Afghanistan Lessons

[Big Guy]

I am a proud and ordinary member of the Canadian Legion and have the highest and greatest respect for what those in Canadian uniforms have accomplished when sent by our elected civilians.

My problem is with the elected civilians. There has to be a very good and thoughtful reason to send our soldiers into conflict zones.

I do not think the sending of our troops into Afghanistan was a good idea. Our military did a superb job against an enemy that we did not understand. Our politicians had little understanding and our military paid the price.

I still believe that those who decide on military involvement in the Middle East have no idea of what they are facing, who they consider to be the enemy and do not have the capacity or courage to admit when a mistake has been made and reverse a deadly policy.

The Canadian military is financed by Canadian taxpayers. Canadians invest not only their money but the reputation of Canada with every military expedition. The safety abroad of Canadians is based on how the rest of the world views us.

If/when we are part of a coalition which is dropping bombs on foreign countries, killing hundreds of innocent civilians and rationalizing and excusing it as "acceptable collateral action" I suggest those action endanger every Canadian living here or abroad.

Those Canadian airmen did not make the decision to fly those missions - it is the elected civil authority which made that decision and gave that direction.

Our military actions have been unsuccessful, futile and self defeating over the last few years. That is not the fault of those who were sent there but the fault and responsibility of those armchair Generals in Ottawa whose prime focus is on re-election.

[Army Guy]

Big guy:

I dont doubt your admiration for those that have served, in fact thank you for it. That being said there is alot of Canadians that do talk out of the sides of their mouths , saying one thing and meaning something else, Supporting our troops is one of those things....And for the most part the soldiers get it.

I think the government did a great job at selling the mission in the early years, Canadian civilian support was very high. I remember the turn out of civilians at trenton number in the thousands, and we left at 3 am. As the mission progressed the government fails at turning out a clear mission statement, but at this point the mission is changing daily so i can't really blame the government.

As for them not understanding the mission , again i disagree, everytime we turned around there was another dog and pony that had to be set up for incoming government officials, and it was not limited to just the cons, every party had multi trips throughout the year. it was due to security that they had to stay in KAF for the most part....I think they should have gone outside the wire and should have stayed with the troops a couple of days in field conditions, along with the media....yes it would have been a circus, but they would have received a first person look at what was going on in the country....

Did they make a good decision to enter the afghan conflict, i think so,did they understand the conflict , i think so, i dont agree that they could have reversed the decision when things went south....For most that did go , we knew who we were fighting , we knew their tactics, how they conducted operations , their political beliefs, and how far they were willing to go....i mean it's not like history was just invented....But stepping into any conflict , everyone has to agree it is a long and slow process, there is no drive through, conflicts take decades to resolve.....

Your right DND is financed by the taxpayers, which includes soldiers. That being said was most of the Afghanistan mission came out of DND coffers, which included some of the diplomatic projects, This caused many problems DND is still facing today, delay in major purchasing projects, it effected training, other DND operations, cuts to every aspect of DND life....

Had these expenses been added to the taxpayers burden, i think the mission would have been looked at closer by taxpayers. The people would have taken more interest in it. Very few of the media ever left the camp, very few reported on the conditions our soldiers faced,or the tools they were using, and when the story did get out, such as soldiers driving lightly armoured vehs, such as iltis jeeps, wrong camouflage, soldiers had already paid the price for those failures with their lives.....until then everyone in Canada was content,or should i say bored with the mission....

For any mission to be successful it needs more than boots on the ground, it needs the support of the Country, it needs industry, it needs to be funded.....it needs to be long term.....We can point our fingers at the government , and shout here is the failure, but when history is recorded, we all had a part to play.....as for our safety abroad, again it is a team sport, it is not just our government , our military, that plays a role it all of us, from stripping off on some mountain, to how we conduct ourselves at some resort.....to how we conduct warfare.

Canadians need to understand war, and what it means, our generations have long forgotten what real war is, sure we get a taste from watching movies, but war is about death and destruction period.....how many french citizens died in the liberation of france, shit lets talk about just at normandy....thousands in just a few days. today we watch the news and gasp 25 died here or there, because we decided to drop a few bombs, nobody cares that this is war, nor do they understand the cost of destroying high value targets....war is about whom ever can destroy the most, the fastest and the cheapest...that includes accepting that innocent civilians are going to die...I know that sounds cold, and evil....but that is what war is all about....and if we can not accept that then we should not go to war. or peace keep, or take part in defensive agreements period.

[Big Guy]

To Army Guy - Thank you for sharing your experiences and your views.

[eyeball]

To ensure you really truly have the support of Canadians to invade other countries soldiers should insist on putting the question to referendum and seeking no less than a super-majority with at least 65% - 70% of voters supporting the invasion.

Relying on a political party with no more than a stupid FPTP majority of 40% at best and hoping they can generate a broad national consensus for invading other countries is just ridiculous and really dangerous - it makes war a partisan exercise in acrimonious bickering that only divides us while unifying 'our' enemies.

Peddle the pap about Canadians putting aside their differences BEFORE going to war not after.

[Big Guy]

To eyeball - I believe that the problem with recent "wars" in which Canada has been involved is that we have never declared war on anybody. We have backed into or have been backed into simmering conflicts and then left holding the bag when the bullets start flying.

I do agree with you that there has to be a trigger at which point Canada commits troops against another nation. I have always been respectful of Colin Powell, an experienced American General and Statesman with a great knowledge of war. He has declared his Colin Doctrine which states a list of questions, all that have to be answered affirmatively before military action by a nation. I adapt it to Canadian interests;

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2. Do we have a clear and attainable objective?

3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4. Have all the other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

7. Is the action supported by the Canadian people?

8. Do we have a genuine broad international support?

He followed with, "We should be exhausting every political, economic and diplomatic means and only if these means prove to be futile, should a nation resort to military force."

If Canada would have applied that philosophy in the last few years we would not have wasted Canadian lives and money in Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan and now Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

[Rue]

To WIP your comment that the West creates terrorists is not worthy . If you think you can blame terrorism on the West you clearly are absolving terrorists of their choice to choose violence, terror and death and to me that is not worthy.

In regards to Big Guy's response, I at first thought he was exploiting membership in the Legion and wrapping the flag around him to confer on himself automatic credibility but reading it back he has the right to say that. He has the right to argueheis not a coward or does not hate his country for not wanting to fight terrorists.

I get that.. I do not like the personal attention he brought to himself but I understand why. It means something to me if he served and stand down. His position has more meaning to me even though I still disagree with it.

I I truly believe though that terrorists like Nazis or other certain extremist political entities can not be appeased nor should they be treated as sane nor should they be expunged of their individual responsibility to make the choice to engage in terror to express their political will.

My bias comes from witnessing the results of terrorism.

I believe the only thing a terrorist understands is a bullet and I loath war and violence as much as anyone but I say that with no malice just deep resignation.

I thank bloody God people put on a uniform and defend my way of life. I can not thank them enough.

As for terrorists to me they are a vivid illustration of human failure. I support Harper's position on it and he is no more a war monger than Big Guy is a coward.

Bush bloody well knows I respect the lives of Americans dead from fighting terrorists. They may have made mistakes in Iraq or Afghanistan but they did the dirt work so the rest of us could sit on our comfortable asses.

On this issue there are damn good reasons to search for peace which we should never stop trying to do yes. I just think its naïve to think with ISIL or Al Quaeda or Hezbollah that will happen.

Then again Yithak Shamir and Menachem Begin embraced terror then later renounced it.

The head of the IRA denounced it and disarmed and sat at peace table.

My words are also directed at Army Guy who would expect me to have stated what I did . Its my way of showing respect to him. If I miss the point Big Guy was making I am not deserving of being in this debate or saying I respect Army Guy for his service.

I believe people who equate terrorists to victims with no alternative choices are dead wrong. They have a choice its called disarming and choosing to sit and engage in discussions.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Rue

[Army Guy]

To ensure you really truly have the support of Canadians to invade other countries soldiers should insist on putting the question to referendum and seeking no less than a super-majority with at least 65% - 70% of voters supporting the invasion.

Relying on a political party with no more than a stupid FPTP majority of 40% at best and hoping they can generate a broad national consensus for invading other countries is just ridiculous and really dangerous - it makes war a partisan exercise in acrimonious bickering that only divides us while unifying 'our' enemies.

Peddle the pap about Canadians putting aside their differences BEFORE going to war not after.

Soldiers do not run this country, nor do they have a say in how it is run, with the only exception of placing a vote, in fact soldiers have less options than regular citizens, they can not publically voice an opinion be it to favour or disapprove on the government policy or decision, they can not take part in any political demonstration or event, they can not protest policies, or federal decisions....Soldiers are suppose to be grey, soldiers have two options, abide by government policies,decisions or quit the military....And for what become a stat, joining the unemployment line, and for those that have to feed families quitting to make a small point that will be forgotten before your release papers are approved is crazy.

My first question is why are Canadians leaving this in the hands of its soldiers, thats bullshit.....Canadians have forgotten the power each and everyone has the right to demonstrate unfavourable government decisions, be it a gather signatures, using the media, or gather on the lawns of parliament. if they can not do that, for ever reason you have a couple of options, suck it up, move to another country.

If Canadian Citizens can not get out to vote then they deserve any government that is formed, and forced to endure what ever that government decides, with a large sign placed on their heads, I DID NOT VOTE, so the rest of us could tell them to STFU when they whine and complain. For those that did vote and lost you still have rights and a voice. take action to make change....if you dont have time for that then see para above....

[Army Guy]

To WIP your comment that the West creates terrorists is not worthy . If you think you can blame terrorism on the West you clearly are absolving terrorists of their choice to choose violence, terror and death and to me that is not worthy.

In regards to Big Guy's response, I at first thought he was exploiting membership in the Legion and wrapping the flag around him to confer on himself automatic credibility but reading it back he has the right to say that. He has the right to argueheis not a coward or does not hate his country for not wanting to fight terrorists.

I get that.. I do not like the personal attention he brought to himself but I understand why. It means something to me if he served and stand down. His position has more meaning to me even though I still disagree with it.

I I truly believe though that terrorists like Nazis or other certain extremist political entities can not be appeased nor should they be treated as sane nor should they be expunged of their individual responsibility to make the choice to engage in terror to express their political will.

My bias comes from witnessing the results of terrorism.

I believe the only thing a terrorist understands is a bullet and I loath war and violence as much as anyone but I say that with no malice just deep resignation.

I thank bloody God people put on a uniform and defend my way of life. I can not thank them enough.

As for terrorists to me they are a vivid illustration of human failure. I support Harper's position on it and he is no more a war monger than Big Guy is a coward.

Bush bloody well knows I respect the lives of Americans dead from fighting terrorists. They may have made mistakes in Iraq or Afghanistan but they did the dirt work so the rest of us could sit on our comfortable asses.

On this issue there are damn good reasons to search for peace which we should never stop trying to do yes. I just think its naïve to think with ISIL or Al Quaeda or Hezbollah that will happen.

Then again Yithak Shamir and Menachem Begin embraced terror then later renounced it.

The head of the IRA denounced it and disarmed and sat at peace table.

My words are also directed at Army Guy who would expect me to have stated what I did . Its my way of showing respect to him. If I miss the point Big Guy was making I am not deserving of being in this debate or saying I respect Army Guy for his service.

I believe people who equate terrorists to victims with no alternative choices are dead wrong. They have a choice its called disarming and choosing to sit and engage in discussions.

well said.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Army Guy

[eyeball]

I think soldiers who volunteer should carry a heavier weight of responsibility than anyone else, they're the one's doing the actual killing after all. I find it odd that I'm expected to support the troops whether I loath the mission or not especially knowing that the troops have volunteered. Am I supposed to believe you don't support the mission, the government and by extension everything that most of us that oppose our involvement pretty much loath? I know I've heard all about the horrible people that you need to save poor little kids from but that's not what this conflict is or has ever been about. It's just...pap....that I probably would have supported and even volunteered to go kill and die for too IF that had been the prime reason for going in the first place.

And taxpayers even those who refuse to vote have no choice but to get blood on their money whether they like it or not. That's why soldiers should be forced to make do with war bonds - let the hawks carry their own weight when it comes to invading other countries.

Options...the only option I have is to refuse to pay my taxes. How many of us doing that would it take do you think before soldiers were ordered to level their guns at us? Would they opt for a pay-cheque and follow orders or pause to consider? Surely there were at least a few Canadian soldiers who refused to follow the crowd when it came to shipping out to the ME too.

Edited August 8, 2015 by eyeball

[WIP]

To WIP your comment that the West creates terrorists is not worthy . If you think you can blame terrorism on the West you clearly are absolving terrorists of their choice to choose violence, terror and death and to me that is not worthy.

I say it is very worthy! Because the scale and frequency of American military interference in the rest of the world (full spectrum dominance) since the fall of the Soviet Union was even greater than I realized after I read this editorial by Glenn Greenwald last fall: How Many Muslim Countries Has the U.S. Bombed Or Occupied Since 1980?

quoting military historian Andrew Bacevich:

As America’s efforts to “degrade and ultimately destroy” Islamic State militants extent into Syria, Iraq War III has seamlessly morphed into Greater Middle East Battlefield XIV. That is, Syria has become at least the 14th country in the Islamic world that U.S. forces have invaded or occupied or bombed, and in which American soldiers have killed or been killed. And that’s just since 1980.

Let’s tick them off: Iran (1980, 1987-1988), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2011, 2014-), Somalia (1992-1993, 2007-), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan (1998, 2001-), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-), Pakistan (2004-) and now Syria. Whew.

Greenwald notes that Bacevich's list doesn't include the bombings and occupations done by proxies of US - Israel and Saudi Arabia.

I'm not going to declare that resentment of foreign invasions and interference is the only reason for inspiring terrorism, since many Latin Americans I've spoken to...especially from Central American countries, know the game that's been played that led them to flee or want to leave their homelands; but that could change also in the future, as the new world of high tech counter-insurgency controls makes it virtually impossible to overthrow despotic regimes through revolutions and uprisings.

Edited August 8, 2015 by WIP

[bush_cheney2004]

Greenwald notes that Bacevich's list doesn't include the bombings and occupations done by proxies of US - Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Don't forget to add Canada to the list of US "proxies".

[WIP]

To eyeball - I believe that the problem with recent "wars" in which Canada has been involved is that we have never declared war on anybody. We have backed into or have been backed into simmering conflicts and then left holding the bag when the bullets start flying.

Personally, I couldn't give a flying f*** whether the wars are declared or not declared! The wars are still happening and with greater frequency as the years go by. And I believe this primarily because advanced, high tech armies attacking small third world nations have a huge overwhelming advantage that drastically reduces the risks of failure.

Remember, half a century ago, the US lost 50,000 soldiers in Vietnam. When they were bombing North Vietnam, they were losing on average - two planes per day during the bombing....nowadays, high tech fighters and bombers only crash due to pilot or mechanical error! It's almost risk free. And what could be more risk free than sending robot drones to bomb targets? Personally, I think there should be a cost for war by both sides! The attacker...even one having overwhelming numbers should face some jeopardy so they don't frivolously mount war and near-war campaigns for frivolous and ultimately commercial objectives....like controlling oil supplies.

One thing that is also different from the Vietnam Era, is that we were also regularly reminded that we got enough goddamed nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over. Guess what! The nukes are still there! They didn't go away, and the odds of a full scale civilization-ending nuclear war are likely greater today than they were a half century ago, because it's so easy to lay the groundwork with wars of opportunity. Right now, the US is trying to encircle Russia and China with hostile forces as well as degrading their economic power.

Whether Obama and whoever actually runs the US Government think that's a good idea, how smart is it to be pushing at the borders and attempting to destabilize major nuclear powers? That's something even the most hardline warhawks wouldn't have considered 50 years ago. But then again, those Cold War leaders and generals had one big difference from today's generation of mostly chickenhawks: they actually fought in wars and knew the costs of war!

[GostHacked]

To WIP your comment that the West creates terrorists is not worthy . If you think you can blame terrorism on the West you clearly are absolving terrorists of their choice to choose violence, terror and death and to me that is not worthy.

So where did Osama get his start? And then tell me how the CIA did not give weapons to the Muhajedeen.

The US may not outright create terrorists. But they sure as hell facilitate them with money and weapons and in the case in Syria using Turkey as their bitch to house the FSA , giving them a base of operations within Turkey.

Tell me the USA did not give weapons to terrorists (sorry freedom fighters) in the Iran-Contra affair.

[WIP]

Don't forget to add Canada to the list of US "proxies".

That's right! That's the most shameful part of the Harper legacy.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's right! That's the most shameful part of the Harper legacy.

....and Martin's....and Chretien's.

[On Guard for Thee]

....and Martin's....and Chretien's.

You see to forget that Chretien thumbed his nose at your namesake and said, no. Perhaps he said it in french so you missed it.

[WIP]

So where did Osama get his start? And then tell me how the CIA did not give weapons to the Muhajedeen.

The US may not outright create terrorists. But they sure as hell facilitate them with money and weapons and in the case in Syria using Turkey as their bitch to house the FSA , giving them a base of operations within Turkey.

Tell me the USA did not give weapons to terrorists (sorry freedom fighters) in the Iran-Contra affair.

The death squads in Central America created by the CIA were clear examples of creating terrorism. Not only the so called contras in Nicaragua, but the mercenaries who raided native villages and settlements in El Salvador and Guatemala, were un-uniformed police and soldiers payed for and trained by the CIA with Whitehouse authorization. The US-installed dictators in Guatemala and El Salvador only represented a few large landowners and wealthier citydwellers. They couldn't win the trust of native villagers, so they decided to just massacre them and drive survivors across the Mexican border. And it was all done with satellite and other surveillance intel provided covertly by the Reagan Administration.

[Army Guy]

I think soldiers who volunteer should carry a heavier weight of responsibility than anyone else, they're the one's doing the actual killing after all. I find it odd that I'm expected to support the troops whether I loath the mission or not especially knowing that the troops have volunteered. Am I supposed to believe you don't support the mission, the government and by extension everything that most of us that oppose our involvement pretty much loath? I know I've heard all about the horrible people that you need to save poor little kids from but that's not what this conflict is or has ever been about. It's just...pap....that I probably would have supported and even volunteered to go kill and die for too IF that had been the prime reason for going in the first place.

And taxpayers even those who refuse to vote have no choice but to get blood on their money whether they like it or not. That's why soldiers should be forced to make do with war bonds - let the hawks carry their own weight when it comes to invading other countries.

Options...the only option I have is to refuse to pay my taxes. How many of us doing that would it take do you think before soldiers were ordered to level their guns at us? Would they opt for a pay-cheque and follow orders or pause to consider? Surely there were at least a few Canadian soldiers who refused to follow the crowd when it came to shipping out to the ME too.

I find it hard to believe that you do not know what options you have available under our democratically elected constitution. some of them i already spelled them out to you.....and yet you continue with this fantasy that the burden of whether we go to war should rest on our soldiers backs.....you suggest that by the soldiers refusing to go, there will not be a war or conflict.....it just wont work for a couple of reasons, there are enough people in this country who would gladly pick up arms for it, enjoy a decent pay check, and serve our great nation....in other words if a soldier was to quit his replacement would already be in training before he were released.....result would be like taking your hand out of a pail of water.....

second you would need to have the majority of the Canadian public to support those soldiers.....Not a chance in hell...i mean there are lots of Canadians who do, but not in the numbers you need for this to make a difference, they talk a good game but when asked to put some effort in well , you lose them......welcome to the unemployment line....

Here is my message to those that pay taxes and do not vote.....or do not exercise their democratic rights .....Suck it the f*** up....your in it for the free ride, they have something to say about everything, and yet are not willing to do anything about it..... stop whining and complaining you have not earned that right.....

Edited August 10, 2015 by Michael Hardner
profanity

[jacee]

I find it hard to believe that you do not know what options you have available under our democratically elected constitution. some of them i already spelled them out to you.....and yet you continue with this fantasy that the burden of whether we go to war should rest on our soldiers backs.....you suggest that by the soldiers refusing to go, there will not be a war or conflict.....it just wont work for a couple of reasons, there are enough people in this country who would gladly pick up arms for it, enjoy a decent pay check, and serve our great nation....in other words if a soldier was to quit his replacement would already be in training before he were released.....result would be like taking your hand out of a pail of water.....

second you would need to have the majority of the Canadian public to support those soldiers.....Not a chance in hell...i mean there are lots of Canadians who do, but not in the numbers you need for this to make a difference, they talk a good game but when asked to put some effort in well , you lose them......welcome to the unemployment line....

Here is my message to those that pay taxes and do not vote.....or do not exercise their democratic rights .....Suck it the f*** up....your in it for the free ride, they have something to say about everything, and yet are not willing to do anything about it..... stop whining and complaining you have not earned that right.....

For unjust wars to end, the soldiers will have to refuse.

I haven't thought this through totally, but I'm considering the idea of a referendum on all questions of joining 'war'.

I'm not sure why you're so hot about people who don't vote: I haven't come across any of them who "have something to say about everything". Most of them are too beaten down by poverty to think about it.

What's that about?

And what about my contention that the political decisions of sending soldiers somewhere has nothing to do with "terrorism" or 'helping people' but everything to do with clearing a path for mega corporations to get access to resources, Afghanistan ' s wealth of uranium, for example.

Do you have a perspective on that?

Edited August 10, 2015 by jacee

[Rue]

You see to forget that Chretien thumbed his nose at your namesake and said, no. Perhaps he said it in french so you missed it.

He did not thumb his nose up at anyone. Provide the quote. Go on provide it.

[On Guard for Thee]

He did not thumb his nose up at anyone. Provide the quote. Go on provide it.

Remember GW Bush? Remember Iraq war 1?

[Rue]

1-So where did Osama get his start? And then tell me how the CIA did not give weapons to the Muhajedeen.

2-The US may not outright create terrorists. But they sure as hell facilitate them with money and weapons and in the case in Syria using Turkey as their bitch to house the FSA , giving them a base of operations within Turkey.

3-Tell me the USA did not give weapons to terrorists (sorry freedom fighters) in the Iran-Contra affair.

In regards to 1, Osama (rhymes with Obama) was financed by both Saudi Arabia and the US and his own family for that matter to fund what was then the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. His decision to then create the terrorist entity he did was not done with US support. In fact they cut him off as a middle man when it became clear he had an agenda other than assisting the mujahadeen.

In regards to 2, I do not disagree the US has supported bloody fascist regimes in South America and across the world. Gamel Nasser of Egypt, Ghaddafi of Libya, Hussein of Iraq all were assisted to power by the CIA. Gustaf Pinochet ran a bloody dictatorship in Chile with US support. Marcos in the Phillipines and Sidharto in Indonesia were two American supported tyrants. Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany,all have propped various tyrants and violent groups in the ME, yes. Did they create terrorism-no, did they exploit it at times, yes.

None of the above absolves Muslims and Arabs of the Middle East from creating their own terorist cells based on Muslim extremism just as it does not absolve the minority of Zionist Jews who at one point amounting to up to 250 people, created the Stern, Levi terrorist cells. Terrorism is not something you conveniently blame the US for. What a crock.

Terrorism has been going on since the creation of humanity and to suggest as WIP did or darling leftists do that the world was just fine until the Americans got involved is a crock.

The recent origins of today's extremists against Israel in the ME comes from the Mullah of Jerusalem who was propped by Hitler not the Americans and by the British before Hitler.

Britain as Churchill admitted in his memoirs, fueled the anti Zionist Arab groups. With France, and Germany not the US, these three colonial powers meddled and pitted Jew against Arab and Arab against Arab as part of divide and conquer tactics.

To blame the US for that is a crock and all of the above has nothing to do with the terrorism WIP infers was created by the US.

The US inherited the British-French-German mess after WW2 it did not create it. It didn't create the false puppet regimes of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait/UAE, Qatar, Oman, Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria Britain and France did.

You need a history lesson. You need to examine the Muslim on Muslim violence and Muslim on Christian and Muslim on Jewish violence that dates back thousands of years. You need to find out what happened to Assyrians, Berbers, Druze, Zoroastreans, Bahaiis, the Coptic Christians-go on. Find out what terrorism they were subject too.

It had nothing to do with the US.

Yes that idiot Obama along with his Muslim Brotherhood alliance including Morsi and Erdogan of Turkey, all darlings of the left, financed ISIL. Go blame it on who created it, the Muslim Brotherhood. Go put it on who it belongs on, Erdogan, Morsi and Obama and their Muslim Brotherhood. Don't pin it on the US-its Obama and Clinton and that defifficient twit Kerry darlings of the left who just signed a love connection with Iran.

By the time the US got involved post WW2, terrorism in the Muslim world was already thousands of years old. It is a falsehood to suggest or infer it only came along because of the US or for that matter the British, French and German who can take credit for a lot of the mess yes, but only after the 1920's.

You need to find out how the Ottoman Empire was run and before that other regimes. What you think people lived all happy and innocent until Uncle Sam showed up? Right.

Go look squarely at who finances terrorism in the ME-its Saudi Arabia and Iran, first and foremost.

In regards to 2,yes Obama by being a Muslim Brotherhood puppet is responsible for that.

In regards to 3, the US and many other nations you selectively ignore have financed and assisted terrorist groups or militias and bloody undemocratic regimes.

To say however simply the US and no one else is responsible for the origins of the terrorism in the ME is a crock. You selectively ignore Russia, China, Brazil, the EEC, Japan, India, all who because of energy interests also meddle in the ME to protect their best interests and in so doing directly and indirectly impact on terrorism no different than the US.

More to the point none of the above absolves Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Morrocco, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, Libya, SudanOman for their failures to create democratic institutions and evolve into tolerant societies. Pin that directly where it belongs on their religious state structure of sharia law that commits genocide, Muslim on Muslim, Muslim on non Muslim, anti-woman, violence, torture and death on its own people and then the rest of the world in the name ofAllah.

No Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, don't get to play the colonial victim card for their own failures to their people by their regimes.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Rue

[Army Guy]

For unjust wars to end, the soldiers will have to refuse.

I haven't thought this through totally, but I'm considering the idea of a referendum on all questions of joining 'war'.

I'm not sure why you're so hot about people who don't vote: I haven't come across any of them who "have something to say about everything". Most of them are too beaten down by poverty to think about it.

What's that about?

And what about my contention that the political decisions of sending soldiers somewhere has nothing to do with "terrorism" or 'helping people' but everything to do with clearing a path for mega corporations to get access to resources, Afghanistan ' s wealth of uranium, for example.

Do you have a perspective on that?

How has that worked out for you so far....most soldiers agreed with the entire Afghanistan mission but thats another topic.........Making sure the country does not get dragged into unjust wars is every Canadian citizens responsibility, which has been my point all along, part of that process is voting, another is your right to peacefully demonstrate, sign petitions etc.....if you don't want to get involved in the process, then you deserve what ever is decided....there fore losing to right to whine and complain....

As for your other comment about mega corporations, well you've yet to provide any concrete proof, or a source, just words, want to convince me then do so.....if not then maybe you should drop the whole thing...

[bush_cheney2004]

How has that worked out for you so far....most soldiers agreed with the entire Afghanistan mission but thats another topic........

True....and Canada's ruling political party heralded the A-stan mission/cause as right and just compared to any "illegal" invasion of Iraq. They jumped all over it, starting with JTF2 in late 2001 (Task Force K-Bar).

[jacee]

How has that worked out for you so far....most soldiers agreed with the entire Afghanistan mission but thats another topic.........

I don't fault soldiers. They do a very fine job with what they are given.

Making sure the country does not get dragged into unjust wars is every Canadian citizens responsibility, which has been my point all along, part of that process is voting, another is your right to peacefully demonstrate, sign petitions etc.....if you don't want to get involved in the process, then you deserve what ever is decided....there fore losing to right to whine and complain....

I don't know who you're talking about. The ones not voting are likely not complaining either ... To my knowledge.

As for your other comment about mega corporations, well you've yet to provide any concrete proof, or a source, just words, want to convince me then do so.....if not then maybe you should drop the whole thing...

Read your link again ... About the information that conveniently 'disappeared'.

These guys are sharks.

You really think they're leaving such info lying around?

.

Edited August 10, 2015 by jacee