Afghanistan

[myata]

With the latest news from the Afghan election, widely louded as long incoming onset of the holy democracy in these God (i.e. democracy) forsaken lands: BBC: Widespread fraud in Afghan election, these questions cannot be ignored any longer:

1) What exactly are we building there, with the force of our arms, "investment" or our resources, and sacrifice of our lives?

2) Will it eventually settle into the regular "our SOB" approach?

3) How long, and how many times will we have to try installing our morals, visions, governments, in the remote and unknown places of this world, before it finally dawns upon us, that a way of life cannot be transposed onto other, different people, but only imposed, temporarily, and at a huge, IOV fully and ultimately unjustifyable cost?

[bush_cheney2004]

Good questions....for Japan or Germany too....over 60 years ago.

[myata]

Not really. Unlike above examples, Afghanistan never attacked the US. Likewise, Iraq (I wonder if the whole proposition has a ring of funnyness about it, or it's just me? Or like Vietnam assaulting US? Or.. any other case when a worthy reason had to be found for an absolutely necessary interference).

Anyways, the question isn't really about the past, but the future. So far, the newborn Afghani "democracy" is showing all the obvious birthmarks of the traditional tribalism. The question: what is there to be gained by converting our resources, lives, and also, credibility, as supposedly "peaceful" nations, into these kind of pseudo democracies by name only? And what chance is there to speed up a process (oftentimes slow and painful) of development by dropping a few bombs on unwanted individuals here and there?

[bush_cheney2004]

Not really. Unlike above examples, Afghanistan never attacked the US. Likewise, Iraq (I wonder if the whole proposition has a ring of funnyness about it, or it's just me? Or like Vietnam assaulting US? Or.. any other case when a worthy reason had to be found for an absolutely necessary interference).

Then surely you can articulate the many attacks by Germany and Japan on Canada? Or maybe Korean attacks? How about Serbian attacks? Or maybe Haitian attacks? Or Iraqi attacks? Or...

Anyways, the question isn't really about the past, but the future. So far, the newborn Afghani "democracy" is showing all the obvious birthmarks of the traditional tribalism. The question: what is there to be gained by converting our resources, lives, and also, credibility, as supposedly "peaceful" nations, into these kind of pseudo democracies by name only? And what chance is there to speed up a process (oftentimes slow and painful) of development by dropping a few bombs on unwanted individuals here and there?

You are not seriously asking this question as a citizen of "democratic" Canada in North America...are you? How do you think it came to be? Or does the past no longer count now that it is done?

Edited September 8, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

Not really. Unlike above examples, Afghanistan never attacked the US.

Errr...9-11? They were certainly compliciant.

[DogOnPorch]

Germany never attacked the United States.

[bush_cheney2004]

Germany never attacked the United States.

Nope....there is no "12 O'Clock High" television show for the Luftwaffe flying daylight missions over Kansas aircraft factories!

[myata]

OK sorry, if we believe that Afghanistan and Iraq should qualify as the Third Reich of our days. But details aside, the question as said, is more about going forward, so are we going to continure doing same things as 500, 200, 60 years back, or show some ability to understand and learn?

[Oleg Bach]

Nope....there is no "12 O'Clock High" television show for the Luftwaffe flying daylight missions over Kansas aircraft factories!

What no re-runs? The day they entered Iraq I knew it would grind to a hault..and it did..the day they entered Afghanistan and tried to replace the ruling tribes with their own ruling tribes it was destined for failure. The day that some local came up behind a silly and duped Canadian soldier chatting at a campfire with the locals - and some tribesman came up behind the guy and splashed his brains all over the ground with an axe - I knew it was over...so now that and industry has formed around these trouble spots - They can not back out - it's a case of jobs and profits now .. Worse part is that Canada got sucked into parroting the American agenda - Kind of like kids copying dad and trying to run the family buisness. Oh - and that "election" was a stunning blow to terroism...

[Bonam]

OK sorry, if we believe that Afghanistan and Iraq should qualify as the Third Reich of our days. But details aside, the question as said, is more about going forward, so are we going to continure doing same things as 500, 200, 60 years back, or show some ability to understand and learn?

We are the same humans that we were 500, 200, and 60 years back. We'll keep doing the same things. We will be born, we will eat and drink, we will love and hate, and we will fight. What caused you to expect otherwise?

As for the specific conflicts you mention... Afghanistan was a political necessity. America had to strike back after 9-11, and Afghanistan was as good a target as any; Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were based there. Iraq was believed to be developing WMDs, and after their past history of aggression against American allies in the middle-east, a preemptive strike was deemed necessary. Destroying the governments of these nations and pulling out is not enough, as they would revert to the same ideologies and violence that caused a problem for us to begin with, hence the need for prolonged occupation.

[GostHacked]

Then surely you can articulate the many attacks by Germany and Japan on Canada? Or maybe Korean attacks? How about Serbian attacks? Or maybe Haitian attacks? Or Iraqi attacks? Or...

Canada got it's hands dirty long before the US did for WWII. Where the hell was the USA when we decided to join the fight?

You are not seriously asking this question as a citizen of "democratic" Canada in North America...are you? How do you think it came to be? Or does the past no longer count now that it is done?

It's a good question actually. And one you don't seem to have an answer for either.

Bonam

We are the same humans that we were 500, 200, and 60 years back. We'll keep doing the same things. We will be born, we will eat and drink, we will love and hate, and we will fight. What caused you to expect otherwise?

Well with this kind of mentality, why even bother then? If we will always be like this.. why even bother saying anything? Let's just grab a gun and have at it? Why would anyone want something better?

[Oleg Bach]

America had to strike back after 9 11 - so why did they not strike who funded the operations - but instead they went after the grunts and nobodys? AND where is Bin Laden - We can go to Mars but can't locate a guy that is 6 foot five in a land where eveyone is 5 two? Look what Afghanistan did to the Russians who had the luxury of operating in a theatre that was much closer to home base..All that took place was pissing of ten thousand Russian mothers who lost their sons and hate the state. If I had to suffer some Muslim nut bars that invaded Canada _ I would never surrender my home turf - Never! Why do we expect families that have ruled Afghanistan for centuries to submit to our will? It will never happen- the only way to come out on top in this supposed conflict would be to genocide very man woman and child in Afghanistan - The final solution...I don't see any Hitlers in Canada yet..do you?

[bush_cheney2004]

OK sorry, if we believe that Afghanistan and Iraq should qualify as the Third Reich of our days. But details aside, the question as said, is more about going forward, so are we going to continure doing same things as 500, 200, 60 years back, or show some ability to understand and learn?

Understand and learn what? Co-existence with a demonstrable threat to western (and eastern) interests? Military solutions are never the final word, but sure as hell help to figure out what will be. Are you willing to accept the consequences of inaction by NATO in Kosovo as well? Or do you prefer to wait and see how things go before conveniently rendering judgement (after the fact)?

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada got it's hands dirty long before the US did for WWII. Where the hell was the USA when we decided to join the fight?

Why? When was Canada attacked ? Was the USA duty bound to your Empire without a setting sun? Not enough fun had with a very stupid WWI ? Oh...wait...I think not.

It's a good question actually. And one you don't seem to have an answer for either.

No, you are just clueless when it comes to the "settlement" (and subjugation) of North America.

Edited September 8, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

..... It will never happen- the only way to come out on top in this supposed conflict would be to genocide very man woman and child in Afghanistan - The final solution...I don't see any Hitlers in Canada yet..do you?

That's the strange part...Canada crowed loudly about the good fight in Afghanistan compared to Iraq.

Then the worm turned.

[Oleg Bach]

That's the strange part...Canada crowed loudly about the good fight in Afghanistan compared to Iraq.

Then the worm turned.

If you want to go to "war" old school - you have to be perpared to totally destroy your advesary as soon and as quickly as possible _ If you do not have the killer instinct and want to practice some Queensbury rules you will lose - wanna win a bar fight? You walk up behind the victim and smack him with a chair without mercy or warning....Canada does not get it _ You can not hire a leader that leads you to war who can not take a rube in a bar fight....hetro-phags make power killers.... no offense to the homo-sexual community _ I was talking about men who are not men but seek to dominate men. The primatives are men - we are not.

[bush_cheney2004]

If you want to go to "war" old school - you have to be perpared to totally destroy your advesary as soon and as quickly as possible _ If you do not have the killer instinct and want to practice some Queensbury rules you will lose ....

That's what so wonky about yet another Afghanistan thread with gnashing teeth and regret, even as Canadian Forces are continuing to execute the mission they were asked to complete. They have gone from just say no to a "quagmire" in Iraq to....oh shit.....we have our own "quagmire" in Afghanistan. Fickle bunch, eh?

[Bonam]

Bonam

Well with this kind of mentality, why even bother then? If we will always be like this.. why even bother saying anything? Let's just grab a gun and have at it? Why would anyone want something better?

What would be better? To lay down one's guns and be overrun and killed by those who have not done so? To let the innocent suffer at the hands of monsters because we do not want to "grab a gun"? We do what we do because it is better. Better for us, as far as we can see and understand and predict.

"Peace in our time" is not always the best course of action, as we should all remember.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Bonam

[Oleg Bach]

That's what so wonky about yet another Afghanistan thread with gnashing teeth and regret, even as Canadian Forces are continuing to execute the mission they were asked to complete. They have gone from just say no to a "quagmire" in Iraq to....oh shit.....we have our own "quagmire" in Afghanistan. Fickle bunch, eh?

Looks like realists are not welcome in the realm of warfare and politics. To bad that we did not have a course for our elite - called "street wise" You took the course - as did I...we know when to fight and when to fold...and leave - at our age and experience we don't bother with such things...either kill - or do not kill - It's black and white - there is no such thing as half dead... yes they are fickle...eh...Never let a non-military thinker or those from the corporate class wage war..

.They simply do not have the genetics or the experience - Odd how they dispise the blue collar marshall class...they need you - but hate you and dis-respect you - but expect them to keep you safe and sound and rich...Look at Cheney and Bush "Fire the generals - how hard can it be to launch a cruse and do a "surgical strike?" Surgery is for doctors and hostile take overs is for the board room not the battle field.

[myata]

Understand and learn what? Co-existence with a demonstrable threat to western (and eastern) interests?

I think we've been at that already, and possibly multiple times. Adressing specific security threats (oh and by the way, that notion of "threat to interests" can be so-oooooooo stretchable) does not have to translate into rebuilding lesser people in our own image, does it?

Are you willing to accept the consequences of inaction by NATO in Kosovo as well? Or do you prefer to wait and see how things go before conveniently rendering judgement (after the fact)?

No, and we've been at that also. I'd like to see a working system of international justice, where the decision to act would be based on a solid legal process rather than "interest" of the moment. And where the act, while adressing the issue in question, would not necessarily cause aforementioned rebuilding.

[GostHacked]

No, you are just clueless when it comes to the "settlement" (and subjugation) of North America.

What are you trying to say or compare here. I don't understand? Could you explain more?

Bush_Cheney

That's what so wonky about yet another Afghanistan thread with gnashing teeth and regret, even as Canadian Forces are continuing to execute the mission they were asked to complete. They have gone from just say no to a "quagmire" in Iraq to....oh shit.....we have our own "quagmire" in Afghanistan. Fickle bunch, eh?

Yes Canada jumps in because a NATO member was attacked. If you want to talk about support, we Canadians sure could use some US support in this war on terror in Afghanistan. If the US was as commited to Afghanistan as they were to Iraq, then two quagmires could have been avoided. Plain and simple.

How many US troops were commited to Afghanistan originaly as compared to Iraq? Some 45,000 troops compared to the 350,000 troops in Iraq? I guess Afghanistan was not much of a thought for the US considering it was them and not Iraq who attacked.

That's the strange part...Canada crowed loudly about the good fight in Afghanistan compared to Iraq.

One commitment at at time. Mutlitasking two wars did not seem to help the US at all. So when we tell you just that, you call us babies and wimps. How are we to support a war the US initiated but is not willing to put any more effort into it than Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11. Sure it was policy. But .. hold on there bucko, one policy at a time.

[GostHacked]

What would be better? To lay down one's guns and be overrun and killed by those who have not done so? To let the innocent suffer at the hands of monsters because we do not want to "grab a gun"? We do what we do because it is better. Better for us, as far as we can see and understand and predict.

"Peace in our time" is not always the best course of action, as we should all remember.

No what I am saying is that accepting that we have 'always been like this' is self defeating. No room for progression or advancement at all. You have already given up the fight for something better by saying 'screw it we kill each other, nothing new, carry on, pass the popcorn.'

[bush_cheney2004]

I think we've been at that already, and possibly multiple times. Adressing specific security threats (oh and by the way, that notion of "threat to interests" can be so-oooooooo stretchable) does not have to translate into rebuilding lesser people in our own image, does it?

Nope...but it does mean killing the bad guys. I don't know what you mean by "lesser people", but some other members will sure buy you beer to discuss that.

No, and we've been at that also. I'd like to see a working system of international justice, where the decision to act would be based on a solid legal process rather than "interest" of the moment. And where the act, while adressing the issue in question, would not necessarily cause aforementioned rebuilding.

You're joking, right? What system? Whose forces to execute the "legal decision"? Who will live and who will die?

Edited September 9, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

What are you trying to say or compare here. I don't understand? Could you explain more?

What's to explain? Settle some land claims and call me back in the morning.

Yes Canada jumps in because a NATO member was attacked. If you want to talk about support, we Canadians sure could use some US support in this war on terror in Afghanistan. If the US was as commited to Afghanistan as they were to Iraq, then two quagmires could have been avoided. Plain and simple.

Nonsense....Canada didn't/couldn't deploy tactical aircraft, heavy airlift, or heavy armor. All forces were not committed to A-stan, just like the Americans.

How many US troops were commited to Afghanistan originaly as compared to Iraq? Some 45,000 troops compared to the 350,000 troops in Iraq? I guess Afghanistan was not much of a thought for the US considering it was them and not Iraq who attacked.

See above...how many troops did Canada commit? When? PM Harper actually engaged the combat mission , but he wasn't PM until 2006, long after the invasion of Iraq (2003).

One commitment at at time. Mutlitasking two wars did not seem to help the US at all. So when we tell you just that, you call us babies and wimps. How are we to support a war the US initiated but is not willing to put any more effort into it than Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11. Sure it was policy. But .. hold on there bucko, one policy at a time.

Sorry, but the USA can juggle more than one ball at a time. The superpower job description requires as much. Learned that trick during WW2....you know...the one that Canada won all by itself.

Edited September 8, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

What's to explain? Settle some land claims and call me back in the morning.

Ahh yes, the Canada bit you play so well. I am sure there is a comparison about Native Land claims and the invasion of a country that harboured terrorists that struck capitolism in the heart..... but I am not seeing it ..

Care to elaborate more on it?

Nonsense....Canada didn't/couldn't deploy tactical aircraft, heavy airlift, or heavy armor. All forces were not committed to A-stan, just like the Americans.

*yawn*

See above...how many troops did Canada commit? When? PM Harper actually engaged the combat mission , but he wasn't PM until 2006, long after the invasion of Iraq (2003).

Our military is in horrible shape. not to mention that the Canadian population is about 1/10th the size of the US, so you know, by simple ratio we don't have the numbers or the equipment. It's something that has been neglected for a couple decades.

You must get tired of my agreeing with you the majority of the time.

Sorry, but the USA can juggle more than one ball at a time. The superpower job description requires as much. Learned that trick during WW2....you know...the one that Canada won all by itself.

Ah there is the cowboy attitide I am used to from you. Yes the US can jugge more than one quagmire at at time, they have shown at least that much.