DogOnPorch Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) Like Stanley McChrystal? Like Hamid Karzai or George Bush? Paying Insurgents Not to Fight. Been here done this eh? Yup...I'm aware of the news story...thus the comment. McChrystal is a special ops man...should have stayed there. Too young to have fought in Viet-Nam...also: perhaps too tactically-minded to think strategically. But that's just my opinion of the fellow. Edited February 2, 2010 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 Been to Vietnam lately? Irrelevant. The Viet-Nam War we're familiar with started in the late 1950s after the French left. There was this country called South Viet-Nam (like South Korea) and its neighbor North Viet-Nam came down a thing called the Ho Chi Minh Trail (inside neutral Laos and Cambodia) and invaded it. Do you dispute this? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
eyeball Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 McChrystal is a special ops man...should have stayed there. Too young to have fought in Viet-Nam...also: perhaps too tactical-minded to think strategically. But that's just my opinion of the fellow. Special ops? That's almost funny. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
DogOnPorch Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 Special ops? That's almost funny. He is...problem? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 As mentioned...this is more a 'big thing' here in Canada than a reality in Afghanistan. "There were some contacts, and the contacts will continue," Mohammad Masoom Stanekzai told reporters. "We have contacts on the local, regional, national and — at the same time — broader political level, but it is too early to talk about the outcome of those contacts."http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/01/afghanistan-taliban-reconciliation-talks-government.html Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
eyeball Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 He is...problem? With special ops you mean? No. None at all. If he's as over-rated or incompetent as you seem to think its just a good thing he wasn't around to cock things up in 53. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
DogOnPorch Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 With special ops you mean? No. None at all. If he's as over-rated or incompetent as you seem to think its just a good thing he wasn't around to cock things up in 53. He was promoted to the position. So it's not like he's spent the last decade as a general. If you want a good example of what I'm refering to, see: The Army of the Potomac While various leaders of the this Army proved to be ample brigade commanders, when given command of the whole shootin' match by Lincoln, they proved to be bumbling buffoons. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Michael Hardner Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 That emotional response is still just as strong today. What long-term goal? The first opportunity to make Afghanistan a normal country was squandered in the wake of the Soviet's withdrawal. The fact that Iraq was invaded doesn't do much to support the claims that the US and its allies - a.k.a. 'the west' - had any more regard for Afghans in Mar 2003 than it did back in Feb 1989. The west has behaved like a dog following its own nose like it was all that mattered in the world. It is absolutely not as strong today. There was no opposition that I can recall to Afghanistan - no protests, just a glum acceptance that it had to happen. That is a sign that everyone knew that it was futile to expect anything else. Time has passed and we have perspective on these things. If another attack - a worse one - happened, we would be back at square one. Your point about The West is true, but I would say that things have changed over the last 8 years or so. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Army Guy Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 It is absolutely not as strong today. There was no opposition that I can recall to Afghanistan - no protests, just a glum acceptance that it had to happen. That is a sign that everyone knew that it was futile to expect anything else. Does'nt really say much about the Canadian people and thier exceptance of going to war does it...As for knowing it was futile, i doubt very much that Most Canadians could find Afghanistan on a map, today let alone when this whole operation went into effect.... Time has passed and we have perspective on these things. If another attack - a worse one - happened, we would be back at square one. Do you really think the average Canadian has perspective on things in Afghan, I don't....here is some of thier arguments the NO sayers have for perspective... 1. Historically no country has been able to defeat the Afghan people. Which makes it a mission Impossiable...Can not be done regardless of what we do. 2. You can not defeat an ideal, in this case the taliban Ideal, .... 3. You can not defeat a terrorist group with military forces.... 4. NATO military actions are drive Afghan people into the Taliban arms, and creating more taliban fighters. 5. We support our soldiers not the mission. And the list goes on and on, and on....would you say those are the factual perspectives based on what is going on thier now... Your point about The West is true, but I would say that things have changed over the last 8 years or 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.
M.Dancer Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 It relates to your own previous assertion Morris.... "It means dead terrorists and a friendly government." The conditions have been met. Time to leave. Hardly...there are still plenty who wish to take the paradise express Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Michael Hardner Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 Do you really think the average Canadian has perspective on things in Afghan, I don't....here is some of thier arguments the NO sayers have for perspective... 1. Historically no country has been able to defeat the Afghan people. Which makes it a mission Impossiable...Can not be done regardless of what we do. 2. You can not defeat an ideal, in this case the taliban Ideal, .... 3. You can not defeat a terrorist group with military forces.... 4. NATO military actions are drive Afghan people into the Taliban arms, and creating more taliban fighters. 5. We support our soldiers not the mission. And the list goes on and on, and on....would you say those are the factual perspectives based on what is going on thier now... Your point about The West is true, but I would say that things have changed over the last 8 years or so. 1. It's not a defeat of the Afghan people if they can elect whatever government they like. 2. You can't defeat an ideal, but as I said - if they want a theocracy they can vote for one. You can contain the violence. 3. Maybe not, but maybe as with the IRA, and the PLO, the struggle will go to stalemate and a political movement will appear. 4. Isn't there a plan for Afghanistan to develop its own forces ? 5. People don't support war any more, except in cases of overt aggression or genocide. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Sir Bandelot Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 -> 1. Historically no country has been able to defeat the Afghan people. Which makes it a mission Impossiable...Can not be done regardless of what we do. I think that it CAN be done, but not so much "defeat the people", as transform the society, or rather, work to remove the negative aspects of it. But how can it be done, if not by using the same old (and failed) methods. Doing the same thing thats failed time and again before, should be questioned. What makes it different this time, enough that it would mean success. -> 2. You can not defeat an ideal, in this case the taliban Ideal, .... Arguably true, again depends on the method. When you push someone they usually push back. To win the psychological war is the most important form of victory (if lasting effects are in fact the goal). -> 3. You can not defeat a terrorist group with military forces.... Not if your method causes more new terrorists to be created, than the ones you kill off. It's all about method. -> 4. NATO military actions are drive Afghan people into the Taliban arms, and creating more taliban fighters. Seems to be a fact, not specifically for Taliban alone but the act of war means a recruitment of more soldiers by the enemy. Again it's all about psychology. I read the Taliban have done well in wining hearts and minds, by providing medicine and other aid to areas where our troops have attacked and killed civilians. Thus they are seen as "the good guys", or at least, the better guys since we don't show up with any aid. Often because the conflict zone is still too hot. If I were a strategist/ General I would be cognizant of the fact, there will always be a backlash. I'd also be aware that it may be impossible to win in this aspect. -> 5. We support our soldiers not the mission. How about, we support the overall mission objectives, but not the methods. I think I do... except the mission objectives seem to shift and change as the war goes on. But if the objective is to protect human rights, that I would support. Of course, war is the greatest affront to human rights, in the short term. Quote
bloodyminded Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 The Americans and SEATO weren't 'aggressors'. Best brush-up on your history. Your admonishment about knowing history is supremely ironic....given that SEATO, despite US attempts, was not involved. Besides, S. Vietnam wasn't even a member. Best brush-up on your history. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
DogOnPorch Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 Your admonishment about knowing history is supremely ironic....given that SEATO, despite US attempts, was not involved. Besides, S. Vietnam wasn't even a member. Best brush-up on your history. SEATO was created to stop things like Viet-Nam...so no it wasn't a member. While rather toothless itself, SEATO members were very much involved in the Viet-Nam War. Australia, NZ, South Korea, Philippines, Thailand, etc all had troops in-country. Meanwhile, Viet-Nam (Pt II) was Communist aggression being met by ARVN and Allied forces. You know...NVA divisions coming down the Ho Chi Minh Trail through two neutral (lol) countries into South Viet-Nam to assist the NLF cadres that were fighting a guerrilla war of terrorism against the SVN government. Goodness knows what your version is... Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
M.Dancer Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 -> 1. Historically no country has been able to defeat the Afghan people. Which makes it a mission Impossiable...Can not be done regardless of what we do. That is true as long as we limit it historically to countries. On the otherhand, Afghanistan has been invaded succefuly numerous times...The Persians, The Huns, The Moguls and of course, lets not forget the Arabs who introduced their religion... It is an enduring myth that we in the west created about Afghanistan, that it could not be conquered....it is of course not true Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Sir Bandelot Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 That is true as long as we limit it historically to countries. On the otherhand, Afghanistan has been invaded succefuly numerous times...The Persians, The Huns, The Moguls and of course, lets not forget the Arabs who introduced their religion... It is an enduring myth that we in the west created about Afghanistan, that it could not be conquered....it is of course not true Right, we could just bomb them into the stone age, if we wanted to. Complete annihilation and subjugation. But it appears we don't want to do that. We want to "transform" it. Black and white is easy, this is far harder. So question is, can we achieve THAT, what is the cost and will it ultimately be worth it. Quote
M.Dancer Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 So question is, can we achieve THAT, what is the cost and will it ultimately be worth it. All we need achieve is an Afghanistan that does not permit Terrorists to train and offer them safe haven. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Army Guy Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 So question is, can we achieve THAT, what is the cost and will it ultimately be worth it. That question is answer every time those aircraft arrive in trenton, amd those coffins are lowered to hallow Caanadian ground for the final time...It's been answered well over a hundrd times have you not been listening....or perhaps you've been ignoring them. 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.
wyly Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 SEATO was created to stop things like Viet-Nam...so no it wasn't a member. While rather toothless itself, SEATO members were very much involved in the Viet-Nam War. Australia, NZ, South Korea, Philippines, Thailand, etc all had troops in-country. Meanwhile, Viet-Nam (Pt II) was Communist aggression being met by ARVN and Allied forces. You know...NVA divisions coming down the Ho Chi Minh Trail through two neutral (lol) countries into South Viet-Nam to assist the NLF cadres that were fighting a guerrilla war of terrorism against the SVN government. Goodness knows what your version is... Vietnam under the leadership of the Viet Minh(communists)with funding for the USA and China fought the Chinese and Vichy French during ww2, they then purged themselves of the French occupation in a war of independence and the French were defeated, the west choose to intervene in an internal matter and divided the country...elections to resolve the issue of reunification were cancelled by the south's Ngo Dinh Diem knowing full well he would lose the election as the 80% of the population supported the Viet Minh...this started a civil war not a war of agression by the Viet Minh, the agression lies with the USA's interference in the internal politics of another nation... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Wild Bill Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) No matter what happens, it's looking worse and worse to be a young girl in Afghanistan. Oh well, who cares about them? Hell, deep down they probably like it! Let's go bash some American policies. That'll prove we must be morally superior people! Edited February 2, 2010 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
DogOnPorch Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) Vietnam under the leadership of the Viet Minh(communists)with funding for the USA and China fought the Chinese and Vichy French during ww2, they then purged themselves of the French occupation in a war of independence and the French were defeated, the west choose to intervene in an internal matter and divided the country...elections to resolve the issue of reunification were cancelled by the south's Ngo Dinh Diem knowing full well he would lose the election as the 80% of the population supported the Viet Minh...this started a civil war not a war of agression by the Viet Minh, the agression lies with the USA's interference in the internal politics of another nation... South Viet-Nam was a seperate country, like it or not. So nutz to the 'internal matter' BS. Operation PTF saw around 1,000,000 people flee from the North to the South. About 1% of that went the other direction. That Diem was a turkey doesn't change this. Better leaders came after him. At no point did ARVN/US/Allied troops set foot in North Viet-Nam (other than shot down pilots). However, the North had no problem sending entire divisions at a time down the Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos and Cambodia...causing troubles in both those nations as I'm sure your aware...into South Viet-Nam via staging areas like the Fish Hook and the Parrot's Beak to name a few. That the Geneva elections re: reunification were suspended (which apparently would have handed over the place to the Communists without a fight) is not really a surprise. It was the Cold War afterall and NLF cadres had been conducting a vigorous (and violent) political campaign in the hinterlands (a join or die campaign similar to out Taliban friends...assassination or co-operation?) which was rumored to have NLF "support" up near 80% outside the cities. Had you or I been in Diem's position, we'd no doubt be thinking along those lines as well. It should be noted that North Viet-Nam wasn't under a similar self-destructive obligation. How can we expect 'free elections' to be held in the Communist North?---Diem It should also be noted that years after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia admitted to having troops in-country during the war. Troops that actually killed Americans (SAM batteries and such). So we can squeeze that orange however we'd like...two way streets n' all. Oddly, I'm a big Ho Chi Minh fan. A truely clever and thoughtful individual. Highly educated...a socialist rather than a Stalinist type communist. Had the US maintained the relationship with Ho started by the OSS in WW2 rather than falling into the madness of the McCarthy era, things would have ended much, much differently. Another South Korea rather than slaves for the likes Nike and Kathy-Lee Gifford. Edited February 2, 2010 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 I should also mention that there was no Viet-Nam during WW2 as wyly suggests. It was part of the much larger French Indochina which spent 99% of the war under Japanese occupation. The OCC made contact with Ho very late in the game (1945 I think) and funded his partisan campaign vs the Japanese. Until that moment, there had been almost zero military activity. The region was occupied in 1940 and used as a staging ground for the 1941 Singapore campaign...but that was about it. Saigon and Haiphong were minor anchorages for the IJN. Nothing big like carriers and such. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
wyly Posted February 3, 2010 Report Posted February 3, 2010 (edited) South Viet-Nam was a seperate country, like it or not. S Vietnam was never a seperate country nor was ever intended to be...Geneva Accords 1954- Article 6: "The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary" and this was supported by the USA, the divide was temporary until UN observed elections could be held... That the Geneva elections re: reunification were suspended (which apparently would have handed over the place to the Communists without a fight) is not really a surprise. It was the Cold War afterall and NLF cadres had been conducting a vigorous (and violent) political campaign in the hinterlands (a join or die campaign similar to out Taliban friends...assassination or co-operation?) which was rumored to have NLF "support" up near 80% outside the cities. unlike the torture and mass murders carried out by the southern regime and the americans Had you or I been in Diem's position, we'd no doubt be thinking along those lines as well. It should be noted that North Viet-Nam wasn't under a similar self-destructive obligation. no being a democrat I would have accepted the results of the election, I fear for Canada's future if that's the conservative view toward elections and giving up power, our government is quite lax when it comes to obeying the rule of law...all through the war the Viet Minh had the support of the people it's the reason the South regime collapsed so easily after the US pulled out it never had popular support of the people... It should also be noted that years after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia admitted to having troops in-country during the war. Troops that actually killed Americans (SAM batteries and such). So we can squeeze that orange however we'd like...two way streets n' all.why would there be SAM batteries in Vietnam when S vietnam didn't have a viable airforce, could it be because it was a response to the americans bombing the crap out of the north...at no time did the northern forces have a half million foreign soldiers on it's soil conducting warfare and despite the southern regimes massive support in material and manpower from the USA they lost...why this is should be clear to anyone, the majority of the people in the south supported the Viet Minh... Edited February 3, 2010 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Sir Bandelot Posted February 3, 2010 Report Posted February 3, 2010 That question is answer every time those aircraft arrive in trenton, amd those coffins are lowered to hallow Caanadian ground for the final time...It's been answered well over a hundrd times have you not been listening....or perhaps you've been ignoring them. You know that I haven't been ignoring them, as my own threads attest. That is the cost, certainly the most significant part of it. It doesn't answer the second part, is it worth it. I don't know if ANYONE can answer that at this point, in fairness. My personal feeling on the matter is, no. We should not be sending Canadian boys thousands of kilometers from home, to do what muslim boys ought to be doing for themselves. Helping them, training them, yes. Dieing for them, no. I sincerely regret every life that's been lost, but part of me still hopes that this will be not be all for nothing. Quote
wyly Posted February 3, 2010 Report Posted February 3, 2010 I should also mention that there was no Viet-Nam during WW2 as wyly suggests. It was part of the much larger French Indochina which spent 99% of the war under Japanese occupation. The OCC made contact with Ho very late in the game (1945 I think) and funded his partisan campaign vs the Japanese. Until that moment, there had been almost zero military activity. The region was occupied in 1940 and used as a staging ground for the 1941 Singapore campaign...but that was about it. Saigon and Haiphong were minor anchorages for the IJN. Nothing big like carriers and such. that's creative...being occupied by a foreign power does not make country and people disappear Vietnam was a kingdom 2,000 yrs long before the french arrived as were Laos and Cambodia, I suppose with that twisted logic the German occupation made Denmark and occupied europe disappear as well...Viet Minh were founded by Ho Chi Min in 1941 and was battling Japanese by '44..the Vietnamese resistance to french occupation began in the 19th century... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
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.