bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 Not necessarily, there is a whole spectrum ranging from complete failure to astounding sucess. Exactly. That's the blunder that cost us the war. Not at all....the "war" was never framed that way in the first place. Iraq was certainly not a "blunder" given its higher priority for the US/UK. There is/was more to the world than just the intervention in Afghanistan. It's like saying that the American WW2 effort in the Pacific was a blunder because Canada was in Europe. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Michael Hardner Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 It was not Afghanistan that attacked the USA, it was Al-Queda. And most of the hijackers were Saudis. Afghanistan as a country had little if anything to do with 9/11. The hijackers trained to be pilots in the USA. I'm again explaining elementary things, and recounting history to you. The US told Afghanistan to hand over the terrorists, announcing that they would consider those who harbour terrorists the same as the terrorists themselves. After a period wherein Afghanistan didn't immediately comply, the US invaded. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
GostHacked Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 You seem to forget we live in a democracy and majority rules, we either live with that decision or we can try and change it. So in the begining a majority of Canadians were all for this mission. So in we went.... We were humping the mountains searching for bad guys under US forces using US assets...everything was golden...except for the fact we had green combats.... I don't remember voting on the war in Afghanistan. And the votes were cast, but the mission carried on even under a minority Harper government. Public opinion holds alot of weight in this country, i used the F-35 program as a good example of this, Can you say with 100 % certainity that public opinion is not what is holding our military from getting this plane....Airforce have a hard on for this plane so does the current government and they would take it as is right now...yet they have been presured to relook at the whole program ..where did that presure come from ? And perhaps you misunderstood me we did not need the F-35 in Afghan, i was using it as an example of the peoples voice and how powerful it is... The cost of the F-35 has gone way over budget, has been marred in technical issues, and will end up delaying the delivery date. Canadians are basing their opinion on the ongoing blunders and over budget issues. Our tax dollars are paying for these things, and if we are not getting the best plane for the best price, then what are we really doing with this project? Thats is the power of the people, that is their voice....and it is being heard by government in fact they don't do very much with out it....they check it for everything they do, as they know it is your vote that keeps them in office... Our votes don't matter, the government will do what it wants, when it wants. The timeline to bring you and your fellow soldiers was delayed several times. And not by the Canadian people. My second piont is it is the Canadian citizens responsability to have all our soldiers,policmen, fire fighters backs.... The only people I respect and back up by default are firefighters. Police have shown they cannot be trusted, so why should I have their backs? And you know a few of your buddies are hot heads. I will back those up that deserve it. I had your back before, as I would not have sent you there in the first place. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 In order to state the international community failed in Afghanistan you'd need to state what the goals were. True, and those mission objectives changed over time, culminating in a much broader nation building goal, far beyond any military intervention. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 What was the objective in Afghanistan? Anti-terrorism (Al Qaeda training camps, safe habour), counter insurgency for a fledgling government, PRT security, infrastructure build out, staging base for Pakistan interventions, Usama Bin 'Hidin, humanitarian aid, etc., etc. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 I'm again explaining elementary things, and recounting history to you. The US told Afghanistan to hand over the terrorists, announcing that they would consider those who harbour terrorists the same as the terrorists themselves. After a period wherein Afghanistan didn't immediately comply, the US invaded. They only moved to Pakistan and other countries. The Taliban received a lot of money from the USA with regards to the opium fields. The USA even hosted some of the Taliban government in the USA, but that was hushed. The USA has dealt with the Taliban for years. The main reason for going into Afghanistan was pipelines. That's it. The ousting of the Taliban was just the excuse we are told. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas. Unocal says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it. Guess which company Karzai worked for! Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 I'm again explaining elementary things, and recounting history to you. The US told Afghanistan to hand over the terrorists, announcing that they would consider those who harbour terrorists the same as the terrorists themselves. After a period wherein Afghanistan didn't immediately comply, the US invaded. True, and prior to this, the U.S. had attacked training bases in Afghanistan with cruise missiles (President Clinton). Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Big Guy Posted March 18, 2014 Author Report Posted March 18, 2014 I find it ironic that 24 Canadians were killed in New York on 9/11 and 158 were killed in retaliation for that attack. I hope we don't retaliate for that retaliation - the numbers indicate that this retaliation policy is faulty. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
GostHacked Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 I find it ironic that 24 Canadians were killed in New York on 9/11 and 158 were killed in retaliation for that attack. I hope we don't retaliate for that retaliation - the numbers indicate that this retaliation policy is faulty. More US soldiers died in Iraq than on 9/11. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 I find it ironic that 24 Canadians were killed in New York on 9/11 and 158 were killed in retaliation for that attack. I hope we don't retaliate for that retaliation - the numbers indicate that this retaliation policy is faulty. Good point...how many Canadians were killed by Germany in 1914 or 1939 ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 Both world wars had a trigger for the USA to get involved. Other than that, the USA would have not intervened. Quote
carepov Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 In order to state the international community failed in Afghanistan you'd need to state what the goals were. Not necessarily. If the costs were too high (as they were) the war can be considered a failure even if the goals were achieved. Besides, some goals were achieved, some weren't and some are too soon to judge. For example, if your goal is to build a house, and you complete a fine house. However, it took twice as long and cost three times as much and you lost a finger in a table saw and the stress of it all cost led to friendships falling apart, would you say: "Mission Accomplished"? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 For example, if your goal is to build a house, and you complete a fine house. However, it took twice as long and cost three times as much and you lost a finger in a table saw and the stress of it all cost led to friendships falling apart, would you say: "Mission Accomplished"? Yes....failure is guaranteed if one is willing to walk away at the first sign of trouble or exceeding the "budget" (never defined for Afghanistan anyway). I sure wouldn't want a general contractor who quit at the first lost finger. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
carepov Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 Not at all....the "war" was never framed that way in the first place. Iraq was certainly not a "blunder" given its higher priority for the US/UK. There is/was more to the world than just the intervention in Afghanistan. It's like saying that the American WW2 effort in the Pacific was a blunder because Canada was in Europe. The US/UK's first blunder was making Iraq a high priority. Quote
carepov Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 Yes....failure is guaranteed if one is willing to walk away at the first sign of trouble or exceeding the "budget" (never defined for Afghanistan anyway). I sure wouldn't want a general contractor who quit at the first lost finger. Me neither. I also wouldn't want a GC to spread themselves too thin. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) The US/UK's first blunder was making Iraq a high priority. Sorry, but the UN (and Canada) was in on that as well. Iraqi's hadn't killed any Canadians, but they did kill some Americans. The U.S. and U.K. can do more than one thing at the same time. Iraq had been ongoing for over 10 years. Edited March 18, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
carepov Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 Here is yet another way to demonstrate the deficiency of resources dedicated to Afghanistan. Approximate troop levels 2003-2006 US in Iraq: 140,000 Others in Iraq: 20,000 - 30,000 US in Afg.: 15,000 - 20,000 Others in Afg.: 10,000 - 15,000 Population Iraq: 33 million Afg: 35 million Area Iraq: 437,000 km2 Afg.: 652,000 km2 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 Here is yet another way to demonstrate the deficiency of resources dedicated to Afghanistan. OK...please do the same comparison for Canada, which is actually the topic here. The U.S. also had 30,000 troops in South Korea....what a blunder !! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
carepov Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 Here is an informative article: Mission Accomplished ! "The original aim to crush al-Qaeda there and drive out its Taliban host government was quickly achieved." Mission Accomplished ? "But al-Qaeda has since metastasized into Mali, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan, while the exiled Taliban forged tough guerrilla forces that now threaten both the Afghanistan and Pakistan regimes." "Just two months ago, a report compiled by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies predicted the gains made by the U.S. and NATO allies will likely be eroded over the next three years as insurgents and warlords seize large areas of the country from an increasingly "irrelevant" central government in Kabul." Karzai: "The entire NATO exercise was one that caused Afghanistan a lot of suffering, a lot of loss of life, and no gains because the country is not secure," For NATO, the war has proved massively costly by any count — somewhere over $900 billion US, with over 3,300 coalition troops (mostly American) killed. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/how-the-west-made-a-hash-of-the-afghan-war-brian-stewart-1.2571942 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 Here is an informative article: Yep...sounds about right. Relatively cheap in blood and treasure for over 12 years of "war". How much did Canada spend....a little more than the budget for the CBC ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
carepov Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 OK...please do the same comparison for Canada, which is actually the topic here. In 2005, Canadian troop levels in Afghanistan were doubled from 600 - 1200. They later peaked at around 2,500. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Posted March 18, 2014 In 2005, Canadian troop levels in Afghanistan were doubled from 600 - 1200. They later peaked at around 2,500. OK, so are those force levels and expenditures more or less commensurate with the resources provided by the U.S. or U.K. ? We already know that many Canadian KIAs were a direct result of poor armour and rotary winged aircraft procurement decisions back home. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Army Guy Posted March 19, 2014 Report Posted March 19, 2014 I don't remember voting on the war in Afghanistan. And the votes were cast, but the mission carried on even under a minority Harper government. The cost of the F-35 has gone way over budget, has been marred in technical issues, and will end up delaying the delivery date. Canadians are basing their opinion on the ongoing blunders and over budget issues. Our tax dollars are paying for these things, and if we are not getting the best plane for the best price, then what are we really doing with this project? Our votes don't matter, the government will do what it wants, when it wants. The timeline to bring you and your fellow soldiers was delayed several times. And not by the Canadian people. The only people I respect and back up by default are firefighters. Police have shown they cannot be trusted, so why should I have their backs? And you know a few of your buddies are hot heads. I will back those up that deserve it. I had your back before, as I would not have sent you there in the first place. Well like i said majority rules, according to the link below it suggests that a whopping 74% approved the Canada sending troops. And like i said before "YOU" may be in that 26 % that either had no say, or did not want to send troops....But what did you do about it....nothing i bet.... At the end of 2001, a poll quoted by the Washington Post showed that 74% of Canadians supported the US-led war in Afghanistan.[56] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_role_in_the_Afghanistan_War You made my piont for me in regards to the F-35...I said the government and DND really wanted this A/C...So my question to you is why is it not sitting on some Canadian airfield right now or why is there no Canadian production....because of the presure from the Canadian public.....You can't have it both ways, can't just decide "DND" your not getting that because it is a waste of my tax dollars....and then say we have no vioce you can't blame me for not having the right equipment.....Your voice is being heard.... You say the government will do what ever it wants....well explain to me why the F-35 program is not going any wheres....and forget what is wrong with the plane, concentrate on why the government does not have this plane right now ?....because it wants it bad.... Police are not to be trusted, some soldiers are hot heads, so lets paint them with one brush... 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.
carepov Posted March 19, 2014 Report Posted March 19, 2014 OK, so are those force levels and expenditures more or less commensurate with the resources provided by the U.S. or U.K. ? We already know that many Canadian KIAs were a direct result of poor armour and rotary winged aircraft procurement decisions back home. In some ways Canada under-contributed and in other ways we "punched above our weight". Canada's role is significant however our contributions are a fraction of the US commitments. The USA is the general contractor with many trades and Canada is one trade. Quote
Army Guy Posted March 19, 2014 Report Posted March 19, 2014 In some ways Canada under-contributed and in other ways we "punched above our weight". Canada's role is significant however our contributions are a fraction of the US commitments. The USA is the general contractor with many trades and Canada is one trade. How did we punch above our weight ? 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.
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.