Is Afghanistan worth it?

[bush_cheney2004]

It isn't so much a question of honor as an issue of economics when Conservative business policies leave Canadian businesses at the mercy of a belligerent neighbour.

OK, but it is hardly a one-sided political affair. Canada's "natural ruling party" had its hands all over such things, including NAFTA and solicitations of foreign investment.

I say again...EMD was never a Canadian company.

[eyeball]

What's your point?

The point is to drive you nuts. BC_2004 is pretty good at that.

[bush_cheney2004]

The point is to drive you nuts. BC_2004 is pretty good at that.

Some people don't cope well with reality, so they go fishing.

[Michael Hardner]

Some people don't cope well with reality, so they go fishing.

I'm finding that explaining, or even defending the status quo on things (i.e. bringing reality to the discussion) gets folks riled up...

It's not like the world ended up like this by accident, that there were always better alternatives that nobody thought of, or that were covered up...

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm finding that explaining, or even defending the status quo on things (i.e. bringing reality to the discussion) gets folks riled up...

Rather than explain or defend, I prefer to bully them with their own reality and choices. They hate that...

It's not like the world ended up like this by accident, that there were always better alternatives that nobody thought of, or that were covered up...

Agreed...they want their cake and eat it too.

[greyman]

This is technically inaccurate post Statute of Westminster (1931). In fact, Canada made a point of declaring war via Parliament (later than other Commonwealth nations) to demonstrate such independence.

Again, your point?

While not true, it still serves my purpose, to wit, that American and NATO actions in Afghanistan were "politically" justified in 1998 and 2001.

Your purpose?

And I've never said the US nor NATO did not somehow believe their war-making was justified, I said just the opposite in fact, and agreed with you that they politically justify it anyway they like. However, as I've stated before, in my opinion it is war-making for the sake of profit, and not in any way connected to the defense of their national sovereignty. In my view, war is always a last resort, and should not be engaged in except in cases where the homeland is under attack. Anything other than that is unjustifiable in my view.

Call it what you will, that is the stated purpose for Canada's membership.

The stated purpose is political rhetoric used to justify war-profiteering. That is why I have a problem with it.

Correct, because it doesn't have to be "justified". We are making progress.

What doesn't have to be justified? War? Obviously, I disagree.

My point is that your righteous opinion/views seems to hold less weight than the collective will of Canada's political and economic institutions.

The collective will in this country is a product of democratic mob rule - a great many opinions in the country go ignored, as does their own sizable collective will. Disagreeing with the mob doesn't make you necessarily right or wrong - it simply means you disagree - as I so clearly do.

Good, at least you are consistent. Most newbies here fail to advance past this level in the game.

Newbies? To what? This board? Enlightened thought? What game?

Defunct military contractors would disagree.

Yes, my heart bleeds for the companies who profit from death and suffering for the sake of...death and suffering. Any dying military contractor is replaced by a healthier cousin. Hopefully, the day will come though when war stops being engaged in by nations like Canada and the United States, purely for the sake of keeping military contractors in the black.

Then why did you bring it up?

I didn't "bring it up", it was a part of something I said that you chose to key in on to try and make some inane semantic point that means nothing in the context of the larger conversation.

[bush_cheney2004]

Again, your point?

Canada was not obligated to do so, and made a point of independently supporting the Commonwealth call to war by King George.

And I've never said the US nor NATO did not somehow believe their war-making was justified, I said just the opposite in fact, and agreed with you that they politically justify it anyway they like. However, as I've stated before, in my opinion it is war-making for the sake of profit, and not in any way connected to the defense of their national sovereignty. In my view, war is always a last resort, and should not be engaged in except in cases where the homeland is under attack. Anything other than that is unjustifiable in my view.

Ergo, you maintain that Canada's declaration of war against Germany was not "justified".

The stated purpose is political rhetoric used to justify war-profiteering. That is why I have a problem with it.

You have a problem with war profiteering, or profiteering in general?

What doesn't have to be justified? War? Obviously, I disagree.

You can disagree all you wish, but it does not change the reality. War does not have to be justified...it only requires reasons.

The collective will in this country is a product of democratic mob rule - a great many opinions in the country go ignored, as does their own sizable collective will. Disagreeing with the mob doesn't make you necessarily right or wrong - it simply means you disagree - as I so clearly do.

Right...mob rule has conspired to give you the right to do so without fear of death or imprisonment.

Newbies? To what? This board? Enlightened thought? What game?

You are a new member to this forum, hence "newbie". The game has gone on for years.

Yes, my heart bleeds for the companies who profit from death and suffering for the sake of...death and suffering. Any dying military contractor is replaced by a healthier cousin. Hopefully, the day will come though when war stops being engaged in by nations like Canada and the United States, purely for the sake of keeping military contractors in the black.

Then what?

I didn't "bring it up", it was a part of something I said that you chose to key in on to try and make some inane semantic point that means nothing in the context of the larger conversation.

If you typed it, you brought it up. You are what you type in this forum. Welcome aboard....

[Topaz]

You know, just reading the back and forth of this replies, Canada vs US, can any one you see the two countries becoming one, like under the NAU? I can't and the leaders of these two countries that try too, are going to be in a very bad place. it probably be the only time the people of these two countries get along!

[bush_cheney2004]

You know, just reading the back and forth of this replies, Canada vs US, can any one you see the two countries becoming one, like under the NAU?....

Nope...but you will keep watching American television forever!

[fellowtraveller]

Notice too how China seems to be getting it right when it comes to competing with the world economically.

Meanwhile just about everything the capitalistic so-called democratic west touches turns to shit.

This would be marginally believable if it was not posted by a wellf ed person from a warm and secure home.

Easy to judge from that privileged place.

I've been to Afghanistan. The people there have the same aspirations for their families that we do. They are not lazy, evoil or stupid. They have far fewer tools to build anything than nearly anywhere else in the world. Worst of all, they have very little in the way of resources to change that situation. On top of all that, various people have been killing their children for 30 years.

[greyman]

Canada was not obligated to do so, and made a point of independently supporting the Commonwealth call to war by King George.

Awesome. Don't forget though that Doc said Marty needed 1.21 jigawatts, and he had to reach 88 m.p.h., or the whole thing would fall apart.

Ergo, you maintain that Canada's declaration of war against Germany was not "justified".

Ergo, I am the walrus...coo-coo ka-choo.

You have a problem with war profiteering, or profiteering in general?

War profiteering. Profiteering, generally speaking, is the bee's knees.

You can disagree all you wish, but it does not change the reality. War does not have to be justified...it only requires reasons.

Oxford Dictionary:

justify - v. - be a good reason for a decision or action

Right...mob rule has conspired to give you the right to do so without fear of death or imprisonment.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

You are a new member to this forum, hence "newbie". The game has gone on for years.

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Then what?

I'll like it.

If you typed it, you brought it up. You are what you type in this forum. Welcome aboard....

Pomposity personified.

[bush_cheney2004]

War profiteering. Profiteering, generally speaking, is the bee's knees.

OK...I thought maybe you also frowned upon human organ trafficking, white slavery, or puppy mills. Just war profiteering...got it.

Oxford Dictionary:

justify - v. - be a good reason for a decision or action

Reasons don't have to be good.

Pomposity personified.

Thank you....

[Guest Derek L]

What makes us better than the taliban and Al-Quada is those things like not murdering innocent people, which is what a certain individual here is openly proposing.

Because the conduct of the vast majority of Amercian or Canadian soldiers is honourable and what to be expected of soldiers in times of war, those who claim they as a whole or a group are a disgrace to humanity don't know what they are talking about. Yet, there are soldiers who have disgraced themselves, their uniform and their country by their actions. One person here is suggesting that this type of conduct becomes the way our militaries as a whole conduct war.

I'm curious: do you agree with that person, yes or no?

Are you suggesting that American and Canadian bomber crews did not fire bomb German cities? You understand the purpose of area bombing I take it? If not, it’s to terrorize the civilian population so as to interrupt war production.

[bush_cheney2004]

....If not, it’s to terrorize the civilian population so as to interrupt war production.

Yep....it's to destroy the means and will to fight. Bombs away!

[Guest Derek L]

Actually I think the indiscriminate murder of civilians Derek is advocating would drag out the war MORE than anything else. The reason why Nato tries to avoid civilian casualties isnt because they care about peoples feelings. Its because civilian casualties endanger the mission and everything they are trying to do over there, and serious undermine the young Kabul government that Nato hopes will rule Afghanistan one day.

Can you demonstrate a military that at one time in history successfully quelled a insurgency with the methods that you purport. I can name several that tried and failed…….

You suggest using my methods, we’d have an occupation of the country and there would be a new civilian government, but you’re wrong…….They’d have no time to form a government well they were seeking refuge in caves and we wouldn’t need to occupy what would essentially become a parking lot.

Ultimately, how did the man that arguably was the cause of the war in Afghanistan meet his fate? Not by thousands of NATO troops occupying the country, but by a handful of SEALs that brutally murdered him and his family.

Commiting atrocities left right and center would not bring about a speedy victory it would guarantee that there NEVER will be a victory. It would do nothing but guarantee a whole new generation of anti western terrorists. It would spawn decades of blowback, and a population in the middle east thats even more hostile to the west than it is now.

How much "blowback" has there been from the US army horse cavalry's handling of the plains Indians?

As for suggesting that we target civilians less is proof that we are "better". Its really a matter of wealth more than anything else. The tactics used by various groups are dictated more by how many resources are at their disposal than anything else. Terrorism is a low-tech poor mans tactic, and if your average suicide bomber had a more elegant means of delivering ordinance to the target (a shiny new fighter jet perhaps), then tactics would be different.

This is true, and unlike when two nation states go at it with clear defined objectives and end games, fighting a violent insurgency requires more of the same………brutal violence…..This has been the proven case for thousands of years.

[Guest Derek L]

Yep....it's to destroy the means and will to fight. Bombs away!

Indeed…….after reading some of the emotional responses in this thread, I’m forced to wonder, do they still teach History in schools?

I wonder how humane the people of Dresden and Tokyo thought us?

[bush_cheney2004]

Indeed…….after reading some of the emotional responses in this thread, I’m forced to wonder, do they still teach History in schools?

No, now they teach that it is "war profiteering" to sell GPS guided munitions kits for dumb iron bombs. How dare them make money reducing collateral damage.

I wonder how humane the people of Dresden and Tokyo thought us?

...better that than the....RUSSIANS!

[Guest Derek L]

No, now they teach that it is "war profiteering" to sell GPS guided munitions kits for dumb iron bombs. How dare them make money reducing collateral damage.

...better that than the....RUSSIANS!

I also wonder, how those that suggest we should involve ourselves in places like Rwanda or Darfur, plan to achieve their goals? I’m certain if we were to build schools and hospitals (With contracts to KBR), those wielding machetes and axes against women and children would stop.

[Evening Star]

How much "blowback" has there been from the US army horse cavalry's handling of the plains Indians?

To be clear, what is your opinion of the US Army's handling of the Plains 'Indians'?

[Guest Derek L]

To be clear, what is your opinion of the US Army's handling of the Plains 'Indians'?

Which opinion? The effectiveness of the campaign or the morality that caused it?

[Evening Star]

Which opinion? The effectiveness of the campaign or the morality that caused it?

The morality, I guess. I think we can probably agree that it achieved what it set out to do.

[Evening Star]

I'm also curious what you think would actually be an effective strategy for involvement in situations like Rwanda and Darfur. I agree that UN peacekeeping-type efforts might be futile. But do you think mass killing of civilians and destruction of civilian institutions would help?

Edited February 5, 2012 by Evening Star

[Guest Derek L]

The morality, I guess. I think we can probably agree that it achieved what it set out to do.

Clearly if one looks at it in a categorical imperative type light, it was obviously wrong……..On the inverse they were not the first group of peoples to be subjugated to the will of another, nor will they likely be the last……What can be learned from this, though full of many other well used clichés, is that Might makes Right.

[Guest Derek L]

I'm also curious what you think would actually be an effective strategy for involvement in situations like Rwanda and Darfur. I agree that UN peacekeeping-type efforts might be futile. But do you think mass killing of civilians and destruction of civilian institutions would help?

Not of both factions. Clearly we’d have to “pick sides” and as the side we choose gained supremacy over the other, we’d either have to be content with the company we keep or start backing the other side…….All the more reason not to involve ourselves I should think.

[Guest Manny]

Can you demonstrate a military that at one time in history successfully quelled a insurgency with the methods that you purport. I can name several that tried and failed…….

Nazi blitzkrieg methods were intended to reduce war operations to a minimum, reduce civilian deaths which were considered to be counterproductive and only made the enemy mode determined to fight, and reduce damage to a countries infrastructure. Those nutsy nazis...