bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 ..... There are other ways to bring about change besides using military force, and there is ample evidence that you cannot change a culture or ideology such as this through the use of violence. Sure....the "use of violence" was very ineffective against Japan and Germany. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Why not Afgan, i mean our history is full of examples of Canadians giving thier lives up freely for countries like Britian, France, the rest of europe, Russia, China, Vietnam, korea, the list goes on and on in fact in may be much easier to name the countries Canada has not split it's blood for....So why not Afghanistan...This week i watched 4 of our young men being loaded onto a herc, to make the long journey back to Canada, i know the pain and tears that will come with that journey, as it starts here on the tarmac........But to these Canadian soldiers who serve here and now this is not a waste of our time, money, and lives....It is our Mission, our duty, our place in the world, as Canadian soldiers to offer a small piece of what we have in Canada, a small piece of what we take for granted every day....a small piece of peace, and hope.... I know for some Canadians it is hard to think that those two words are worth all the effort we are putting in over here....our tax dollars, and for the most part that is the Canadian contribution....But for our Soldiers, wives, friends, families, it is more than that.... it's blood, sweat and tears, and sometimes a life.....and if we are willing to give all that ....why can't the rest of Canada just get on board.... I could if you would only stand between the country's that are interfering in the affairs of others and the one's that are being interfered with. I refuse to support anything less and until I see otherwise you can expect me to oppose any and all alliances with countries that insist on never minding their own damn business. Your mission and your duty, is to uphold OUR place in the world, not someone else's. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Army Guy Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Because unlike soldiers we are able to use our independent thought and critical analysis. A soldier is expected to do what they're told by the leadership, without questioning. For that level of loyalty we are all grateful but its not our job to obey without question.It is in fact our job, to QUESTION, so that unscrupulous leaders can't have their way and abuse their power, and send troops to wars that aren't beneficial to Canadians somehow. A positive outcome in the use of war to bring about change, is not guaranteed. There are other ways to bring about change besides using military force, and there is ample evidence that you cannot change a culture or ideology such as this through the use of violence. They're plenty of soldiers here on this board all capable of independent thought, and very good at critical analysis, if anything a Canadian soldier is very good at speaking his mind and airing out the laundry so to speak. In fact the CDS encourages soldiers to speak to the press and media, as long as they have the knowledge and back ground to do so. It is every soldiers job to question every order he recieves to prove it is valid, and lawful, so i think we can put the mindless robot theory away. Have you questioned, whom have you questioned, or have you contained your remarks to this and other forums....I mean it is your job, and if you have a right to question if i'm doing mine then i should have the right to ask you are you doing yours.....Because from mine end of the stick...your not, you and the other slightly less than 1/2 of the Canadian population are whinning and moaning but really doing nothing.... Your right about the outcome of war, but then again nothing is 100 % guaranteed is it, Diplomatic talks, Economic sanctions, etc etc...in fact there is just as much evidence available to sugest they do not work in all situtions...War should be used as a last resort, when all other methods fail..in most cases....Pearl habour was an act that brought in the US into WWII against Japan, 9/11 was an act that brought to bear NATO military forces against terror.. There are even certain arguments to be made, that democracy is not POSSIBLE in a country such as Afghanistan. Nor do these islamic countries even want it, they have their reasons to fundamentally disagree with the concept of democracy. Then again you could argue the moon is made of cheese, take a look at voter turn out on the first election, and come this years election i think you'll see the same results...Voter turn out was higher than it is here in Canada, not really hard to do, considering the weather plays a big part in our turn out...and yet Afghanis turned out after walking serveral hundered klicks to voting stations, with roving bands of terrorists hunting them down, handing out death for even talking about voting....And while thier democracy may not look like ours or anything in the west....They took these chances with thier lives to vote.....Does that say they don't want it.... Besides this weepy rhetoric about bringing peace and democracy, we can only conclude after so many years and with increasing risk of failure, that war on these terms is unwinnable. Either we change our definition of success (already happening now), or accept the fact that we have failed outright. Ya watching 4 young Canadians being loaded into a herc does that, makes you weepy....but it does not make peace and democracy rhetoric... You don't get it, this war has always been winable, and the military has been saying for years now that it must be faught and won on 3 fronts, the battlefield....the diplomatic front, and the home front.....The military has not lost a single engagement with the bad guys...it has accomplished all of it's goals it set out....The diplomatic front here in Afgan is doing well, our government at home well not so well.....the home front, barely in the game...and now they want to change the rules and context to cover thier asses, change the defination of success so they do not have to do anything and can piont the finger at someone else...Let me ask you this what is it that you see bringing a victory in Afghan ? and how do we accomplish that ? Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 I could if you would only stand between the country's that are interfering in the affairs of others and the one's that are being interfered with. I refuse to support anything less and until I see otherwise you can expect me to oppose any and all alliances with countries that insist on never minding their own damn business.Your mission and your duty, is to uphold OUR place in the world, not someone else's. I would hardly call the Afghanistan mission interfering, 9/11 seen the death of over 3000 US civilians, to put that into some perspective pearl harbour seen over 3000 US citizens killed...9/11 required a military response...just as pearl habour did.... And since Canada refuses to pay for all of it's own defence it has entered into a seris of pacts and treaties....Such as NATO, NORAD, etc....signing on to these pacts allows us to live under the protection umbella they afford, with out paying the full cost.....to sum up you get what you pay for, and the act of 9/11 forced us to live up to our treaty obligations, an attack on one member is an attack on all.... So in fact i am doing my duty, upholding our place in the world....you want to stick your head in the sand then start paying in full the bills for defence that would allow you to do so.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
jdobbin Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 And since Canada refuses to pay for all of it's own defence it has entered into a seris of pacts and treaties....Such as NATO, NORAD, etc....signing on to these pacts allows us to live under the protection umbella they afford, with out paying the full cost.....to sum up you get what you pay for, and the act of 9/11 forced us to live up to our treaty obligations, an attack on one member is an attack on all.... So, your argument is that if Canada pays for its own defence, it need not be part of NATO and NORAD? As for our NATO obligations, they don't necessarily mean fighting the insurgency in Afghanistan indefinitely. If it does, someone should speak up now. Quote
Army Guy Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 So, your argument is that if Canada pays for its own defence, it need not be part of NATO and NORAD? Well it would be a start, if we as a nation do not want to live up to our obligations of these treaties, to pick and choose which inter national Crises we assist or attend then yes. until then we live up to those treaties or pull out of them and defend our selfs....Something Canadians will not do.... As for our NATO obligations, they don't necessarily mean fighting the insurgency in Afghanistan indefinitely. If it does, someone should speak up now. You know as well as i do, that there is no time limit attached to any of our treaty obilgations. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
eyeball Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 I would hardly call the Afghanistan mission interfering, 9/11 seen the death of over 3000 US civilians, to put that into some perspective pearl harbour seen over 3000 US citizens killed...9/11 required a military response...just as pearl habour did.... So your saying the attack on 9/11 was a military operation launched from the decks of Afghan air-craft carriers? Canada's response to a call to join in the invasion of Afghanistan should have been the same as our response to the call to join the invasion of Iraq, for the very same reasons. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Army Guy Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 So your saying the attack on 9/11 was a military operation launched from the decks of Afghan air-craft carriers?Canada's response to a call to join in the invasion of Afghanistan should have been the same as our response to the call to join the invasion of Iraq, for the very same reasons. No, i'm saying it was a terrorist attack that required a military response....Al quida (the people who planned, carry out the attack), and the Taliban who provided refuge for those attackers.... Shoulda coulda.....Read about our NATO obilgations...The Iraq war and Afghan war are 2 entirily separate issues, not even close to one another.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
eyeball Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) No, i'm saying it was a terrorist attack that required a military response....Al quida (the people who planned, carry out the attack), and the Taliban who provided refuge for those attackers.... Shoulda coulda.....Read about our NATO obilgations...The Iraq war and Afghan war are 2 entirily separate issues, not even close to one another.... Their root causes of most of their issues, interference, are identical. I'm pretty sure all the attackers were killed in the attack and there were no survivors to give refuge to. As for those westerners who have been planning and carrying out interference in the affairs of others, diddling as I usually call it, they're still on the loose, kinda like bin Waldo still is. Edited March 10, 2009 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
M.Dancer Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) I'm pretty sure all the attackers were killed in the attack and there were no survivors to give refuge to. Well instead of being a hippy you should change professions and become an intelligence analyst...and the analysts should become hippies cause they seem to think those who planned the attack such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed lived. His capture is a direct result of the Afghan mission. Edited March 10, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Army Guy Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Their root causes of most of their issues, interference, are identical. I'm pretty sure all the attackers were killed in the attack and there were no survivors to give refuge to. I call bullshit, provide a link that even suggest that the 2 wars are linked, and identical....or are you pulling this out of that 1/4 inch speaker located in your southern quaters..... No Survivors, shit thats funney, have to remember that next time i'm outside the wire... As for those westerners who have been planning and carrying out interference in the affairs of others, diddling as I usually call it, they're still on the loose, kinda like bin Waldo still is. The treaties we live under do not have caveats that allow Canada to pick and choose what we respond to....Besides those westerners you keep refering to pay most of our defence bills, until we can pay for our own defence we are stuck with those defence treaties and all of our obligations... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Canadian Blue Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Well instead of being a hippy you should change professions and become an intelligence analyst...and the analysts should become hippies cause they seem to think those who planned the attack such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed lived. His capture is a direct result of the Afghan mission. What, I thought if we just sang "We are the world" while roasting marshmellows over a fire we'd have no more war. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
noahbody Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 What, I thought if we just sang "We are the world" while roasting marshmellows over a fire we'd have no more war. You have to buy the world a Coke too. Don't be cheap. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 The head lines read this morning that military equipment is falling apart, servicing and supplying fuel has become a problem - What's that telling us in these changing economic times? It may be telling us that war is a luxury. Diplomatic efforts and friendships are a must. Quote
Wilber Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 So your saying the attack on 9/11 was a military operation launched from the decks of Afghan air-craft carriers?Canada's response to a call to join in the invasion of Afghanistan should have been the same as our response to the call to join the invasion of Iraq, for the very same reasons. It was definitely a military operation launched by a major guerrilla organization. What difference does it make how the attack was launched, the fact is it was launched by people based in Afghanistan and supported by the then Afghan government. It was never shown that the US was attacked by people based in Iraq or supported by the Iraqi government therefore Canada had no obligation under NATO to take part in an invasion of Iraq. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Oleg Bach Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 It was definitely a military operation launched by a major guerrilla organization. What difference does it make how the attack was launched, the fact is it was launched by people based in Afghanistan and supported by the then Afghan government. It was never shown that the US was attacked by people based in Iraq or supported by the Iraqi government therefore Canada had no obligation under NATO to take part in an invasion of Iraq. Over and over again - who cared where they were based - You go after the man who supplies the materials for that attack not the common terrorist grunts who happened to be in Afghanistan. No one wants to deal with that fact that it was Saudi Arabian and perhaps money out of Paksitan that facilitated the attack - This makes as much sense as a person coming up to one of your kids and slamming them with a bat - and you spend all of your energy and resoursed tracking that person down - to seek justice and puniitive satisfaction...YET the person reponsible stands on the side lines smiling in arrogant glee ...that person who supplied the bat - the person who payed the attacker - what's with us - is money and oil more important than our own citizens? It like a rich man that gives you a few dollars on occasion - he kills your mother and you turn a blind eye to it because you are afraid of a drop in your income? This is utter socio-pathic selfishness...Now that we are committed to the mission in Afghanistan it does not matter how we got there - we should go back to what we do best PEACE KEEPING...not chasing peasant goat farmers around and killing them because so rich oil shiek knocked down the World Trade Center of fun and profit while western administrators refuse to acknowledge that Saudi may make SOME rich - they are not our friends. Quote
jdobbin Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Well it would be a start, if we as a nation do not want to live up to our obligations of these treaties, to pick and choose which inter national Crises we assist or attend then yes. until then we live up to those treaties or pull out of them and defend our selfs....Something Canadians will not do.... Actually, Canadians have done that in the past and could do it again if they needed to. The question is do you think Canada should pull out of these organizations to defend Canada and its interests only? You know as well as i do, that there is no time limit attached to any of our treaty obilgations. And you know as well as I do, there is no treaty obligation to fight insurgents indefinitely in Afghanistan. It is up to us at some point to determine whether the country is still a threat to NATO or its members, not to support in its fight with itself. Quote
Wilber Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Actually, Canadians have done that in the past and could do it again if they needed to. The question is do you think Canada should pull out of these organizations to defend Canada and its interests only? Not wise or cheap. The US will defend itself on our soil if they have to. Much better to have agreements with them. Sweden is the neutral that compares closest to to Canada. In 2004 it ranked #87 when it came to % of GDP spent on defense. Canada ranked #117. Neutrality isn't cheap, you can't rely on anyone else to come to your aid. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Oleg Bach Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Canada does not need to belong to a club. Things get to complex when the world is ruled by committee - and that is what NATO is. When things are complex it increases the probablity for error - Canada should keep it simple - and if there is a serious problem - then we will be there. How can we do what's correct when you have the input and bickering of a group - that eventually acts like a mob or gang - The term and title NATO -sounded very elegant and noble in a past era - but really is now simply a trouble maker. Quote
Army Guy Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Actually, Canadians have done that in the past and could do it again if they needed to. The question is do you think Canada should pull out of these organizations to defend Canada and its interests only? Me personally, i think our present defence agreements and treaties are good for Canada at this time and with our current econemy, and current deficit. but they're is a trade off in our current agreements we do not have total national soviegnty. For instance in our NORAD agreement, we pay approx 10 % of the cost to run and maintain air, maritime, space defences...as a result some of our territory comes under US control....in fact the entire NORAD HQ is under US control, as it should as they foot the bill...therefore that HQ's will always act in the US best interest if it came to that... I suggested that If eyeball was to keep his head stuck in the sand, we would need to have more control over our defence and the defence agreements we are involved with.. And you know as well as I do, there is no treaty obligation to fight insurgents indefinitely in Afghanistan. It is up to us at some point to determine whether the country is still a threat to NATO or its members, not to support in its fight with itself. Actually NATO will decide this, until then we still have an obilgation to keep our commitment...Of course we as a nation can opt out of NATO at any time....I think this war has progress past the piont of defeating the Taliban that has been done, they are no longer a threat to NATO as per say....but they are a threat to Afghan. and since we where involved in a Government removal, NATO has taken responsability of rebuilding the new government...I agree with you it's been a long road....but it's not time to quit just yet.... This mission is very important to NATO and it's future the orginal members have already been talking about whom has really been contributing and who is just riding the coat tails....if it fails there will be lots of questions asked, and perhaps a new allianace formed.... And because Canada has not really taken defence matters to heart, we have fallen well under the 8 ball, and would need to be part of some alliance perhaps costing us more of our national sovereigty. So the outcome of this mission does effect Canada not just on this front but others as well. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
jdobbin Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Not wise or cheap. The US will defend itself on our soil if they have to. Much better to have agreements with them. Sweden is the neutral that compares closest to to Canada. In 2004 it ranked #87 when it came to % of GDP spent on defense. Canada ranked #117. Neutrality isn't cheap, you can't rely on anyone else to come to your aid. I certainly don't advocate for neutrality. However, I certainly contest that we have to stay in Afghanistan as per treaty obligation until every Afghan is free of insurgency. Certainly, in past conflicts where Canada had allies, there was a rotation in and out of the hotspots. Canada will have been in the hotspot a lot longer than the majority of NATO. Our treaty says nothing about Canada being the sharp point of the stick with no replacements from other member countries. I think things have to measured in terms of our own security and needs. The objective all along was to neutralize, capture or kill al Qaeda and if the Taliban got in the way, sweep them aside. The mission morphing into nation-building is problematic since the country remains very tribal. We can only go so far, so long. The heavy work needs to be done by Afghanistan itself. In other words, we won't be leaving Afghanistan perfect even under ideal circumstances. Quote
jdobbin Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Me personally, i think our present defence agreements and treaties are good for Canada at this time and with our current econemy, and current deficit. but they're is a trade off in our current agreements we do not have total national soviegnty. For instance in our NORAD agreement, we pay approx 10 % of the cost to run and maintain air, maritime, space defences...as a result some of our territory comes under US control....in fact the entire NORAD HQ is under US control, as it should as they foot the bill...therefore that HQ's will always act in the US best interest if it came to that... Plus, you have to take into account that the U.S. would likely regard it as a hostile move if Canada took over its own defence. I have no problem being allies but it doesn't mean we have to be pushovers as well. Canada has shown itself be a friend and ally but NATO has dropped the ball on Afghanistan. Even Biden today says the war is not being won. A surge of troops might help but we can't do it alone and we can't be taken advantage of by other NATO members who want Canadians to shoulder much of the insurgency. Actually NATO will decide this, until then we still have an obilgation to keep our commitment...Of course we as a nation can opt out of NATO at any time....I think this war has progress past the piont of defeating the Taliban that has been done, they are no longer a threat to NATO as per say....but they are a threat to Afghan. and since we where involved in a Government removal, NATO has taken responsability of rebuilding the new government...I agree with you it's been a long road....but it's not time to quit just yet.... I don't know if the circumstances will ever be perfect for Afghanistan. And Canada as a member of NATO can ask for a different assignment and be rotated out of where they are. If it is a true alliance, other countries will rotate in where we are and take on some of the burden. This mission is very important to NATO and it's future the orginal members have already been talking about whom has really been contributing and who is just riding the coat tails....if it fails there will be lots of questions asked, and perhaps a new allianace formed.... It certainly won't be Canada's commitment that is questioned. Other NATO members have been slacking. And because Canada has not really taken defence matters to heart, we have fallen well under the 8 ball, and would need to be part of some alliance perhaps costing us more of our national sovereigty. So the outcome of this mission does effect Canada not just on this front but others as well. We need the ability to rotate in and out of hotspots. We had that ability in other conflicts because we had allies. It is possible we could boost our troop commitment. We have increased our overall forces. But we seem to be alone with with a few other member countries and this doesn't bode well. Canada should be able to rotate by 2011 if this alliance means anything. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Canada HAD the ability to rotate in an out of hot spots but lost that ability because of the fear the NATO alliance has of the boss of NATO - America. It's a habitualist ecomomic fear. The Canadian buisness community has always feared the Americans and are quietly compliant to their will. Now that our fear is lessened because our big brother to the south stubbed his toe and is to busy hobbling about - perhaps we can re-negotiate with the Amercans on what our role concerning them and NATO just might be in the future. It's a free for all and a new start for everyone - because as they say death is the great equalizer - well so is economic collapse _ NO one has the upper hand here. Quote
Wilber Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 In other words, we won't be leaving Afghanistan perfect even under ideal circumstances. I don't think anyone disputes that, the question is under what circumstances do we leave. It is not just a matter of what point we have fulfilled our NATO obligation, we have assumed moral obligations to Afghanis who support what we are trying to do for their country. No one can fulfill our moral obligations but us and we can blame no one else if we chose to renege on them, regardless if others are pulling their weight or not. If we pull out, we will have to bear some responsibility for what ever happens to those people because of our doing so. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Oleg Bach Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 I don't think anyone disputes that, the question is under what circumstances do we leave. It is not just a matter of what point we have fulfilled our NATO obligation, we have assumed moral obligations to Afghanis who support what we are trying to do for their country. No one can fulfill our moral obligations but us and we can blame no one else if we chose to renege on them, regardless if others are pulling their weight or not. If we pull out, we will have to bear some responsibility for what ever happens to those people because of our doing so. What we view as the ammoral Americans are more moral than anticipated - They can not leave Iraq because there will be mass murders taking place in the form of retribution for assisting the occupiers. Odd how Canada and even the US show some heart once they get to know the people. Quote
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.