Four soldiers and a journalist killed

[Army Guy]

did the Soviets win?..did the USA win in Vietnam?...it isn't going to happen here either, the Taliban strike at will when and where they want regardless how many troops are sent in...to win a conventional war you cannot defeat an enemy that will only fight a unconventional war...the Taliban like the Mujahedeen before them like the VC before them they need not win a single battle they only need to outlast...since this is where they live it's a given they are not going to leave the outcome is inevitable...we do not have the stomach to wage the kind of ruthless warfare needed to eradicate the Taliban only the Afghans will do that, so we should leave and let them have at it...

Are you saying with 100% certainty that this conflict can not be won because of the Russian invasion or Vietnam, I'm sure i could find a couple of examples in history that would prove that wrong....but then again none would be related to the present day Afghan conflict.

[Smallc]

did the Soviets win?..did the USA win in Vietnam?

Are we the soviets? Is this Vietnam? That's about the only way to respond to that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you saying with 100% certainty that this conflict can not be won because of the Russian invasion or Vietnam, I'm sure i could find a couple of examples in history that would prove that wrong....but then again none would be related to the present day Afghan conflict.

No problem AG....see Philippine-American War. So much for that theory.

[eyeball]

I'm not going to defend every decision, but do you somehow think we'd all be freer if the US had not pursued a campaign of containment against the Soviets?

Yes I do. I believe we'd free of the moral quagmire we're in if we hadn't sold out our principles to contain the Soviets. There would be little if any reason for the hatred that is now directed at the west - instead I strongly suspect it would have been directed at the Soviets or anyone else who tried to intrude into other people's lives.

It's hard to take someone seriously who simply takes events out o the context of the times in which they happened and uses them to make a completely post hoc judgement call. There was, after all, this incredibly powerful, very expansionist power with vast armies sitting in Eastern Europe, arming, funding and even training every damned rebel group it could get its hands on from the Americas to Asia, that possessed a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, a highly advanced navy and the capacity to pretty much incinerate any major city in the world at its leisure.

If the west truly believes it had a gun to its head, that it was forced against its will, like a child soldier, to do the heinous things it had to do to survive, it should plead this case in a open transparent international forum and plead for forgiveness and understanding from the people it hurt.

Now, given that situation, I'd love to know how you would have dealt with it.

It's how we deal with the situation we're in now is more important, but if you mean the Soviets, I think they would have collapsed under the weight of their own inconsistencies and crap faster if they'd been left to their own devices. Our fear and reaction merely provided oxygen to their own fears the way it now provides a raison de etre to a new generation of monsters.

We joined with the Soviets to defeat the Nazi monster, then we had to join with other monsters to defeat the Soviet that grew into a monster. Now we have even more nightmarish monsters on our hands...this self-defeating self destructive trend is the real monster that needs to be contained and we're losing.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

How so, when they are part of the same issue, without the War on terror there would be no War in Afghanistan. perhaps your suggesting something else. they are linked with the war in Afghan being one of it's chapters.

Not true, lets not forget that these soldiers volunteered,it was them who stood up and said i think i got what it takes to make a difference and the Afghan mission is a noble cause..... and to further make a point these soldiers were reserve soldiers,they where not called up to active duty, but rather stood up and placed their name on a waiting list to serve their country....that alone has got to say something, about the character of these young men, so lets not dismiss what they are saying because they where just doing what they were told, but rather lets listen to what they have to say because they've earned that merit....atleast i think so....

And while these soldiers are being asked to volunteer by their government,they are expressing their opinions freely, much like you and me, as we all have to remember that it was 'us' the majority of Canadians that voted in both these governments that have kept us in this theater of war....if we are going to dismiss our soldiers opinions,perhaps we should also dismiss all those cons and liberals opinions as well, after all we did elect them and we all know that it is the people that influence how they act....

I guess only those NDP's and block party followers should be commenting on thise topic....

Hey Army Guy welcome back, have heard from you in a while.

Listen dude, the way I see this is from a non-military perspective. You can say that you volunteered and be speaking truthfully, but that was not my point. My point was they were there because the government sent them there under orders. They and you are doing your job. It is the government that determines the mission and the agenda. Yes your mission as a Canadian soldier is a noble cause and I support you and your efforts with much gratitude. But once again that was neither my assertion nor my point. The "war on terror", was a phrase coined by an American President. It was intended to create sympathy and outrage, and it worked. That man was only half as foolish as people think. Now please keep in mind that Canada is not part of the "war on terror", we are only involved in Afghanistan and will be involved in no other operations anywhere else. We have a chosen engagement in a chosen theater of operations. This was our response to 9/11. Now the war on terror continues, but it does so without us being involved in it. We could at least pin 9/11 on Bin Laden, and we knew who was covering him, so off we went. Strangely we never hunted him, but chased the Taliban across their nation.

Please keep in mind I have nothing but respect for the troops in their function and efforts. My point is that administrative and political issues cloud the issue in a fog of war. In my view we should have been hunting for and should have by now captured Bin Laden. That is the extent of what I believe we should have done and should have been doing. Conducting offensive operations against Afghanistan nationals is not what I would have our troops be doing.

Nobody ever has nor likely will ever win a war in Afghanistan. Even Alexander the Great could take the whole country. America has chosen another Vietnam, and we have been drawn into it along with many others. The events of 9/11 have been used against some of the poorest citizens on this earth, and they have paid a price that Bin Laden has not yet, nor likely ever will pay. Yes that poor nation needed and still does need help, but so do many others.

Terrorism is a big word and it is used in general terms far too often. What of the IRA, or the KKK? Are they not terrorists?

[bush_cheney2004]

We joined with the Soviets to defeat the Nazi monster, then we had to join with other monsters to defeat the Soviet that grew into a monster. Now we have even more nightmarish monsters on our hands...this self-defeating self destructive trend is the real monster that needs to be contained and we're losing.

Not at all....before Afghanistan, Canada helped to defeat the Serbian and Haitian "monsters". Oh my!

[wyly]

Are you saying with 100% certainty that this conflict can not be won because of the Russian invasion or Vietnam, I'm sure i could find a couple of examples in history that would prove that wrong....but then again none would be related to the present day Afghan conflict.

maybe you could but you have to look at what measures were used to attain victory, the popularity of the movement among the people, the terrain it is being fought in...

the Shinning Path movement was defeated but those waging the war were ruthless and the movement had very little support among the population...the socialist movement in Argentina was defeated in the Dirty War but the method was horrendous no western population would tolerate that kind of methods from it's forces...

in this case the Afghans have a history of successful resistance, they have the terrain in their favour, they have safe havens across the border, they have support among their tribesmen, it is not a political movement it's a religious, religion breeds a different kind of dedication to the cause than politics...

[wyly]

No problem AG....see Philippine-American War. So much for that theory.

and is the USA or NATO in this day and age prepared to wage the type of war waged in the Phillpines in Afghanistan...repeating those tactics would make us worse than the Taliban, all of Afghanistan would turn against us...

[bush_cheney2004]

and is the USA or NATO in this day and age prepared to wage the type of war waged in the Phillpines in Afghanistan...repeating those tactics would make us worse than the Taliban, all of Afghanistan would turn against us...

So what...your 100% theory would fail (again).

[bush_cheney2004]

and is the USA or NATO in this day and age prepared to wage the type of war waged in the Phillpines in Afghanistan...repeating those tactics would make us worse than the Taliban, all of Afghanistan would turn against us...

So what...your 100% victorious insurgency theory would fail...again.

[wyly]

Not at all....before Afghanistan, Canada helped to defeat the Serbian and Haitian "monsters". Oh my!

but we had the locals on our side... in the case of the Serbians we never tried to occupy Serbia and we had the support of the Bosnians in BH...in Haiti the opponents were friendless gangsters...

[wyly]

So what...your 100% victorious insurgency theory would fail...again.

duh have you read any of the thread?...the cost of victory is not one any modern country will pay, which is what a I posted a page back...no western country will accept genocide as an acceptable method to achieve victory...

[bush_cheney2004]

but we had the locals on our side... in the case of the Serbians we never tried to occupy Serbia and we had the support of the Bosnians in BH...in Haiti the opponents were friendless gangsters...

Sure...nothing but hugs and kisses for blue bombs and expelling democratically elected leadership. The only interventions you like have to come with a guarantee.

[bush_cheney2004]

duh have you read any of the thread?...the cost of victory is not one any modern country will pay, which is what a I posted a page back...no western country will accept genocide as an acceptable method to achieve victory...

Oh really? At least two Japanese cities think you are full of shyte.

[wyly]

Oh really? At least two Japanese cities think you are full of shyte.

your being pedantic....run along I want to debate with the adults now...

[William Ashley]

Are you saying with 100% certainty that this conflict can not be won because of the Russian invasion or Vietnam, I'm sure i could find a couple of examples in history that would prove that wrong....but then again none would be related to the present day Afghan conflict.

They can't win because there is no victory scenario. Sure mission accomplished 18 years later when the children start growing up. With their children knowing nothing other than occupation.

[Army Guy]

Hey Army Guy welcome back, have heard from you in a while.

Thanks, good to be back....

My point was they were there because the government sent them there under orders. They and you are doing your job. It is the government that determines the mission and the agenda. Yes your mission as a Canadian soldier is a noble cause and I support you and your efforts with much gratitude.

It was not my intention to question your support, to which i'm grateful as without it many more Canadian soldiers would be in the news...I got the impression perhaps the wrong one that a soldiers opinion was being brushed away simply because he was acting or under orders...my point is his or her opinions should have as much merit as anyones, we don't have to agree but we should take the time and listen, perhaps find out why so many soldiers really are united on this topic.

Now please keep in mind that Canada is not part of the "war on terror", we are only involved in Afghanistan and will be involved in no other operations anywhere else. We have a chosen engagement in a chosen theater of operations. This was our response to 9/11. Now the war on terror continues, but it does so without us being involved in it.

Not true, Our Navy is playing a large part, for it`s size that is in other areas, and is involved in the war on terror or the American side of it, these operations don`t receive that much media coverage but they are there, even listed on the DND web site on it`s current operations...And while we are perhaps not involved in the entire book on the war on terror we are mentioned in several chapters of it...

Please keep in mind I have nothing but respect for the troops in their function and efforts. My point is that administrative and political issues cloud the issue in a fog of war. In my view we should have been hunting for and should have by now captured Bin Laden. That is the extent of what I believe we should have done and should have been doing. Conducting offensive operations against Afghanistan nationals is not what I would have our troops be doing.

I know your a big fan of the military jerry, and i`m not questioning that, Bin Laden is a small part of the puzzle right now, nobody even knows if he is alive or dead, and yet the war continues so NATO while continueing the search it is not one of it`s main focuses....trying to get more troops or do more with what it has now is...And while i will not BS you you on operations again`st Afghan nationals, most of those operations are for good reason...or hard core taliban. Afghan nationals or not they are working for the bad guys and again`st the Afghan majority.

Nobody ever has nor likely will ever win a war in Afghanistan. Even Alexander the Great could take the whole country. America has chosen another Vietnam, and we have been drawn into it along with many others. The events of 9/11 have been used against some of the poorest citizens on this earth, and they have paid a price that Bin Laden has not yet, nor likely ever will pay. Yes that poor nation needed and still does need help, but so do many others.

Thats what they told Gen Currie at Vimy, and yet Canada made it work....Our nation has contributed so much to Afghan not just on the battle field....and wqe have the ability to contribute so much more if given the time and resources....And while i agree with you there is many other nations in need we are here now, give us the time and resources to finish one job at a time.

[Army Guy]

maybe you could but you have to look at what measures were used to attain victory, the popularity of the movement among the people, the terrain it is being fought in...

This conflict could be won so easily if we had the right resources and the means to deliver them, as for the people all they want is peace, and will support anyone who can provide it....the terrain, tell me about it, but nothing that can,t be over come by determination of it`s troops and helo,s ...If a Taliban soldier can supply his army with a donkey, we should be able to move montains with the right resources and equipment.

in this case the Afghans have a history of successful resistance, they have the terrain in their favour, they have safe havens across the border, they have support among their tribesmen, it is not a political movement it's a religious, religion breeds a different kind of dedication to the cause than politics...

Yes they have and yes they do, but ask any Afghan what he values more , and it is peace and being able to provide for his family,,,provide those 2 things and suddenly the taliban is not so attractive.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Now please keep in mind that Canada is not part of the "war on terror", we are only involved in Afghanistan and will be involved in no other operations anywhere else. We have a chosen engagement in a chosen theater of operations. This was our response to 9/11....

Not quite...better check your history vis-a-vis Operation Apollo, Operation Support, etc., etc.

http://www.centcom.mil/en/countries/coalition/canada/

[Guest American Woman]

Its clear that being moderate has provoked them.

Since "it's clear that being moderate has provoked them," it obviously is about religious extremism.

Edited January 2, 2010 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Quote

The fact that they are just as willing to target other Muslims who don't go along with their demands as they are westerners basically proves that it's all about "religious extremism."

No it doesn't, it simply supports my observation that abused people often become abusers themselves.

When the reason they're targeting them is because "it's clear that being moderate has provoked them," yes, it proves that it's all about "religious extremism."

You can't have it both ways. You can't say they are motivated to go after us because we have killed their innocent fellow man, as you admit that they themselves go after their innocent fellow man simply because they don't adhere to their extremist religious beliefs. Obviously it's "extremism" that's the issue here.

As for supporting your observation that "abused people often become abusers themselves," I'd like some evidence that bin Laden et al were abused. Then I'd like some evidence that the westerners who 'abused' innocent civilians weren't abused themselves.

[Argus]

So you think the only way the west can win the war is to kill all the Muslims?

Well, it is "A" way.

[capricorn]

Our nation has contributed so much to Afghan not just on the battle field....and wqe have the ability to contribute so much more if given the time and resources.... give us the time and resources to finish one job at a time.

I have just finished reading an article in the Legion Magazine by Adam Day, a reporter from the magazine, who spent almost one month in Afghanistan last October. In his field notes, Day recounts the progress he witnessed in Masum Ghar and Bazaar-e-Panjwai. These thriving towns were made possible by Canadian troops who built "Route Summit" with their blood and sweat. This is just one story of measurable progress taking place.

The way I see it Army Guy, is that Canadians and politicians are in a hurry to finish this war. In the West, we are so used to instant gratification. Most of us get what we want, when we want it. This same mentality applies to the Afghanistan mission. "Hurry up and win! Then get the hell out." I am convinced that the decline in public support for the mission does not stem from opposition to it but from the attitude that it is taking too long.

On the other hand, our enemies and tormenters are patient and unhurried. They don't have a pullout date and no constituency to answer to. Time is on their side. Rushing to victory is furthest from their mind. The strategy is to gradually wear us down emotionally, kill as many Canadians as they can and destroy what we build.

In the end, we and our allies probably won't see a decisive military victory as with conventional wars. Yet, once our combat mission ends in 2011, we will exit Afghanistan a much better place than when we entered. This would not be possible without brave and selfless souls such as you.

[ToadBrother]

Yes I do. I believe we'd free of the moral quagmire we're in if we hadn't sold out our principles to contain the Soviets. There would be little if any reason for the hatred that is now directed at the west - instead I strongly suspect it would have been directed at the Soviets or anyone else who tried to intrude into other people's lives.

Could you give any justification for this whatosever. For instance, do you think the Poles or the Hungarians were just peachy keen to join the Soviet sphere?

If the west truly believes it had a gun to its head, that it was forced against its will, like a child soldier, to do the heinous things it had to do to survive, it should plead this case in a open transparent international forum and plead for forgiveness and understanding from the people it hurt.

It had a major expansive power with a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons, vast technological capabilities and a willingness to export revolution wherever it could, even into our backyards (ie. the Communists in Italy).

It's how we deal with the situation we're in now is more important, but if you mean the Soviets, I

think they would have collapsed under the weight of their own inconsistencies and crap faster if they'd been left to their own devices. Our fear and reaction merely provided oxygen to their own fears the way it now provides a raison de etre to a new generation of monsters.

How do you know this?

We joined with the Soviets to defeat the Nazi monster, then we had to join with other monsters to defeat the Soviet that grew into a monster. Now we have even more nightmarish monsters on our hands...this self-defeating self destructive trend is the real monster that needs to be contained and we're losing.

It was quite the other away around at the end. Neither Roosevelt nor Churchill wanted Uncle Joe to split off, but it was inevitable. Stalin wanted to make sure that no one could ever again threaten the Soviet Union again. That was the point of the Iron Curtain, of exporting revolution to Africa, Latin America and East Asia. That was the point of arming the young Communist regime in China with nuclear weapons. The Soviets were very much a threat, and if we hadn't all kept them at bay, their long-stated purpose, to export Marxism everywhere (that was rather the point you know) might have come a lot closer to reality. The US might not be perfect, and it made a helluva lot of mistakes during the Cold War, but I shiver to imagine the alternatives. There are very much greater evils out there.

[eyeball]

Since "it's clear that being moderate has provoked them," it obviously is about religious extremism.

I have no doubt religion makes things worse but what I meant by moderate was, people who don't display a sufficient amount of patriotism. It's clear that the dysfunction caused by the west's interference in the region's political and ideological landscape and the organizations and governments struggling within it has resulted in the evolution of new groups and struggles for dominance.

The clash of civilizations isn't so much a single train wreck as it is a pile-up.