oil and gas in the region? I wonder...

The UN wants us there, how many countries are in the Un again?

So what? Countries ignore the UN unless it provides a justification for the country's own agenda.

Nato wants us there, how many countries in Nato?

Even though this mission technically falls outside of its mandate, and that it's real purpose--a mutual defence alliance against the SOVIET UNION--has long since ceased to exist.

The only place where people curse the name of Canada becuase of us there are a few places in Kashmir, NE Pakistans and SW Afghan. Of course there is always Iran and Syria, but honestly, who gives a shit about what they think?

And who gives a ---- what you think?

Edited December 17, 2008 by Ontario Loyalist

Ontario Loyalist · December 17, 2008

Exactly where are we building our good name in Afghanistan?
I am not disputing you. I am looking for clarification on your statement.

Looks like he can't give you a straight answer. No surprise, really. I don't know about you, but I've noticed that the media doesn't air all that many special interest stories about the average, everyday Afghan anymore... I guess they don't want to keep having to run stories with Afghans decrying us as "foreign invaders," etc. Nobody likes having foreign soldiers in their country, and I dare say that should it ever happen in Canada not many people here will be as joyful and happy as some of us claim Afghans are right now...

Oleg Bach · December 17, 2008

Sure the more gentle people of Afghanistan wants us there - but they are out numbered by the less gentle folks - These are the alpha citizens..you would have to kill all of them and that would amount to a genoicde of tough guys..Canada is driven by the liberal social policy of male demasculization - we attempt to export this casteration to the men of Afghanistan - no way in hell are they going to give up their testacles to please people like Marion Boyd. :lol:

ToadBrother · December 17, 2008

You do know that 'Shock and Awe' was done in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, correct?
I happen to think we are building our good name by being in Afghanistan.

Funny you would think that is tarnishing it somehow.

Well, as they say, when the going get's tough, the weak give up.

It's because a generation of people have been brought up believing that the vague concept of "peace keeping" is somehow, in and of itself, the only legitimate activity of our military. One would think that after the atrocities in the Balkans and Rwanda, that we would admit that sometimes direct, adversarial and offensive military activity is needed in some situations.

I had a buddy who was stationed in the Balkans during the war. Basically the rules of engagement were "they have to fire on us first". What it meant was that you could know snipers and even mortar emplacements were around you, but your ability to take them out offensively was strictly limited if not outright forbidden. In effect, the UN peacekeepers were often just targets. Rwanda was even worse.

Can you imagine Canadian soldiers bound by such rules in Afghanistan? If Canada, or anyone, is going to be bound by such rules, they might as well not be there.

Mind you, if everyone does leave Afghanistan, I wonder who will be wringing their fingers in five years when Al Qaeda reopens its training camps.

Ontario Loyalist · December 17, 2008

You do know that 'Shock and Awe' was done in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, correct?
I happen to think we are building our good name by being in Afghanistan.

Funny you would think that is tarnishing it somehow.

Well, as they say, when the going get's tough, the weak give up.

There's a difference between tough and pointless. People with your mindset are the kind that kept WWI going for four useless years.

Ontario Loyalist · December 17, 2008

No... I was saying that we shouldn't nuke them..
As for the AlQaeda.. We are coming to fight you, that is what you get for attacking a NATO ally

Yeah, and in the meantime we'll allow a million Muslims to immigrate to Canada...

ToadBrother · December 17, 2008

There's a difference between tough and pointless. People with your mindset are the kind that kept WWI going for four useless years.

If Al Qaeda gets its boots back in Afghanistan, we're back in the mess we were in before 2001. If nothing else, we're basically keeping the Taliban from becoming a branch of international Islamist terrorism.

Oleg Bach · December 17, 2008

Shock and Awe was a disgraceful display of rich old Americans playing a huge video game and killing people for real. :rolleyes: Has everyone lost their mind around here? Look how they positioned the cameras - on the other side of the river out of harms way - then they started blasting as if they were producing a huge snuff film..what a bunch of jerks. People now a days just love the death thing - whether it be the "highway of heros" and big expensive planes shipping useless corpses back to Canada at 200 thousand dollars a body...what the hell is that all about? We are so bored and so artifical that we are nothing but a bunch of dramatists saluting hearsts on the 401 - at the head of the saluting party are "vets" - who never saw a days combat in their lives - their wars consist of getting drunk at the Legion.

White Doors · December 17, 2008

Looks like he can't give you a straight answer. No surprise, really. I don't know about you, but I've noticed that the media doesn't air all that many special interest stories about the average, everyday Afghan anymore... I guess they don't want to keep having to run stories with Afghans decrying us as "foreign invaders," etc. Nobody likes having foreign soldiers in their country, and I dare say that should it ever happen in Canada not many people here will be as joyful and happy as some of us claim Afghans are right now...

patience is a virtue young grasshopper. I can and will give you an answer that directly contradicts the drivel quoted above and I will source it too. ( i know, how novel eh?)

Nonetheless, the Taliban remain overwhelmingly unpopular and few Afghans believe the religious militants are likely to regain power, despite their recent attacks on NATO forces.
Nine out of ten Afghans (90%) rate President Karzai positively. Attitudes toward the foreign troops in Afghanistan are also positive: 75 percent have a favorable view of US forces and 77 percent describe NATO forces as effective.

source:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/art...mp;nid=&id=

Now, can you back up your stuff or are you just interested in making things up as you go along?

And who gives a ---- what you think?

why, you do apparently.

Edited December 17, 2008 by White Doors

White Doors · December 17, 2008

There's a difference between tough and pointless. People with your mindset are the kind that kept WWI going for four useless years.

people like me kept WW1 going for four more years? really? Can you explain that drivel er, thought please?

White Doors · December 17, 2008

It's because a generation of people have been brought up believing that the vague concept of "peace keeping" is somehow, in and of itself, the only legitimate activity of our military. One would think that after the atrocities in the Balkans and Rwanda, that we would admit that sometimes direct, adversarial and offensive military activity is needed in some situations.
I had a buddy who was stationed in the Balkans during the war. Basically the rules of engagement were "they have to fire on us first". What it meant was that you could know snipers and even mortar emplacements were around you, but your ability to take them out offensively was strictly limited if not outright forbidden. In effect, the UN peacekeepers were often just targets. Rwanda was even worse.

Can you imagine Canadian soldiers bound by such rules in Afghanistan? If Canada, or anyone, is going to be bound by such rules, they might as well not be there.

Mind you, if everyone does leave Afghanistan, I wonder who will be wringing their fingers in five years when Al Qaeda reopens its training camps.

A topic we can agree on - very nice.

Oleg Bach · December 17, 2008

A topic we can agree on - very nice.

Peace keeping is exactly like law enforcement. Are our troops cops in Afghanistan - I would say yes - so we are still peace officers if you know what I mean - we are there to curb those that disturb the peace - correct?

ToadBrother · December 17, 2008

Peace keeping is exactly like law enforcement. Are our troops cops in Afghanistan - I would say yes - so we are still peace officers if you know what I mean - we are there to curb those that disturb the peace - correct?

They are mounting military operations. They are not cops, they are soldiers. The differences are numerous and important. A cop, for instance, cannot fire unless he feels in imminent danger, or needs to defend civilians or other cops. An army can launch offensives (that is, attack before there is any evidence the other side is attacking). In other words, a soldier has significantly less restrictions on when and where he can pull the trigger.

ToadBrother · December 17, 2008

A topic we can agree on - very nice.

I'm no Leftist, and I'm no rightist. I'm me!

I've read a bit on history, and to my mind, peacekeeping is really only applicable and narrow band of situations, not as a general principle for conflicts. It proved ridiculously ineffective in the Balkans, where, if anyone had had the guts, they would have marched three or four divisions into the country along with carpet bombing the mountainous regions. Ugly, destructive and murderous, yes, but when the US finally grew tired of those crazy bastards, they had Serbia on its knees with a strictly aerial campaign in no time (of course, since then, Kosovo has become a mess, because you do need, after all, ground forces to actual enforce peace, law and order).

Oleg Bach · December 17, 2008

They are mounting military operations. They are not cops, they are soldiers. The differences are numerous and important. A cop, for instance, cannot fire unless he feels in imminent danger, or needs to defend civilians or other cops. An army can launch offensives (that is, attack before there is any evidence the other side is attacking). In other words, a soldier has significantly less restrictions on when and where he can pull the trigger.

It depends what the rules of engagement are. For instance if the rules set down were to over throw the controling powers by any means possible - then all of Afghanistan could be bombed into oblivion. The crux is that our forces have to tediously sort through who are the bad guys and who are the good guys - who is actually an non-participating civilian and who is not..so there are restrictions...much like that a cop has to face. Don't tell me that our soldiers have less restrictions on when they can pull the trigger. - They are fully restricted ..If they were not they would kill all in sight and not even bother sorting it out later. So this is not even a traditional war, it's a tedious filtering operation. That's what makes it un-winnable. You are on someone elses turf as supposed liberators and it will never be clear on who is to be liberated and who is not and who resists the liberation. Quagmire might be a fitting term in time.