Toro Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/todays...5536/story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameron Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 the strongest group of Taliban because Kandahar was where the Taliban had its base and Mullah Omar wants it back. So that's his name. Wanted: Dead or Alive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Good article, thanks for posting. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) Canadians must understand that nobody can eliminate the Taliban in Afghanistan without doing something about the situation in Pakistan. We knew this when we got involved in Afghanistan. Osama's first priority was to accelerate the pace of the Taliban's consolidation of power. With his money power he was able to buy off most of the Afghan warlords opposing the Taliban; and successfully overcome the little resistance that was there in Kabul with the assistance of the Pakistani army, as in September 1996.Source There nothing Canada can do about the situation in Pakistan because... In 2009 the situation for the Pakistan Army and ISI is going to get a great deal more uncomfortable. In the post-Musharraf era, there was a moment of hope that Gen Ashfaq Kiyani would steer the army and the ISI in a genuine pro-Western direction, end support for terrorism, subordinate the army and ISI to greater political control, and join the US and NATO in a decisive confrontation with the Taliban. By the summer of 2008 it was clear that none of these were going to happen. The attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul in July 2008, which was linked to the ISI through the Haqqani network, crystallized two issues for the US administration: firstly that Pakistan was going to continue to use terrorism as an instrument of state policy, and secondly that under Kiyani, no meaningful change was going to take place.Source Canadians DO understand that nobody can eliminate the Taliban in Afghanistan without doing something about the situation in Pakistan. Most Canadians also know that is about as unlikely now as it was in 1996, 2001, and as of about 1 hour ago judging by the time stamp on my last source. Canada the "Stupid" enemy. Stupid might have been too strong a word back in 2001 - 2002, naive would have been closer to the truth. These days though there's just no excuse for mincing words. Stupid is as stupid does. Edited January 3, 2009 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 I don't think that it was apparent in 2001 that Pakistan would offer harbour to the Taliban to the extent that it has. I also do not think the definition of success in Afghanistan need be annihilating the Taliban from the face of the earth. I believe that our objectives should be defined by the condition in which Afghanistan is in, not by whether the enemy has been annihilated. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 I don't think that it was apparent in 2001 that Pakistan would offer harbour to the Taliban to the extent that it has. What was apparent was that Canada was wading into a quagmire of conflicted interests that had little if anything to do with us. It wasn't our fight and there was no reason to make it our's. I also do not think the definition of success in Afghanistan need be annihilating the Taliban from the face of the earth. I believe that our objectives should be defined by the condition in which Afghanistan is in, not by whether the enemy has been annihilated. -k That's a huge departure from what we've been primarily trying to do which is pretty much just 'kill the scumbags'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 It wasn't our fight and there was no reason to make it our's. What, eyeball, are your parameters for us entering a fight ? What about Darfur ? Kosovo ? Germany in 1939 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 What, eyeball, are your parameters for us entering a fight ?What about Darfur ? Kosovo ? Germany in 1939 ? Eyeball wants to st with the Taliban and smoke some pot, rock back and forth and play the bongos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) What, eyeball, are your parameters for us entering a fight ? An attack on our border. I don't think Germany would have become an issue in 1939 if Canada and the US had simply let Europe settle its own differences back in 1914. For all we know it really might have been the war to end all wars but I think it'll probably take an all out nuclear exchange to do that now. This habit of wading into quagmires really is one of the stupidest things a country can do. Creating them is probably the evilest. Edited January 3, 2009 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Eyeball wants to st with the Taliban and smoke some pot, rock back and forth and play the bongos. Sounds good to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 ...I don't think Germany would have become an issue in 1939 if Canada and the US had simply let Europe settle its own differences back in 1914.... The US tried to do just that....next time we back Germany. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Eyeball wants to st with the Taliban and smoke some pot, rock back and forth and play the bongos. If that is what the Taliban did we would have no problem with them infact what is our problem with them again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 infact what is our problem with them again? The fact that they're some of the worst people the world has seen since the Khmer Rouge? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 An attack on our border.I don't think Germany would have become an issue in 1939 if Canada and the US had simply let Europe settle its own differences back in 1914. Eyeball - Ok, so if Indonesia, China, or the US start invading countries, and those countries ask for our help we should do nothing then ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 The fact is we are at war, our soldiers are dying. We need to fight to win, whatever it takes to help reduce the risk to our soldiers in the hope that they can come home alive and well. It is a moral crime to send them off with minimum mandates and questionable support. Yes our government makes this call, and right or wrong our soldiers are at risk. Its not that complicated. until you let the politicians get ahold of the problem! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 The fact that they're some of the worst people the world has seen since the Khmer Rouge? -k There are plenty of horrid places lead by terrible people in the world. Who's next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Eyeball - Ok, so if Indonesia, China, or the US start invading countries, and those countries ask for our help we should do nothing then ? There is a difference when a country ASKED for Help but in Afg. is totally different. The US wanted the Taliban out and put there own guy in a leader. Afg. didn't asked for help, it was invaded for the same reason as Iraq...oil, and US military centre to rule the Middle-East. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Topez, I was just trying to ascertain what Eyeball's criteria were. You're correct, that Afghanistan was invaded without direct provocation, however the Afghan people do seem to want 'Western' involvement there. There is a difference when a country ASKED for Help but in Afg. is totally different. The US wanted the Taliban out and put there own guy in a leader. Afg. didn't asked for help, it was invaded for the same reason as Iraq...oil, and US military centre to rule the Middle-East. I would say that the reasons were more political. The US needed to show its people, and the world that it was ready to do something and Afghanistan was harbouring Bin Laden so off they went. Was that motivation reasonable ? It was more reasonable than invading the country 'for oil', which I don't think they did. I would say that the invasion was understandable, but that to invade a country to arrest a small group of people isn't reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 They should have gone in to hunt for Bin. Instead they, and we , and the rest of the world supported an invasion. In my opinion that was a mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 They should have gone in to hunt for Bin. Instead they, and we , and the rest of the world supported an invasion. In my opinion that was a mistake. Then it was also a mistake to join NATO...which brings responsibilities. Was it also a mistake for CF-18s to bomb Serbs ?.....Canada was never attacked. How about Haiti? Maybe only the "fair weather" wars are popular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 I think that NATO and the UN are foolish places to place our trust. Both are unaccountable for starters. Both have undemocratic principles as their foundations, with the use of VETO power. My point did not go there though. I said it was a mistake to use military force against Afghanistan. At least as far as an invasion goes, the force should have been small sized hunter killer groups seeking the actual person charged with murder. The civilians had nothing to do with this and yet still are made to pay for it. Yes the Taliban were bad guys, backward socially and repressive to their people, but that is not what the war is all about now is it? It was about Bin, and bringing him to justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 I think that NATO and the UN are foolish places to place our trust. Both are unaccountable for starters. Both have undemocratic principles as their foundations, with the use of VETO power. Yet, Canada attacked Iraq once and was ready to do it again based on UN resolutions. My point did not go there though. I said it was a mistake to use military force against Afghanistan. At least as far as an invasion goes, the force should have been small sized hunter killer groups seeking the actual person charged with murder. The initial "invasion" and bombing campaign was small. It is occupation that requires numbers. The civilians had nothing to do with this and yet still are made to pay for it. Yes the Taliban were bad guys, backward socially and repressive to their people, but that is not what the war is all about now is it? It was about Bin, and bringing him to justice. Bin Laden could have been killed on day one and little would change. The larger issue of failed states being crucibles for virulent fundamentalism and attacks on western interests would still exist. Some people forget that the issue precedes 9/11 by many years. As to civilians, they cannot hide behind chivalry while cheering beheading contests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 I think that NATO and the UN are foolish places to place our trust. Both are unaccountable for starters. Both have undemocratic principles as their foundations, with the use of VETO power.My point did not go there though. I said it was a mistake to use military force against Afghanistan. At least as far as an invasion goes, the force should have been small sized hunter killer groups seeking the actual person charged with murder. The civilians had nothing to do with this and yet still are made to pay for it. Yes the Taliban were bad guys, backward socially and repressive to their people, but that is not what the war is all about now is it? It was about Bin, and bringing him to justice. There is the fact that Afghanistan was being used as a terrorist training ground. It wasn't just that the Taliban were bad guys, it was that they were bad guys who were effectively a branch of international Islamist terrorism. They were not only giving safe harbor to Al Qaeda, but were effectively aligning themselves with Al Qaeda. I don't know about you, but I feel safer knowing that, no matter how many successes the Taliban may have, their capacity to operate as Bin Laden's hotel chain has been effectively terminated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 I don't know about you, but I feel safer knowing that, no matter how many successes the Taliban may have, their capacity to operate as Bin Laden's hotel chain has been effectively terminated. Now it is Pakistan you want to invade them too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 There is a difference when a country ASKED for Help but in Afg. is totally different. The US wanted the Taliban out and put there own guy in a leader. Afg. didn't asked for help, it was invaded for the same reason as Iraq...oil, and US military centre to rule the Middle-East. That's a load of crap. The Northern Alliance had been begging for help for years, and those guys were who most countries on the planet recognized as the legal government of Afghanistan. But it wasn't about helping people, but about removing the terrorist-friendly Taliban from power. I'd love to see invasions that were about helping people as well. For instance, I'd love to see Mugabe chased out of Zimbabwe, and high-altitude bombers flying over Khartoum with the threat that if the genocide in Darfur doesn't stop, the city will be turned into a nuclear wasteland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.