Army Guy Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 Well Soldiers have been offically cleared of Prisoner abuse....I wonder just what all that cost the tax payer...and whats next Soldiers 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.
Borg Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 Well Soldiers have been offically cleared of Prisoner abuse....I wonder just what all that cost the tax payer...and whats next Soldiers I have complete faith in their professionalism - unfortunately there are many who are quite happy to initiate trouble - and usually they have a platform AND a microphone. Borg Quote
Moonbox Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 Nothing shows we support our men and women in uniform like putting them on trial for bogus accusations.... Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 No one is above the law. They were found innocent, and that's good, but allegations such as this are serious and must be investigated. Soldiers are still people and they are still imperfect . We cannot put them on a pedestal so hing as to make them untouchable. Quote
Moonbox Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 You're right, but the strength of the accusation needs to be measured and weighed before we spend millions of dollars in court. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
ToadBrother Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) No one is above the law. They were found innocent, and that's good, but allegations such as this are serious and must be investigated. Soldiers are still people and they are still imperfect . We cannot put them on a pedestal so hing as to make them untouchable. We send them to hell holes where the enemy has little or no appreciation of rules of engagement, and then basically say "You have to behave like your own maneuvers in Saskatchewan". Either we fighting a war, or we just there for the photo op. This is precisely the same crapola that took out the Airborne Regiment, a place where some of the craziest, but toughest soldiers we ever had were put. We sent them to another horrific place, Somalia, got all shocked when these guys, who saw absolutely vile things being done, finally said "screw it" and got tough themselves. Then we broke up this bad-assest of regiments, and boy, we sure could use some of those bad-asses now. Those are the kind of guys the Taliban will fear, not guys who like to get their pictures taken in front of Tim Horton's trailers. Here's the facts. The Taliban are the latest in a long line of Afghani warriors (dating back even before Alexander the Great) who just don't make war like we do. Either we adapt, or we might as well leave (that's what the Brits and Soviets ended up doing). There's no middle ground here. Edited June 10, 2009 by ToadBrother Quote
Borg Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 We send them to hell holes where the enemy has little or no appreciation of rules of engagement, and then basically say "You have to behave like your own maneuvers in Saskatchewan". Either we fighting a war, or we just there for the photo op.This is precisely the same crapola that took out the Airborne Regiment, a place where some of the craziest, but toughest soldiers we ever had were put. We sent them to another horrific place, Somalia, got all shocked when these guys, who saw absolutely vile things being done, finally said "screw it" and got tough themselves. Then we broke up this bad-assest of regiments, and boy, we sure could use some of those bad-asses now. Those are the kind of guys the Taliban will fear, not guys who like to get their pictures taken in front of Tim Horton's trailers. Here's the facts. The Taliban are the latest in a long line of Afghani warriors (dating back even before Alexander the Great) who just don't make war like we do. Either we adapt, or we might as well leave (that's what the Brits and Soviets ended up doing). There's no middle ground here. Here! Here! You are dealing with the Canadian public though - that says it all Borg Quote
Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 We send them to hell holes where the enemy has little or no appreciation of rules of engagement, That doesn't matter. We have to follow our own rules, and if we don't, then we have no business being there. Quote
ToadBrother Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 That doesn't matter. We have to follow our own rules, and if we don't, then we have no business being there. Maybe we don't, then. Napoleon was tossed out of Spain because French troops couldn't or wouldn't adapt to guerrilla warfare, the British and Soviets both ultimately abandoned Afghanistan because they couldn't deal with the local fighters, and maybe we can't either. Canada has become so separated from the notion of what armies really are that maybe we shouldn't even have one. Quote
Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 There are rules to war that we all must follow. What the other side does is irrelevant. Quote
ToadBrother Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) There are rules to war that we all must follow. What the other side does is irrelevant. No, what the other side does dictates how we respond. Too many times have I seen Western soldiers have their hands tied. We saw it in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, where peacekeepers with insufficient support and ludicrous rules of engagement could do nothing but watch as people were slaughtered. But the British SAS went into the Ivory Coast, they demonstrated how you adapt to local conditions, and they beat the hell out of anyone who got in their way. It strikes me now that the Taliban and their supporters have got pretty smart at manipulating the press. These guys have no problems hacking body parts off of people, but if one of their own so much as gets a bloody nose while in our custody, suddenly we have every weak-kneed coward in the House of Commons wringing their hands. And the first and most important rule of war is "Win". If you don't have an expectation of actually winning, you don't go to war. It's the most ancient and most important axiom. From what I can tell, the Afghanistan mission is suffering the same fate as the Somali mission, the objectives aren't clear and our forces (that is NATO forces) have been put in a position where they simply react to the enemy. Edited June 10, 2009 by ToadBrother Quote
Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 It strikes me now that the Taliban and their supporters have got pretty smart at manipulating the press. These guys have no problems hacking body parts off of people, but if one of their own so much as gets a bloody nose while in our custody, suddenly we have every weak-kneed coward in the House of Commons wringing their hands. We are better than terrorists! We cannot treat them the same way they treat us, especially in light of our mission in that country. We are currently trying to build a stable and peaceful democracy. We can't do that if we are constantly breaking our own rules and principles. We are better than that. Quote
ToadBrother Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 We are better than terrorists! We cannot treat them the same way they treat us, especially in light of our mission in that country. We are currently trying to build a stable and peaceful democracy. We can't do that if we are constantly breaking our own rules and principles. We are better than that. We're not building anything. The so-called "democracy" barely holds on to Khabul, and I mean barely, because the Taliban still seem to be able to get into the city at will. "Building a democracy" is not a military objective. This is precisely the same thing that got the US bogged down in Iraq. NATO's purpose in this case should be to eliminate the Taliban and their allied warlords. If we're not prepared to fight, and fight hard, then we might as well walk away, because all we're doing right now is propping up a meaningless, impotent regime. Quote
Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 I'd rather we walk away than abandon what it is that makes us who we are. Quote
ToadBrother Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 I'd rather we walk away than abandon what it is that makes us who we are. What? A bunch of weak knees who have utterly repudiated our once fine military tradition because of the nonsensical, wrong-headed notion of "peacekeeping"? Quote
Borg Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 That doesn't matter. We have to follow our own rules, and if we don't, then we have no business being there. Time to get off your horse little one and join the world of reality - if you want to make it a better place you need to see what is really out there - far easier though to sit and pontificate when you are living the dream on anothers wallet - canada is a drop in the bucket and a pleasant one at that - but it will change if you let it - and I somehow suspect you think the law will prevent it from going to bad - you are oh so wrong Get out and see for yourself or forever be ignorant - and an entitled canadian Borg Quote
canfan Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 You're right, but the strength of the accusation needs to be measured and weighed before we spend millions of dollars in court. That's exactly what happened they tested the accusation by holding an investigation. What's wrong with that? Quote
canfan Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 Maybe we don't, then. Napoleon was tossed out of Spain because French troops couldn't or wouldn't adapt to guerrilla warfare, the British and Soviets both ultimately abandoned Afghanistan because they couldn't deal with the local fighters, and maybe we can't either. Canada has become so separated from the notion of what armies really are that maybe we shouldn't even have one. How we treat prisoners after they've been captured has little to do with adapting to guerrilla warfare. Quote
Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) What? A bunch of weak knees who have utterly repudiated our once fine military tradition because of the nonsensical, wrong-headed notion of "peacekeeping"? This has nothing to do with peacekeeping. Soldiers fight wars in which they kill and injure others and in which they die themselves. There are still rules to these wars. So far, we've followed the rules, and that's good, but I hope it continues. Edited June 10, 2009 by Smallc Quote
Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 How we treat prisoners after they've been captured has little to do with adapting to guerrilla warfare. Exactly. Thank you. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 Adapt to guerrilla warfare? Really? Just exactly how is that done successfully? Quote
ToadBrother Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 Adapt to guerrilla warfare? Really? Just exactly how is that done successfully? Maybe we should ask the Sri Lankan army. Quote
canfan Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 Maybe we should ask the Sri Lankan army. I doubt Canadians're going to support our army shelling hospitals anytime soon. I also doubt our armed forces are willing to shell hospitals. Quote
Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 Is that really who we should be emulating? Are people really just expendable pawns? I don't think so. Quote
ToadBrother Posted June 10, 2009 Report Posted June 10, 2009 This has nothing to do with peacekeeping. Soldiers fight wars in which they kill and injure others and in which they die themselves. There are still rules to these wars. So far, we've followed the rules, and that's good, but I hope it continues. And Afghanistan paints the problem of how you combat a guerrilla army. When the soldiers can meld into the general populace, it ceases to be simply an issue of straightforward combat. It's a tough nut to crack if you have to play by normal rules of engagement. The only way to combat such an army is to, first of all, have top notch intelligence, and by that I don't just mean some guy sitting out in the Persian Gulf monitoring trucks via satellite, I mean actual people in the enemy chain of command (that is, in part, how the Sri Lankan army beat the Tigers). Then, and this is the part where we all go "WE CAN'T DO THAT", you accept the fact that there will be civilian casualties. These fighters, as I said, can simply disappear into the general populace (think Vietcong or IRA here). Thirdly, expect to be there a looong time. Artificial timelines insisted upon by governments looking to placate the electorate are worse than useless, they are in fact downright counterproductive. You think the Taliban don't watch TV, don't know that back home, NATO's constituent governments are under intense pressure to get the job done and get out? The Taliban have taken the position (a sound strategic position, by the way) that if they are patient, regain and strengthen the positions they have, periodically remind the populace that they can still have at least the power to kill and maim (and a great deal more than that in large areas of Afghanistan, where they're still quite tight with many local warlords), eventually weak-kneed NATO governments will ultimately lose interest and pull out. It happened in Vietnam and Somalia, where the folks back home decided they were too brutal, too dangerous wars to fight, and abandoned the countries (Vietnam to the Communists and Somalia, well, to chaos). 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.