Enduring Freedom

[politika]

Canada's vote last night extened our mission in Afganistan to 2009 by a squeaky four votes. This is good and I am glad parliment is behind this decission. But in my poll above I am wondering should we increase deployment, keep it the same or withdrawl completly and I have read up that we might be offered a complete hand over command by the Americans next year as they reduce their size.

My Oppinion: Send more troops to Afganistan possibly 500-700 more and take over command if we are offered.

What do you think?

[Kiraly]

Maintain our current troop commitment and take over command.

[Shakeyhands]

I'd really like to vote in this poll, I would. However, I am not sure what I am voting for? Is there a clear message as to the mission? Is there an end to it or do we just extend, extend and extend?

And before you all start questioning my patriotism and support, know that I have two children attending RMC and at least one will find themselves in Afghanistan at this point.

[Hicksey]

I'd really like to vote in this poll, I would. However, I am not sure what I am voting for? Is there a clear message as to the mission? Is there an end to it or do we just extend, extend and extend?

And before you all start questioning my patriotism and support, know that I have two children attending RMC and at least one will find themselves in Afghanistan at this point.

I think it will be extended at least once. I think the US is getting ready for Iran and that will probably cause some unrest to keep them there until probably 3 or 4 years after Iran is dealt with.

Apparently Iran is serious about a war. They've been predicting the end of time within two years over there.

[uOttawaMan]

I think we should concentrate on getting more troops period.

I'm joining the Army , and I can tell through training already that the Army ground troops are seriously lacking in numbers.

We have more than enough support staff... but noone doing the fighting..

And be very clear, its fighting. Not "peacekeeping", whatever vestiges of that we once had were lost long ago when our military was destroyed systematically.

[geoffrey]

I think we should concentrate on getting more troops period.

I'm joining the Army , and I can tell through training already that the Army ground troops are seriously lacking in numbers.

We have more than enough support staff... but noone doing the fighting..

And be very clear, its fighting. Not "peacekeeping", whatever vestiges of that we once had were lost long ago when our military was destroyed systematically.

I thought you were becoming a cop? Is it reserves?

I was considering joining reserves, as I can be taken in as an officer right away, the money is decent (for a student) and they pay for your school to some extent.

Back on topic...

We don't really have enough people to expand our troop levels. I'd like to see our role in more than Afghanistan expanded too. We should have people in Sudan as well. So I guess I'd like to see us take command and keep troop levels at around the 2,000 mark... that is, unless we can add a ton of new troops over the next little while.

[Rovik]

You forgot an important option:

No, complete the original mandate in 2007 and then determine if we should keep the soldiers there or not (depending on circumstances)

This is what I would choose, for if things on the ground are no better or even worse, then send the soldiers to another part of the world that better needs them (like Darfur for example). And if some other country wants to go into Afghanistan to take over the job that the Canadians have been doing up to 5 years by that time, so be it.

[uOttawaMan]

I think we should concentrate on getting more troops period.

I'm joining the Army , and I can tell through training already that the Army ground troops are seriously lacking in numbers.

We have more than enough support staff... but noone doing the fighting..

And be very clear, its fighting. Not "peacekeeping", whatever vestiges of that we once had were lost long ago when our military was destroyed systematically.

I thought you were becoming a cop? Is it reserves?

I was considering joining reserves, as I can be taken in as an officer right away, the money is decent (for a student) and they pay for your school to some extent.

Back on topic...

We don't really have enough people to expand our troop levels. I'd like to see our role in more than Afghanistan expanded too. We should have people in Sudan as well. So I guess I'd like to see us take command and keep troop levels at around the 2,000 mark... that is, unless we can add a ton of new troops over the next little while.

Yeah I'm joining the reserves for now, to earn money for while I'm at school.

I'm also seriously looking at the military police route, because I'm going to need experience before I become a civilian police officer, they dont really hire 23 year old white males right out of school anymore.

The troop shortage is very real.

[Army Guy]

The military has been telling anyone who will listen that there is a critical shortage of every trade in the entire armed forces, Army combat units are well below there peace time numbers, and are reinforced by large numbers of reserves or borrowed from other brigades just to scrap enough troops for a single ROTO in afgan. But because the army continues to get the job done our government does little to correct the situation. And it is causing burn out in our troops at an incrediable rates.

And to top it all off there is an incrediable equipment shortage in most combat units, most operating on just half thier peace time allotments. and some with even less.

Meaning that equipment is constantly being used as we still have to train everyone, there is not enough time to properly repair this equipment as it is in constant motion, add to the fact there is a parts shortage and it spells equipment being used up faster than orginally planned. No monies to replace it. But hey Canadians already know this. and are content with the way things are.

[politika]

You forgot an important option:

No, complete the original mandate in 2007 and then determine if we should keep the soldiers there or not (depending on circumstances)

This is what I would choose, for if things on the ground are no better or even worse, then send the soldiers to another part of the world that better needs them (like Darfur for example). And if some other country wants to go into Afghanistan to take over the job that the Canadians have been doing up to 5 years by that time, so be it.

The original mandate is to finish what we went in their for in the first place and that is to wipe out the scum who killed innocent people and ruined the lives of our freinds, negibours and our allies.

As Harper so bluntly states it we would be cutting and running if we pulled out now.

Lets just keep on figthing until we finish this thing, lets not remeber we have not been attacked yet and let us keep it that way, and the only way we can do that is to continue fighting this war until it is one.

[Shakeyhands]

The original mandate is to finish what we went in their for in the first place and that is to wipe out the scum who killed innocent people and ruined the lives of our freinds, negibours and our allies.

As Harper so bluntly states it we would be cutting and running if we pulled out now.

Lets just keep on figthing until we finish this thing, lets not remeber we have not been attacked yet and let us keep it that way, and the only way we can do that is to continue fighting this war until it is one.

Ok... so how do we know its finished? When some sort of a surrender document is signed on a battleship somewhere? or is it an old rail car? There is no clear outline to the mission, hence reluctance to give carte blanche to any government. And does completion in theis theatre free us up to help in the other theatre beign Iraq?

[Hicksey]

The original mandate is to finish what we went in their for in the first place and that is to wipe out the scum who killed innocent people and ruined the lives of our freinds, negibours and our allies.

As Harper so bluntly states it we would be cutting and running if we pulled out now.

Lets just keep on figthing until we finish this thing, lets not remeber we have not been attacked yet and let us keep it that way, and the only way we can do that is to continue fighting this war until it is one.

Ok... so how do we know its finished? When some sort of a surrender document is signed on a battleship somewhere? or is it an old rail car? There is no clear outline to the mission, hence reluctance to give carte blanche to any government. And does completion in theis theatre free us up to help in the other theatre beign Iraq?

I wish the neaderthals over there in the middle east would join the rest of us in the 21st century and realize that they have to get along with other countries they may not like. Paying people to walk onto buses full of innocent people is cowardly and solves nothing.

But since they refuse to join us in civility, we have to speak to them in a language they both understand and wish to acknowledge -- violence. It is tragic they choose to take this route. But its their choice. I think everyone involved would much rather deal with it diplomatically than send the military in, as would I. But as much as I don't like to use the military to deal with disputes, when it becomes necessary we cannot hesitate. And Bush's plan of engaging them on their own ground seems to have stopped the attacks here. As costly and distasteful it is to do it, until they choose to listen to our words and hence stop forcing us to speak with our military IMO we're left with no choice but to go and do whatever is it we need to do to win each and every battle and eventually the war.

Like it not we're trying to avoid nuclear warfare. Lets fight them conventionally before they get the capability. I wouldn't mind them having the weapons in the first place, but they have proven they're not trustworthy. When someone constantly talks of killing someone, do you allow them to obtain a weapon? I think Europe needs to get on board. The results of such a war will affect them much more than us, yet the ones most likely to be affected are the least willing to prevent it -- and that baffles me. IMO they do so at their own peril.

[scribblet]

I wish the neaderthals over there in the middle east would join the rest of us in the 21st century and realize that they have to get along with other countries they may not like. Paying people to walk onto buses full of innocent people is cowardly and solves nothing.

But since they refuse to join us in civility, we have to speak to them in a language they both understand and wish to acknowledge -- violence

And that is the shame of it, that there seems to be no end to breaking this cycle, their children are brainwashed from day one, they learn to hate Israel and the West. Not to mention that much violence is Muslim against Muslim.

Maybe the question is, how long should we and the U.S. stay in Afghanistan (and Iraq) at what point do we say enough is enough. Do we stay there forever?

Do we believe that there can be peace, that if we leave the 'insurgents' will not resume attacks. IMHO there will always be the radical Taliban types who will never accept peace, and will continue to kill to attain their hold and consequently Sharia Law and oppression; democracy is not a concept they embrace.

[Hicksey]

I wish the neaderthals over there in the middle east would join the rest of us in the 21st century and realize that they have to get along with other countries they may not like. Paying people to walk onto buses full of innocent people is cowardly and solves nothing.

But since they refuse to join us in civility, we have to speak to them in a language they both understand and wish to acknowledge -- violence

And that is the shame of it, that there seems to be no end to breaking this cycle, their children are brainwashed from day one, they learn to hate Israel and the West. Not to mention that much violence is Muslim against Muslim.

Maybe the question is, how long should we and the U.S. stay in Afghanistan (and Iraq) at what point do we say enough is enough. Do we stay there forever?

Do we believe that there can be peace, that if we leave the 'insurgents' will not resume attacks. IMHO there will always be the radical Taliban types who will never accept peace, and will continue to kill to attain their hold and consequently Sharia Law and oppression; democracy is not a concept they embrace.

Do we wait for them to get nuclear capabilities and kill more than busloads or do we engage them now in conventional warfare? I think its smart to be proactive here. I think there's much less to lose now than to wait until they become a nuclear threat.

[gerryhatrick]

Apparently Iran is serious about a war. They've been predicting the end of time within two years over there.

Where did you read that? The National Disgrace...er...Post?

[Rovik]

You forgot an important option:

No, complete the original mandate in 2007 and then determine if we should keep the soldiers there or not (depending on circumstances)

This is what I would choose, for if things on the ground are no better or even worse, then send the soldiers to another part of the world that better needs them (like Darfur for example). And if some other country wants to go into Afghanistan to take over the job that the Canadians have been doing up to 5 years by that time, so be it.

The original mandate is to finish what we went in their for in the first place and that is to wipe out the scum who killed innocent people and ruined the lives of our freinds, negibours and our allies.

As Harper so bluntly states it we would be cutting and running if we pulled out now.

Lets just keep on figthing until we finish this thing, lets not remeber we have not been attacked yet and let us keep it that way, and the only way we can do that is to continue fighting this war until it is one.

Yes, you are right about the purpose of the original mandate but again the original did have an expiry date of 2007. How long are we supposed to stay there; until the job is defined as "finished"? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? And at what cost to the taxpayers of Canada? Billions and billions of dollars?

[Hicksey]

Apparently Iran is serious about a war. They've been predicting the end of time within two years over there.

Where did you read that? The National Disgrace...er...Post?

Actually, Commie News Network reported on it on their 24 hour channel earlier this week.

[politika]

The original mandate is to finish what we went in their for in the first place and that is to wipe out the scum who killed innocent people and ruined the lives of our freinds, negibours and our allies.

As Harper so bluntly states it we would be cutting and running if we pulled out now.

Lets just keep on figthing until we finish this thing, lets not remeber we have not been attacked yet and let us keep it that way, and the only way we can do that is to continue fighting this war until it is one.

Ok... so how do we know its finished? When some sort of a surrender document is signed on a battleship somewhere? or is it an old rail car? There is no clear outline to the mission, hence reluctance to give carte blanche to any government. And does completion in theis theatre free us up to help in the other theatre beign Iraq?

Who knows. This war could go on for 20 years to 100 years for all I care, I just want to see a safer world come out of it and a safer nation, which we have as we have not been attacked .... yet.

Why would we help in Iraq?

[politika]

You forgot an important option:

No, complete the original mandate in 2007 and then determine if we should keep the soldiers there or not (depending on circumstances)

This is what I would choose, for if things on the ground are no better or even worse, then send the soldiers to another part of the world that better needs them (like Darfur for example). And if some other country wants to go into Afghanistan to take over the job that the Canadians have been doing up to 5 years by that time, so be it.

The original mandate is to finish what we went in their for in the first place and that is to wipe out the scum who killed innocent people and ruined the lives of our freinds, negibours and our allies.

As Harper so bluntly states it we would be cutting and running if we pulled out now.

Lets just keep on figthing until we finish this thing, lets not remeber we have not been attacked yet and let us keep it that way, and the only way we can do that is to continue fighting this war until it is one.

Yes, you are right about the purpose of the original mandate but again the original did have an expiry date of 2007. How long are we supposed to stay there; until the job is defined as "finished"? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? And at what cost to the taxpayers of Canada? Billions and billions of dollars?

So lets withdrawl. and at what costs? millions and millions of lives destroyed because of terrorist attacks?

My point is rov, you cannot put a price on freedom.

[Hicksey]

What people cannot ignore is that these countries aren't seeking nuclear weapons so they can say that they have them and then put them in storage. Countries like Iran have been vocal and asserted that they wish to use them to wipe Israel from the planet. And Israel has asserted that it will seek them to be able to mount a similar offensive.

I think that all the profit crap can be thrown out the window. The most important issue is to keep these people from ruining the planet and causing a nuclear holocaust.

Even though Iraq didn't turn out as planned, don't think for a minute that the countries that obstained had any special insight into Iraq. They all made the same assertions as Bush -- including Chretien and Martin. The US, under three different Presidents, pursued diplomatic resolution in the UNSC and got nowhere after 12 years and 17 UNSC resolutions. The dispute in the UNSC was not whether or not Iraq posed a danger but how to deal with them because 4 major participants in the UNSC had relations with Iraq concerning their oil supply and some severe debts incurred with them by Saddam Hussein. They were concerned about their own interests and nothing more. So the US went in without their help and got the title of "goat" alone instead of having a few other notables to shoulder it with him.

Let's say for a minute that Bush didn't go because the others didn't go and a nuclear hit happened on North American soil killing millions. We all know now that couldn't have happened, but what if it did? Who is to blame? Bush for not having the conviction to go alone? The others for choosing their own interests over disarming a rogue state when they could have? Who?

Because Bush did go, the terrorists have engaged them over there instead of here. Though there is still loss of life, it is on a much smaller scale than if we were to ignore a threat like that which now comes from Iran. What's worse? A few brave men willing to give their lives today for a better tomorrow? Or millions because we ignored the problem until it loomed too large to tackle it and win before they were capable of such atrocities?

This whole scenario sucks. Lets make sure we all are on the same page there. But we have to weigh the consequences of letting things get out of hand over there against being proactive. IMO, we take less casualties today than tomorrow. Either way we have to deal with the problem.

Until these countries learn that they have to get along with even those whom they hate and that violence and death are not answers to anything, what do we do with these neanderthals? They refuse to join us in the 21st century. We live in a day and age where disputes are solved peacefully through diplomacy. Until they choose to join us and communicate in that language we must meet them and speak one they will not only understand, but also acknowldge. Violence. Yes, it sucks. But until they wish to deal peacefully and understand that they cannot simply blow countries they do not like off the map what else can we do? They cannot take tantrums and fly planes into buildings killing thousands when they're not happy with someone. I want diplomacy to be the answer more than anything, but until we have a willing partner in diplomacy, this one-sided conversation is a waste of time.

Until there's a better solution that will garner better results that they will listen to and adhere to, this is all we have. We might as well do it the best we can.

[Black Dog]

I wish the neaderthals over there in the middle east would join the rest of us in the 21st century and realize that they have to get along with other countries they may not like.

Heck, even do business with them, like we do! If there's one thing we western coubntries are good at, it's not letting our principles get in the way of business.

Paying people to walk onto buses full of innocent people is cowardly and solves nothing.

It's far more heroic to blow that bus up with an unmanned drone or Apache helicopter.

But since they refuse to join us in civility, we have to speak to them in a language they both understand and wish to acknowledge -- violence. It is tragic they choose to take this route. But its their choice. I think everyone involved would much rather deal with it diplomatically than send the military in, as would I. But as much as I don't like to use the military to deal with disputes, when it becomes necessary we cannot hesitate.

"Awful boors, these savages. Like children, wot? Give them an inch and they'll take a bloody mile, that's for sure. Only one way to deal with such bounders, eh? Well, like the Good Book says 'spare the rod...' and all that."

And Bush's plan of engaging them on their own ground seems to have stopped the attacks here.

Yeah, because before he came along, I couldn't walk down a street in Canada without geting blowed up or decapitated.

As costly and distasteful it is to do it, until they choose to listen to our words and hence stop forcing us to speak with our military IMO we're left with no choice but to go and do whatever is it we need to do to win each and every battle and eventually the war.

We don't want to wipe you brown bastards off the face of the earth. But you've tied our hands here. Really, you've only yourselves to blame.

Like it not we're trying to avoid nuclear warfare. Lets fight them conventionally before they get the capability. I wouldn't mind them having the weapons in the first place, but they have proven they're not trustworthy. When someone constantly talks of killing someone, do you allow them to obtain a weapon?

Who is "them," anyway? Just the amorphous mass of brown people out there?

What people cannot ignore is that these countries aren't seeking nuclear weapons so they can say that they have them and then put them in storage. Countries like Iran have been vocal and asserted that they wish to use them to wipe Israel from the planet. And Israel has asserted that it will seek them to be able to mount a similar offensive.

Considering Iran's party line has been that they are not seeking nuclear weapons, I find your assertion thet they have openly spoken of using nukes on Israel to be rather dubious. Oh and Israel already has nukes. Lots of 'em.

Because Bush did go, the terrorists have engaged them over there instead of here. Though there is still loss of life, it is on a much smaller scale than if we were to ignore a threat like that which now comes from Iran. What's worse? A few brave men willing to give their lives today for a better tomorrow? Or millions because we ignored the problem until it loomed too large to tackle it and win before they were capable of such atrocities?

Small loss of life? How many Iraqis have died? Thirty thousand? Fifty thousand? How many thousands will have to die in real life to balance any number of hypothetical deaths?

Until these countries learn that they have to get along with even those whom they hate and that violence and death are not answers to anything, what do we do with these neanderthals? They refuse to join us in the 21st century. We live in a day and age where disputes are solved peacefully through diplomacy. Until they choose to join us and communicate in that language we must meet them and speak one they will not only understand, but also acknowldge. Violence. Yes, it sucks. But until they wish to deal peacefully and understand that they cannot simply blow countries they do not like off the map what else can we do? They cannot take tantrums and fly planes into buildings killing thousands when they're not happy with someone. I want diplomacy to be the answer more than anything, but until we have a willing partner in diplomacy, this one-sided conversation is a waste of time.

So just to clarify what you're saying: violence never solves anything, which the subhumans of the middle east don't understand, which is why we need to apply violence on a massive scale in order to teach the lesson that violence doesn't solve anything. Hmmm. I think I see a flaw in your logic, but I just can't pin it down....

[KrustyKidd]

Paying people to walk onto buses full of innocent people is cowardly and solves nothing.

I hate glib rhetoric. It is not a cowardly act. It takes a lot of guts and comitment by the guy doing it while those doing the coordinating may be either cowardly or courageous we know not. However, it does not directly solve anything in most cases, it does have the effect of destabilizing whatever government it takes place in. So if that is the mission, it is sucessful, if it is not then it solves nothing.

If you were to say with certainty those commiting those acts were cowards then you would have to say that every hero from Jesus to Churchill was a coward as they did what they did because they believed in something and felt they had to act.

[Machinations]

My only addition to this thread:

Anyone who does not know that Israel is in possession of nuclear weapons should probably refrain from engaging in discussion about such weighty topics. It seems in this day and age every halfwit with a keyboard feels entitled to an opinion.

[Hicksey]

Paying people to walk onto buses full of innocent people is cowardly and solves nothing.

I hate glib rhetoric. It is not a cowardly act. It takes a lot of guts and comitment by the guy doing it while those doing the coordinating may be either cowardly or courageous we know not. However, it does not directly solve anything in most cases, it does have the effect of destabilizing whatever government it takes place in. So if that is the mission, it is sucessful, if it is not then it solves nothing.

If you were to say with certainty those commiting those acts were cowards then you would have to say that every hero from Jesus to Churchill was a coward as they did what they did because they believed in something and felt they had to act.

I disagree. I think that sticking around to deal with the consequences of an action you felt was right makes one much more courageous. Even Jesus did that. He did what he felt was needed to be done and stuck around only to be hung by the Romans. That's courage.

And the people that are paying them, which if you read what I posted were the ones I described as the cowards, are the worst cowards of all. They put the idea into the heads of people that they should kill others, and pay them to deal with consequences they refuse to. Cowardice if I ever saw it.

[Hicksey]

I wish the neaderthals over there in the middle east would join the rest of us in the 21st century and realize that they have to get along with other countries they may not like.

Heck, even do business with them, like we do! If there's one thing we western coubntries are good at, it's not letting our principles get in the way of business.

Paying people to walk onto buses full of innocent people is cowardly and solves nothing.

It's far more heroic to blow that bus up with an unmanned drone or Apache helicopter.

But since they refuse to join us in civility, we have to speak to them in a language they both understand and wish to acknowledge -- violence. It is tragic they choose to take this route. But its their choice. I think everyone involved would much rather deal with it diplomatically than send the military in, as would I. But as much as I don't like to use the military to deal with disputes, when it becomes necessary we cannot hesitate.

"Awful boors, these savages. Like children, wot? Give them an inch and they'll take a bloody mile, that's for sure. Only one way to deal with such bounders, eh? Well, like the Good Book says 'spare the rod...' and all that."

And Bush's plan of engaging them on their own ground seems to have stopped the attacks here.

Yeah, because before he came along, I couldn't walk down a street in Canada without geting blowed up or decapitated.

As costly and distasteful it is to do it, until they choose to listen to our words and hence stop forcing us to speak with our military IMO we're left with no choice but to go and do whatever is it we need to do to win each and every battle and eventually the war.

We don't want to wipe you brown bastards off the face of the earth. But you've tied our hands here. Really, you've only yourselves to blame.

Like it not we're trying to avoid nuclear warfare. Lets fight them conventionally before they get the capability. I wouldn't mind them having the weapons in the first place, but they have proven they're not trustworthy. When someone constantly talks of killing someone, do you allow them to obtain a weapon?

Who is "them," anyway? Just the amorphous mass of brown people out there?

What people cannot ignore is that these countries aren't seeking nuclear weapons so they can say that they have them and then put them in storage. Countries like Iran have been vocal and asserted that they wish to use them to wipe Israel from the planet. And Israel has asserted that it will seek them to be able to mount a similar offensive.

Considering Iran's party line has been that they are not seeking nuclear weapons, I find your assertion thet they have openly spoken of using nukes on Israel to be rather dubious. Oh and Israel already has nukes. Lots of 'em.

Because Bush did go, the terrorists have engaged them over there instead of here. Though there is still loss of life, it is on a much smaller scale than if we were to ignore a threat like that which now comes from Iran. What's worse? A few brave men willing to give their lives today for a better tomorrow? Or millions because we ignored the problem until it loomed too large to tackle it and win before they were capable of such atrocities?

Small loss of life? How many Iraqis have died? Thirty thousand? Fifty thousand? How many thousands will have to die in real life to balance any number of hypothetical deaths?

Until these countries learn that they have to get along with even those whom they hate and that violence and death are not answers to anything, what do we do with these neanderthals? They refuse to join us in the 21st century. We live in a day and age where disputes are solved peacefully through diplomacy. Until they choose to join us and communicate in that language we must meet them and speak one they will not only understand, but also acknowldge. Violence. Yes, it sucks. But until they wish to deal peacefully and understand that they cannot simply blow countries they do not like off the map what else can we do? They cannot take tantrums and fly planes into buildings killing thousands when they're not happy with someone. I want diplomacy to be the answer more than anything, but until we have a willing partner in diplomacy, this one-sided conversation is a waste of time.

So just to clarify what you're saying: violence never solves anything, which the subhumans of the middle east don't understand, which is why we need to apply violence on a massive scale in order to teach the lesson that violence doesn't solve anything. Hmmm. I think I see a flaw in your logic, but I just can't pin it down....

I thought you were a lot smarter than the average lefty. If there's any left winger here that I would expect more than the sarcastic and flippant remarks, the racism inference and the oversimplification of that post, it would have been you. Its the first time I've seen you add a post to a thread and add nothing to the debate.