Is Afghanistan worth it?

[greyman]

All told, if one looks at overall defence stock prices today, they are staying stable and in most cases rising, despite Obama’s (And many other Western Governments) stated policy of reducing defence expenditures……..I bet you can’t figure that one out

Reducing defence expenditures sounds great to me, as long as they cut spending everywhere else too.

I have no doubt that companies who manufacture drones have rising or steady stock prices. Makes sense to me.

[Guest Derek L]

Reducing defence expenditures sounds great to me, as long as they cut spending everywhere else too.

I have no doubt that companies who manufacture drones have rising or steady stock prices. Makes sense to me.

Nearly all major defence stock prices are rising in contrast to the announcement of defence spending cuts, (Namely in the United States) this is in recognition that without strong Western militaries, the world will become an inheritably more dangerous place.

[greyman]

Just as Iran is alive.

Explain.

Exactly, you seem to have some common sense about you…….In this scenario, your position is reached not through diplomatic means, but the realization that a .45ACP round would dead you rather quick.

Right, and at no time have I suggested Canada completely de-arm itself. I advocate for just the opposite, in fact. But just because we have a gun, doesn't mean we have to use it to make war just for war's sake. There's a distinction here...I think it's important to have a strong national defense, but that means we only use our weapons as a last resort - and we use diplomacy first.

Ensuring our nation has the means to survive and live it’s expected lifestyle.

We do have the means to survive. Engaging in pre-emptive wars leads us further down the path to ruin. It weakens our national defense to war-monger.

[greyman]

Nearly all major defence stock prices are rising in contrast to the announcement of defence spending cuts, (Namely in the United States) this is in recognition that without strong Western militaries, the world will become an inheritably more dangerous place.

"inheritably more dangerous"

Explain.

Who is talking about the US not having a strong military?

You can have a strong military and not engage in pre-emptive wars. Pre-emptive wars make the world a more dangerous place, particularly if you're not an American civilian.

[Guest Derek L]

Explain.

Iran hasn’t been attacked yet

Right, and at no time have I suggested Canada completely de-arm itself. I advocate for just the opposite, in fact. But just because we have a gun, doesn't mean we have to use it to make war just for war's sake. There's a distinction here...I think it's important to have a strong national defense, but that means we only use our weapons as a last resort - and we use diplomacy first.

Go back and read my first post in this thread……..or any of my other past defence related posts.

We do have the means to survive. Engaging in pre-emptive wars leads us further down the path to ruin. It weakens our national defense to war-monger.

Economically? How’s the manufacturing industry in Ontario today?

[Guest Derek L]

"inheritably more dangerous"

Explain.

I throw that Colt into the ocean, Now you and I (and the other fishermen) have changed the balance of power on our Island…….

Who is talking about the US not having a strong military?

You can have a strong military and not engage in pre-emptive wars. Pre-emptive wars make the world a more dangerous place, particularly if you're not an American civilian.

President Obama and SecDef Leon Panetta.

[greyman]

Iran hasn’t been attacked yet

And your point is? What? You think they should be?

Go back and read my first post in this thread……..or any of my other past defence related posts.

Or you can address what I just said.

Economically? How’s the manufacturing industry in Ontario today?

Manufacturing in Ontario is hurting because of government intervention in the economy.

[greyman]

I throw that Colt into the ocean, Now you and I (and the other fishermen) have changed the balance of power on our Island…….

I don't advocate that Canada throws its "Colt" into the ocean. I think we ought to have lots of Colts on hand.

President Obama and SecDef Leon Panetta.

They're idiots - if what you're saying is true.

A strong national defense is important.

[Guest Derek L]

And your point is? What? You think they should be?

If they go along with their stated threat, yes.

Or you can address what I just said.

I’ve addressed my views numerous times and don’t feel obligated to repeat myself for someone that joined the community the other day………It’s your choice really, my views on a great many issues have been stated already……….One could even call it a pre-emption of this particular discussion……..

Go ahead, you might learn something or find some points that haven’t been covered already. I’ve no problem continuing discussing this topic with you, but prior to me continuing, you’ll need some further background on where I stand……Besides, there’s a football game on.

[greyman]

If they go along with their stated threat, yes.

Unless their stated threat is to physically attack our homeland, we ought to leave them alone.

I’ve addressed my views numerous times and don’t feel obligated to repeat myself for someone that joined the community the other day………It’s your choice really, my views on a great many issues have been stated already……….One could even call it a pre-emption of this particular discussion……..

Go ahead, you might learn something or find some points that haven’t been covered already. I’ve no problem continuing discussing this topic with you, but prior to me continuing, you’ll need some further background on where I stand……Besides, there’s a football game on.

No one joins a message board to read discussions already had.

[bush_cheney2004]

Unless their stated threat is to physically attack our homeland, we ought to leave them alone.

Sorry, Canada is a NATO member...collective "defense" and all that jazz.

[greyman]

Sorry, Canada is a NATO member...collective "defense" and all that jazz.

Yes, put quotes around your use of the word defense, because we both know it's not defense at all, it's just the opposite.

Canada needs to get out NATO.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, put quotes around your use of the word defense, because we both know it's not defense at all, it's just the opposite.

Canada needs to get out NATO.

But Canada won't. And you know it.

[Guest Derek L]

Unless their stated threat is to physically attack our homeland, we ought to leave them alone.

So you purport an isolationist philosophy?

No one joins a message board to read discussions already had.

And no one is forced to repeat themselves…..There we have it.

[Army Guy]

That sounds like a manufactured response………As I said, the way in which both Iraq and Afghanistan (And the Soviets crack at it) and even Vietnam were fought was incorrect…..You don’t fight an insurgency that relies on terrorism with “winning hearts and minds” and “reconstruction”……..A valid response to terrorism, is terrorism ten fold………I wouldn’t even waste that much time or resources targeting the armed terrorists themselves……Kill their parents, wives and children in horrible, undignified ways….Don’t bomb terrorists training camps or weapons caches…….Bomb the Schools, Mosques and Hospitals their families use……..Don’t try and prevent shipments of weapons to them…….Poison their water, spoil their food and end medical aid to them.

Test their resolve and see if they will allow the ones they love to be the actual martyrs

The type of warfare you discribe goes beyond unrestrictive or total war,IE WWI and WWII, History is full of examples of early warfare like the one you discribe when slaughtering an entire race or nation was possiable, by any means and when i mean possiable i mean aceptable to the agressors population. Don't get me wrong, this type of warfare also needs to be acceptable to the soldiers carrying it out. Example of that was what the Nazi's went through, when they used Regular army troops to help in opening stages of exterminating the Jews...

Nobody really cared about what happened to the North American Indians as one example someone mentioned...Nor did the care about what happened to the Germans or Japanense soldiers or people "they deserved ever thing they got was a popular saying at the time..... because we had conditioned the public to see them as less than equal or as less human..

Today citizens are concerned with the holding of the moral ground,we should conduct ourself within our nations values...because they don't have a clue what is War or how it is waged... as war is not a part of our everyday lives the citizens do not understand it's full reaches and just how devasting it can be. Sure we see footage on TV, and think thats what war is but in reality it is not even close....Shit the world got together and even made rules about how to conduct warfare thinking that it would make it easier more bearable to the populations...again not in reality...In reality, war is a beast, a few rules does not make it any more bearable, it does however ease the minds of those that have not experienced it.

History is full of examples were unrestictive warfare that yopu described has worked, and has worked for generations afterward. a mild example is Russia in Afghanistan, they wiped out entire villages, towns even cities in multi divisional size campaigns ...killing all that opposed them...in these cases it did create more terrorist....more resitance...The Russian kept to plans that were weeks old, with no deviation to them , which allowed alot of Afghanis citizens to escape...had they had flexable plans and stepped up the brutlity who knows...but other examples in history clearly prove your piont being absolutly brutal does break the will to fight...

The problem with terrorist in Afghan is they are already brutal, and one would have to step it up serveral notches to be effective....something on the scale of the monguls would do...another would be who would carry it out, killing combatants is easy, it's the women and children Canadian soldiers would have massive problems with......the PTSD cases would be enormous...how would you convince Canadians it was OK, how would you accept soldiers coming back from this war...It can be done but it would take a massive proganda machine...and years to accomplish.

[Guest Derek L]

The type of warfare you discribe goes beyond unrestrictive or total war,IE WWI and WWII, History is full of examples of early warfare like the one you discribe when slaughtering an entire race or nation was possiable, by any means and when i mean possiable i mean aceptable to the agressors population. Don't get me wrong, this type of warfare also needs to be acceptable to the soldiers carrying it out. Example of that was what the Nazi's went through, when they used Regular army troops to help in opening stages of exterminating the Jews...

Nobody really cared about what happened to the North American Indians as one example someone mentioned...Nor did the care about what happened to the Germans or Japanense soldiers or people "they deserved ever thing they got was a popular saying at the time..... because we had conditioned the public to see them as less than equal or as less human..

Today citizens are concerned with the holding of the moral ground,we should conduct ourself within our nations values...because they don't have a clue what is War or how it is waged... as war is not a part of our everyday lives the citizens do not understand it's full reaches and just how devasting it can be. Sure we see footage on TV, and think thats what war is but in reality it is not even close....Shit the world got together and even made rules about how to conduct warfare thinking that it would make it easier more bearable to the populations...again not in reality...In reality, war is a beast, a few rules does not make it any more bearable, it does however ease the minds of those that have not experienced it.

History is full of examples were unrestictive warfare that yopu described has worked, and has worked for generations afterward. a mild example is Russia in Afghanistan, they wiped out entire villages, towns even cities in multi divisional size campaigns ...killing all that opposed them...in these cases it did create more terrorist....more resitance...The Russian kept to plans that were weeks old, with no deviation to them , which allowed alot of Afghanis citizens to escape...had they had flexable plans and stepped up the brutlity who knows...but other examples in history clearly prove your piont being absolutly brutal does break the will to fight...

The problem with terrorist in Afghan is they are already brutal, and one would have to step it up serveral notches to be effective....something on the scale of the monguls would do...another would be who would carry it out, killing combatants is easy, it's the women and children Canadian soldiers would have massive problems with......the PTSD cases would be enormous...how would you convince Canadians it was OK, how would you accept soldiers coming back from this war...It can be done but it would take a massive proganda machine...and years to accomplish.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying “total unrestricted warfare” on moral grounds, But it is effective as history has proven. With that said, “moral warfare”, the winning of “hearts and minds” and “reconstruction”, though perhaps more “pleasant” in the in the minds of the general public at home, has been an abject failure when dealing with insurgency………..Vietnam, Malaya, Somalia, the FRY, Afghanistan and Iraq etc.

Contrast with the occupation of both Germany and Japan……….In both cases, the militaries of said nations were pummelled to a pulp, the civilian populations were devastated by unrestricted bombing for years and the Allies installed military rule for a number of years post-war………There was no insurgency, because it was known that it would simply invite more of the same………And there still is a foreign presence in Japan, Germany and Korea today.

My stated opinion is that unless we are prepared to fight a war, without self-imposed restrictions that limit our effectiveness, through to the bitter end, we have no business involving ourselves in one.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Contrast with the occupation of both Germany and Japan……….In both cases, the militaries of said nations were pummelled to a pulp, the civilian populations were devastated by unrestricted bombing for years and the Allies installed military rule for a number of years post-war………There was no insurgency,

Kinda...sorta...there was a small post V-E Day insurgency in Germany (Operation Werwolf), and Japanese combatants were found well into the 1960's, mostly on remote islands.

[Guest Derek L]

Kinda...sorta...there was a small post V-E Day insurgency in Germany (Operation Werwolf), and Japanese combatants were found well into the 1960's, mostly on remote islands.

But nothing like what we’ve seen in recent years……And we both know how “well” members of the SS were treated by the Allies.

[bush_cheney2004]

But nothing like what we’ve seen in recent years……And we both know how “well” members of the SS were treated by the Allies.

Right, but the existence of even that small insurgency caused more hardship for the general occupied population by the Allies.

[Guest Derek L]

Right, but the existence of even that small insurgency caused more hardship for the general occupied population by the Allies.

Exactly, their actions and the Allied reactions weren’t deemed positive in the public’s perception……..I always remember that scene in Private Ryan when they take the German machine gun nest and the captured German soldier’s response: “Home run baseball, hot apple pie, Oh say can’t you see”

[eyeball]

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying “total unrestricted warfare” on moral grounds, But it is effective as history has proven. With that said, “moral warfare”, the winning of “hearts and minds” and “reconstruction”, though perhaps more “pleasant” in the in the minds of the general public at home, has been an abject failure when dealing with insurgency………..Vietnam, Malaya, Somalia, the FRY, Afghanistan and Iraq etc.

There are also those of us at home who've realized for some time now that we're such abject losers because we're filled with shit and lack the moral and ethical background it takes to conduct never mind win a moral war.

Who are we trying to kid? Ourselves mostly.

[Guest Derek L]

There are also those of us at home who've realized for some time now that we're such abject losers because we're filled with shit and lack the moral and ethical background it takes to conduct never mind win a moral war.

Who are we trying to kid? Ourselves mostly.

I sometimes wonder how well we would have made out in WW II with CNN, Alex Jones and warfare in general made into a political sport……….

[eyeball]

I sometimes wonder how well we would have made out in WW II with CNN, Alex Jones and warfare in general made into a political sport……….

I wonder how many would have so willingly marched off for King and country if the levels of distrust and disbelief in what the government said then were as low as they are today.

I certainly don't see any reason to believe the 1% or whatever they called it back then was any less corrupt than today, they certainly had access to more secrecy back then. I'd need the evidence that only a time-viewer could provide to conclude otherwise.

[Army Guy]

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying “total unrestricted warfare” on moral grounds, But it is effective as history has proven. With that said, “moral warfare”, the winning of “hearts and minds” and “reconstruction”, though perhaps more “pleasant” in the in the minds of the general public at home, has been an abject failure when dealing with insurgency………..Vietnam, Malaya, Somalia, the FRY, Afghanistan and Iraq etc.

Because the population and insugency are not tied together...IE 30 mil Afghanis wanted nothing to do with the taliban....and at the peak a 100,000 Taliban wanted to control over the majority....and they were good at controling them because the terrorist were inter mingled with the population, how does one pummel the bad guys with out hurting the good guys....That is a major problem...and perhaps explains why it was so effective in Germany and Japan, because we punished them all equally....

I think that is why we decided to take on this 3 block war tactic, engage enemy on one block provide humanitary assitance on another, and rebuild on the third block, all happening at the same time...good theory hard to implement....But the plan was to simpley over whelm them with numbers and re build faster than they could destroy...until Iraq became another Priority...this is the beginings of NATO's down fall trying to fill in the void the americans left ....But your right it did not work ,and i blame NATO and it's lack of will for that...but the theory does look good on paper...

[Guest Derek L]

Because the population and insugency are not tied together...IE 30 mil Afghanis wanted nothing to do with the taliban....and at the peak a 100,000 Taliban wanted to control over the majority....and they were good at controling them because the terrorist were inter mingled with the population, how does one pummel the bad guys with out hurting the good guys....That is a major problem...and perhaps explains why it was so effective in Germany and Japan, because we punished them all equally....

I think that is why we decided to take on this 3 block war tactic, engage enemy on one block provide humanitary assitance on another, and rebuild on the third block, all happening at the same time...good theory hard to implement....But the plan was to simpley over whelm them with numbers and re build faster than they could destroy...until Iraq became another Priority...this is the beginings of NATO's down fall trying to fill in the void the americans left ....But your right it did not work ,and i blame NATO and it's lack of will for that...but the theory does look good on paper...

As I said, the political doctrine implemented was a failure…….And I don’t mean on the part of the military, since (and rightfully so) the military is at the behest of the democratically elected civilian government……