Afghanistan war un-winnable?

[Army Guy]

I have no problem about doing more for Canadian defence. I just know that it will be regarded suspiciously by the U.S. if we start in earnest.

After riding the coat tails for 30 or more years ya i'd be suspicious as well...but if we present them with a well laided out plan, i'd bet they would be more than happy to assist us...it make sense for both countries...after they're goading us to take some sort of action....

While other strategists and State department people regarded any northern build up on our part as a threat to U.S. interests in the area. You know that. You've seen that.

Our current plans to build up pose little to no threat to US interests...in fact if anything it creates a stronger secure north....which is good for both countries....

It really affected their credibility making promises like that only to neglect them a few months later.

Hence why i don't think we've seen a white paper since, come to think of it i have'nt seen a foreign policy paper put out since then either...

In other words, they would intimidate us from asserting our authority over say...commercial traffic because it might affect their interests.

I think it would take alittle more than that, but if the US wanted it bad enough they could assert more than just military authority, but econimic as well....but like i said it would take a pretty big need to force the US hand...after all we are thier retarded little brother....

We have given more and it not us being regarded as deadbeats. We should be able to rotate in and out of areas as per our alliance. What I keep hearing is that there is no one else.

Sorry my bad, i meant we were given a little more than the deadbeats....not that we where a dead beat....but we as nation can give alot more...and stop pionting fingers at who is doing what....instead let the big boys get pissed off and piont fingers....

If we want to assert authority in the north, it will be more than troops, planes and ships. Build a road from northern Manitoba to Nunavut and back to Yellowknife. That would do more for control of the north than any other project.

I agree....the combo of everything would strike a good balance...

We can't be there the next 10, 20 or 30 years fighting an insurgency. No one in NATO wants to send 500,000 troops to do the job. No one can guarantee that many will be able to end the tribalism and violence.

War sucks, nobody called cyprus and our 25 year stay there either....but we sucked it up....I've seen these guys up close and i'd much rather fight themhere and now than perhaps tommorow in downtown toronto....

[neutralguy]

If we are still fighting an insurgency 20 or 30 years from now, I'd hate to hear the same old story that it is winnable. That has to come from Afghanistan itself and all I have seen is a weak, corrupt and fractured government. As for our allies, if only four to eight countries do the heavy lifting, it remains unsustainable if it lacks decades.

If the USA could use the force they used for Iraq..this would be a much happier story. Again Mr.Bush messed up.

[Oleg Bach]

Look you are young but you are already getting to be old school - "Economic authority" or coersion on behalf of the U S ? Not likely. Our big brother has a wound and that wound is bleeding - if they at this point in time attempt to induce Canada to submit to their will by disturbing our economy--- their own wound will continue to bleed - If America attempts to make moves in this area against us it will be a bluff - and we will probably go for it. America is not in a postion to intimidate our buisness class at this point...I just hope we take advantage of this weakness - that may be perminent or again they may bounce back with a vengence..but I doubt it --- releasing false stock market reports of some recovering upswing will not work.

[eyeball]

Well, George W Bush was right on one thing (i'll give him that one - he needs it) that the true judgement in Iraq will come much more into the future. When there is a new govt. there and it functions much like any other nation.

Same thing in afghanistan..success/failure..you won't really know for a long long time. I would say a success is anything where there is a democractic country in place, the people have power, and they can secure their own country.

Yeah, well I predict Iraq will turn into an inferno and then a theocracy after the US leaves.

A long, long time...much more into the future eh? So how much would be too much? I'm predicting none for the truly and obsequiously faithful.

Edited March 14, 2009 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah, well I predict Iraq will turn into an inferno and then a theocracy after the US leaves.

OK...I predict that Canada will turn into the Balkans West after the US leaves.

A long, long time...much more into the future eh? So how much would be too much? I'm predicting none for the truly and obsequiously faithful.

Of course, any success must still be classified as a failure lest NATO dare try such a thing again.

Edited March 14, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

OK...I predict that Canada will turn into the Balkans West after the US leaves.

Of course, any success must still be classified as a failure lest NATO dare try such a thing again.

Give em hell B C - I'm going out into the sunshine - enjoy....Nato ------that's some sort of post war orgainization - pretty much out of time and not in step with the real world - If it worked the problems it faces would be solved by now - get rid of that damned thing and start fresh....see you ---- and no BC - we are not having a bromance... All is well and the sub is channeling out.

[Rue]

This sort of condescending attitude is what many civilians expect from politicians and apologists who make 'promises' or otherwise candy-coat their shit with truthiness.

I accurately pegged this stupid war as a bottomless quagmire within 5 minutes of hearing about it. It only took about half as long as figuring out why anyone would want to fly an airplane into a building.

Imagining people who disagree with you are stupid is a particularily stupid thing to do.

I never stated anyone who disagrees with me is stupid nor did I state I assume anyone who

thinks the Afghan conflict is stupid must think in the manner I have challenged.

You have deliberately taken what I have stated out of context to try simplify what I have raised

and render the debate a black and white-you are for or against it proposition.

Save your assumptions and simplifactions for your own thought processes.

What I challenged is anyone who thinks the Canadian mission is stupid because it can

not bring about a conventional war victory.

However now that you have raised your response, I also challenge people like you who turn

such complex issues into black and white for or against phenomena.

Some of us can not stand the conflict, do not like Canadian soldiers being exposed to

danger, think all armed conflicts are stupid, but also are able to understand it is not that

simple and that if the world was that simple and we could just define it as right and wrong

smart of stupid I would suggest to you-someone like you would be very unhappy and be the first

to complain believing the world can be reduced to such rigid assumptions is stupid.

You want to try stupid on? Try it in this context as over simplifying what the mission is, why

it has challenges, why it is imperfect, why at best it might obtain some but not all the things

it was intended to help bring about and why it is being done precisely because people like you

want to live in a certain lifestyle, but are not willing to compromise on certain commodities or

engage in providing constructive alternative solutions.

Anyone can call something stupid. That is a lazy man's game.

What is your alternative?

[Rue]

Yeah, well I predict Iraq will turn into an inferno and then a theocracy after the US leaves.

A long, long time...much more into the future eh? So how much would be too much? I'm predicting none for the truly and obsequiously faithful.

Your belief that when the civilized American man leaves the cannibals will eat themselves

repeated by Busch Chaney is also the kind of simplistic black and white rigid

thought process I challenge as much as the genius claiming the Canadian mission in Afghanistan

mission is stupid.

As for your armageddon, unoriginal. Every preacher warns of the coming

apocolypse let alone how without the noble white man, the world will end up

a rubble of chaos.

Antiquated, simplistic, based on cultural bias and the assumption that the invaders

are enlightened and superior and bring advancement to those they conquer, not to

mention a completely ignorant take on history based on cultural chauvenism.

In history the conquerors have at times brought with them new ways of doing things,

but often have also brought with them destructive ways of doing things.

In the case of U.S. operations in Iraq if you want to continue the belief that the invasion brought

with it civilization and without that civilization the Iraqi society will revert back to savagery that

is quaint and romantic and most certainly reflects your John Wayne upbringing but some of

us would suggest its defective.

Its based on blatant selective bias for what you think makes you and your American way of

life superior and is precisely the kind of chauvenistic attitude that causes many of us, including

Americans to have no time of day for people like you and explain why the US became such an

outcast because of this kind of attitude of the loud American barging there way in and assuming their

MacDonald-Coca Cola universe would enlighten the savages.

What did it bring? It brought a monopoly of Chaney connected corporations with contracts to rebuild

the nation without allowing the participation or involvement of the Iraqi people. It brought in

a society where American multi-nationals secured corupt billion dollar government contracts and then

wasted and embezzled billions supposedly ear-marked for rebuilding Iraqi society.

What it brought was a country over-run with private security mercenaries operating outside the law and

running the country no differently then the mafia or the Taliban does.

It created a situation where the conventional US Armed Forces were reduced to secondary participants and sitting

ducks to die to serve as cover for these mercenaries.

It brought with it a system where there were thousands more private security thugs then conventional

soldiers.

It brought with it corupt businesses who had zero respect for the US Armed Forces and ridiculed them

and deliberately put them in harm's way.

The US went in under the lie of chasing Osama Ben Laden and weapons of destruction. That was

exposed as a complete and utter lie.

The reality is it was a war created by Bush Chaney to appease corupt multi-corporations and serve as a

pretext to award them billion dollar contracts which bankrupt the US economy.

Just where is that civilization you think Haliburton brought? Do you think Haliburton's executives and their

body guards met with the people and worked with them?

Grow up. Iraq was blown away into stone age. You call that civilization? Zero electricity. Zero water. Zero

infrastructure. Zero jobs. Private mercanaries driving around killing and raping and operating exactly as what

they were, terriorist thugs.

They made a mockery of what the US stands for and what the US Armed Forces codes of honour stand for.

Everyone should agree-getting ride of Hussein was a noble thing. The US Armed Forces commanders however

made it clear they warned Chaney and Bush do not use them as a police force and have them stranded with poor

logistics fighting civilians. Chaney Bush ignored them. Donald Duck Rumsfeld ignored them.

Chaney and Rumsfeld did what politicians do, ignore soldiers and do whatever they thought in their financial best interests

and the results are a bankrupt nation.

You do not win the hearts and minds of people and claim to bring them civility and democracy by blowing them back

to the stoneage and then refusing to allow them to participate in the rebuilding of their nation and allowing them

to control their destinies.

How do you bring democracy by controlling people with private security thugs operating without any laws and a

system that keeps the masses confined to their rubble?

It failed precisely because this John Wayne cowboy shoot em up approach which the Bush Chaneys of

the world believe in is based on ignorance of how the world operates outside Dick Chaney's back yard and

assumes if its in Haliburton's interest, it is in the world's interest.

There was a time the US inspired through the peace corps. The US Armed Forces has created and demonstrated

a successful precedent in Djibouti of how the conventional US armed forces can be used to develop solid

relations with the communities overseas it interacts with.

Your antiquated notion of John Wayne coming in and blowing people up belongs in comic books. It is

no accident your country voted in a B-rate actor to advocate such comic book fiction. Some of you

can't tell the difference between a 2 bit Hollywood script and real life.

Edited March 14, 2009 by Rue

[eyeball]

I never stated anyone who disagrees with me is stupid nor did I state I assume anyone who

thinks the Afghan conflict is stupid must think in the manner I have challenged.

You have deliberately taken what I have stated out of context to try simplify what I have raised

and render the debate a black and white-you are for or against it proposition.

Save your assumptions and simplifactions for your own thought processes.

I'm sorry Rue, the last comment I made was more influenced by Morris' comments.

What I challenged is anyone who thinks the Canadian mission is stupid because it can

not bring about a conventional war victory.

However now that you have raised your response, I also challenge people like you who turn

such complex issues into black and white for or against phenomena.

What I responded to in your case is the assumption about civilian notions about war and the implication that civilians can't handle the truth because we're too stupid to do so. Its condescending and...stupid. I've never been under any illusion about the winnability of this war in any sort of conventional context when it started and nor am I now. The very last thing I expect is that the world will be safer because in fact I think the opposite will be the case.

Some of us can not stand the conflict, do not like Canadian soldiers being exposed to

danger, think all armed conflicts are stupid, but also are able to understand it is not that

simple and that if the world was that simple and we could just define it as right and wrong

smart of stupid I would suggest to you-someone like you would be very unhappy and be the first

to complain believing the world can be reduced to such rigid assumptions is stupid.

Well I think it is that simple. This particular conflict has roots that are very easy to understand, there is nothing at all complex about blowback or what it is or what caused it, because the difference between what is right and wrong is something most Canadians know or should know by the time they graduate kindergarten.

You want to try stupid on? Try it in this context as over simplifying what the mission is, why

it has challenges, why it is imperfect, why at best it might obtain some but not all the things

it was intended to help bring about and why it is being done precisely because people like you

want to live in a certain lifestyle, but are not willing to compromise on certain commodities or

engage in providing constructive alternative solutions.

I'm not willing to compromise or offer alternatives eh? See below.

Anyone can call something stupid. That is a lazy man's game.

Go try telling that to Morris I guess.

What is your alternative?

We get in America's, I'm sorry, the West's face and tell it to stand down and stop diddling around with the internal affairs of other countries and most importantly start acknowleging the immense harm and mess doing so in the past has already caused. Canada should unilaterally declare this to be a crime against humanity and that Canada will have nothing to do with any nation that causes the sort of blowback that's at the root of the conflict in Aghanistan. Its that freaking simple. If this means telling America that Canada is closed to them, then so be it.

Is that compromising enough for you? You know damn well how taking such a principled stand would impact our lifestyles. That said, look at the sacrifices Canada made in the past when it last stood up to evil. I suspect the reason our government can't stand the truth about this conflict is that facing it will lead us smack into the path of some of our closest friends but as the saying goes real friends shouldn't let friends...fill-in-blank here.

Edited March 14, 2009 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

Give em hell B C - I'm going out into the sunshine - enjoy....

May as well....the snow is melting fast and the fat ladies are out walking today. The new age bicyclists are out in force too.

Worship the Sun...our only true god!

[eyeball]

Your belief that when the civilized American man leaves the cannibals will eat themselves

repeated by Busch Chaney is also the kind of simplistic black and white rigid

thought process I challenge as much as the genius claiming the Canadian mission in Afghanistan

mission is stupid.

As for your armageddon, unoriginal. Every preacher warns of the coming

apocolypse let alone how without the noble white man, the world will end up

a rubble of chaos.

What I meant is that once the west stops interfering in Iraq it will evolve into something else on its own. I just happen to think this process will include a civil and perhaps a regional war over where the chips fall.

If we'd only just left the bloody region alone back in the 50's...ah what's the use...water under the bridge? No, nitroglycerine is more like it.

Edited March 14, 2009 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

....It failed precisely because this John Wayne cowboy shoot em up approach which the Bush Chaneys of

the world believe in is based on ignorance of how the world operates outside Dick Chaney's back yard and

assumes if its in Haliburton's interest, it is in the world's interest.

Not sure who your rant is directed at, but it's comical either way. Your definition of failure is irrelevant, if only because your own nation's armed forces facilitated the destruction of Iraq.

There was a time the US inspired through the peace corps. The US Armed Forces has created and demonstrated

a successful precedent in Djibouti of how the conventional US armed forces can be used to develop solid

relations with the communities overseas it interacts with.

When pretending to know what the US armed forces have created, you might take more time to understand context and scope.

Your antiquated notion of John Wayne coming in and blowing people up belongs in comic books. It is

no accident your country voted in a B-rate actor to advocate such comic book fiction. Some of you

can't tell the difference between a 2 bit Hollywood script and real life.

Actually, he was the governor of California as well, a state which had more GDP than the entire country of Canada....and still does.

Environmental protections were pioneered on his watch, the same protections that Canada can only copy.

[eyeball]

Not sure who your rant is directed at, but it's comical either way. Your definition of failure is irrelevant, if only because your own nation's armed forces facilitated the destruction of Iraq.

Yep, getting in own face certainly won't be as simple as looking in a mirror.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yep, getting in own face certainly won't be as simple as looking in a mirror.

That's fine...just use the same optics. If "Bush Chaney" failed, then so did Chretien and Martin.

[eyeball]

That's fine...just use the same optics. If "Bush Chaney" failed, then so did Chretien and Martin.

You know full well I do already and yes Chretien and Martin failed and Harper is no different. Even Obama doesn't appear to be capable of changing much beyond repositioning a few deck chairs.

Oh well, cheer up, you can blame Canada when things go south or am I supposed to believe you and Uncle Sam will likewise fess up to your own country's blunders?

Sucks to be us too alright.

The federal government is apparently prepared to accept the risk that some of its soldiers could be killed or captured, in a war that Canada refused to join.

[bush_cheney2004]

You know full well I do already and yes Chretien and Martin failed and Harper is no different. Even Obama doesn't appear to be capable of changing much beyond repositioning a few deck chairs.

Look, if you insist upon invoking the American bogeyman behind every corner, don't be surprised to find that you have a few of your own. Everything is a failure by your estimation, and that just means you give lousy estimates.

Oh well, cheer up, you can blame Canada when things go south or am I supposed to believe you and Uncle Sam will likewise fess up to your own country's blunders?

Why would it even matter, except for your laughable truth commissions.

[eyeball]

What I meant is that once the west stops interfering in Iraq it will evolve into something else on its own. I just happen to think this process will include a civil and perhaps a regional war over where the chips fall.

I do hope I'm wrong by the way. So do more than a few Iraqi's apparently

Iraq's voices of pessimism

Life may appear to be improving in Iraq, reports the BBC's Mike Sergeant, but while most Iraqis are desperate to believe the war is over, many still worry about what the future may hold.

---

One Iraqi friend told me that there will be many scores to settle once the US military leaves.

"Most people are sick and tired of violence, but some are just waiting for the right moment to take their revenge," he said.

"People in this country never forget, particularly if their relatives were brutally killed."

Story

Nor do people in the region ever seem to forget, particularily if they've lost loved one's to some brutal regime the west has installed or propped up.

[eyeball]

Look, if you insist upon invoking the American bogeyman behind every corner, don't be surprised to find that you have a few of your own.

You mean the western bogeymen don't you? I'd be surprised to find out we didn't contribute just as many, proportionally speaking. We seem to be better at building slightly more convincing corners to hide behind is all. Which is nothing to be proud of by the way.

Why would it even matter, except for your laughable truth commissions.

Lets start initiating some and maybe you'll find out.

[bush_cheney2004]

You mean the western bogeymen don't you? I'd be surprised to find out we didn't contribute just as many, proportionally speaking. We seem to be better at building slightly more convincing corners to hide behind is all. Which is nothing to be proud of by the way.

Why not? Do you think you will get a better seat in heaven (or here on earth)? I don't even know what you mean by "we" anymore, since it's just a term of convenience. Travel the world a bit and try to discern the difference between "western" failures and all the rest...then tell us who wins the prize.

Lets start initiating some and maybe you'll find out.

Sure...from the comfort of your "western" crib....how convenient (yet again).

[eyeball]

Why not? Do you think you will get a better seat in heaven (or here on earth)?

No, a better seat in hell if anything.

I don't even know what you mean by "we" anymore, since it's just a term of convenience.

I meant Canada obviously.

Travel the world a bit and try to discern the difference between "western" failures and all the rest...then tell us who wins the prize.

The biggest failure wins of course.

Sure...from the comfort of your "western" crib....how convenient (yet again).

No, I'd look for nuetral ground, assuming there is any. Maybe Antarctica.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, a better seat in hell if anything.

But perhaps you have your own hell right now.....that's your choice.

I meant Canada obviously.

Right....which has a president named Obama.

The biggest failure wins of course.

Correct...the smallest failures never took any risks.

No, I'd look for nuetral ground, assuming there is any. Maybe Antarctica.

No such thing as neutral.

[eyeball]

Right....which has a president named Obama.

I said - We seem to be better at building slightly more convincing corners to hide behind is all. Which is nothing to be proud of by the way.

You said - I don't even know what you mean by "we" anymore, since it's just a term of convenience.

I said - I meant Canada obviously.

You said - Right....which has a president named Obama.

Wrong, we have a prime minister named Stephen Harper.

No such thing as neutral.

Okay we (as in the human race) should hold the commission in the US then. This might make it a bit easier to for you folks to notice now that I think of it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Wrong, we have a prime minister named Stephen Harper.

Aliens from Alpha Centauri wouldn't know it if they landed in Canada.

Okay we (as in the human race) should hold the commission in the US then. This might make it a bit easier to for you folks to notice now that I think of it.

Only if it included a wrestling tag team death match and NASCAR tits.

[Oleg Bach]

Aliens from Alpha Centauri wouldn't know it if they landed in Canada.

Only if it included a wrestling tag team death match and NASCAR tits.

Nascar tits? Is that a red neck term for headlights?