"West won’t win Afghan war"

gerryhatrick · September 22, 2006

This think tank has four field offices in Afghanistan. If you're so bent on your mind set that you're not capable of objective consideration of ground reports then what good are you?

Ahh, but I have one hundred and twenty nine field offices in Afghanistan. It says so on my web page.

Clearly, then, I know better than these people - whoever they are. Do you know who they are?

Don't be obtuse.

Argus · September 22, 2006

This think tank has four field offices in Afghanistan. If you're so bent on your mind set that you're not capable of objective consideration of ground reports then what good are you?

Ahh, but I have one hundred and twenty nine field offices in Afghanistan. It says so on my web page.

Clearly, then, I know better than these people - whoever they are. Do you know who they are?

Don't be obtuse.

I think my point is fairly obvious. You know nothing about this "think tank" except they have a web site. You don't know where they're coming from. You don't know who they are, how respected they might or might not be, what history they have, what motivation they have, or who is funding them and why.

So why on earth would you attach any credibility to a report they issue?

The Fraiser Institute, whose reports you instantly dismiss because you distrust their motivation, is at least a known quality, with a reputation to uphold and some scientific and economic basis to their reports - whether you agree with their conclusions or not. You can see how they arrived at their conclusions, examine the statistics and how they were gathered. Who the hell ever heard of this group before and upon what research is their report based?

gerryhatrick · September 22, 2006

This think tank has four field offices in Afghanistan. If you're so bent on your mind set that you're not capable of objective consideration of ground reports then what good are you?

Ahh, but I have one hundred and twenty nine field offices in Afghanistan. It says so on my web page.

Clearly, then, I know better than these people - whoever they are. Do you know who they are?

Don't be obtuse.

I think my point is fairly obvious. You know nothing about this "think tank" except they have a web site. You don't know where they're coming from. You don't know who they are, how respected they might or might not be, what history they have, what motivation they have, or who is funding them and why.

So why on earth would you attach any credibility to a report they issue?

Why on earth would you not attach any credibility to a report they issue? Do you know something relavent? It's all very well and good to sit there and imply that they have a motivation to twist the reality in Afghanistan or that they're funded by those who may wish to do so, but if you don't know who they are then you are not saying anything other than casting empty aspersions upon them.

In your last post you said that you could claim field offices in Afghanistan on your website. That implies that they could be lying about having field offices. That is ridiculous.

The Fraiser Institute, whose reports you instantly dismiss because you distrust their motivation, is at least a known quality, with a reputation to uphold and some scientific and economic basis to their reports -

The Fraser Institute is identified in Wikipedia in the very first sentence as being Conservative. They are partisan. The Senlis Council has no such label attached to them.

If you want to attack the Senlis council go ahead. Do some research and come up with what you find.

Wilber · September 22, 2006

Absolutely, if the reality is that by staying all we will do is engage in an expanded war with nationalist entities. There's no point saving Afghani women from the burqua if it means we have to level the country in the process.

Why would we have to level the country? How do you know Afghani women agree with you? Have you asked any?

As for think tanks attracting people of a like mind....the report by this think tank is of an on-the-ground nature. They're reporting on the reality of the current war in Afghanistan as it's playing out in front of them in Afghanistan. It's a little weak to dismiss them as all like-minded people reporting what they want unless you're presuming to call them liars.

We have over 2000 of our own people on the ground in Afghanistan. You don't seem to have any problem calling them liars.

gerryhatrick · September 22, 2006

Absolutely, if the reality is that by staying all we will do is engage in an expanded war with nationalist entities. There's no point saving Afghani women from the burqua if it means we have to level the country in the process.

Why would we have to level the country? How do you know Afghani women agree with you? Have you asked any?

You've interjected yourself into a conversation and failed to grasp the context of it.

We have over 2000 of our own people on the ground in Afghanistan. You don't seem to have any problem calling them liars.

I'm calling our soldiers liars? How so?

Wilber · September 22, 2006

You've interjected yourself into a conversation and failed to grasp the context of it.

You've got that right, you will have to explain it to me. I am responding to a statement you made about a quote of mine. How can I interject myself into a conversation I am already having?

I'm calling our soldiers liars? How so?

They don't agree with you. Their comments are not in line with these Senlis guys you prefer.

cybercoma · September 22, 2006

I think my point is fairly obvious. You know nothing about this "think tank" except they have a web site. You don't know where they're coming from. You don't know who they are, how respected they might or might not be, what history they have, what motivation they have, or who is funding them and why.

So why on earth would you attach any credibility to a report they issue?

Why on earth would you not attach any credibility to a report they issue? Do you know something relavent? It's all very well and good to sit there and imply that they have a motivation to twist the reality in Afghanistan or that they're funded by those who may wish to do so, but if you don't know who they are then you are not saying anything other than casting empty aspersions upon them.

He didn't say anything about them not having any credibility. He wants to know why you would take their word as gospel without even being able to answer the simplest of questions he asked.

Where are they coming from?

Who are they?

How respected are they?

What history do they have?

What is their motivation?

Who is funding them and why?

If you don't know these simplest of things about this group, why would their word be of any more importance than any other anonymous poster on the internet?

gerryhatrick · September 22, 2006

I'm calling our soldiers liars? How so?

They don't agree with you. Their comments are not in line with these Senlis guys you prefer.

First of all, you don't speak for soldiers. Secondly, you have no idea what I believe.

I've presented the findings of the Senlis Council. It's the only think tank that I know of with offices on the ground in Afghanistan. Your claim that I'm calling our soldiers liars is puzzling, as is your claim to know what I believe and what all Canadian soldiers believe.

Argus · September 23, 2006

I think my point is fairly obvious. You know nothing about this "think tank" except they have a web site. You don't know where they're coming from. You don't know who they are, how respected they might or might not be, what history they have, what motivation they have, or who is funding them and why.

So why on earth would you attach any credibility to a report they issue?

Why on earth would you not attach any credibility to a report they issue? Do you know something relavent? It's all very well and good to sit there and imply that they have a motivation to twist the reality in Afghanistan or that they're funded by those who may wish to do so, but if you don't know who they are then you are not saying anything other than casting empty aspersions upon them.

My point is that with no referencial information, with no knowledge of who this person or group is, there is no more reason to attach any more significance to his or their opinion than to yours or mine. I can call myself the Senlis Council, if you like. How would you know any difference?

In your last post you said that you could claim field offices in Afghanistan on your website. That implies that they could be lying about having field offices. That is ridiculous.

Why? Have you checked them out? Do you think anyone is likely to?

The Fraiser Institute, whose reports you instantly dismiss because you distrust their motivation, is at least a known quality, with a reputation to uphold and some scientific and economic basis to their reports -

The Fraser Institute is identified in Wikipedia in the very first sentence as being Conservative. They are partisan. The Senlis Council has no such label attached to them.

Because no one's ever heard of them?

If you want to attack the Senlis council go ahead. Do some research and come up with what you find.

I did google them, and the guys reputedly in charge (from their web site) and found a big NOTHING.

There was lots of quotes of this report from various media, and a few more statements from them about Afghanistan and drugs. That's it. Nothing from previous years, nothing on other subjects, and nothing on the people listed as running the place. Ie, biographies, education, past history. Nada. Also nothing on who is paying for this group, if it is a group, or why. The "Senlis Council" appears to have sprung fully grown from nothing in order to lobby about drug policies. But just what is their expertise on drugs? For that matter, what precisely is their expertise on military matters? Or anything?

Call me cynical.

jdobbin · September 23, 2006

The Senlis Council was established in 2002 and is an international drug policy think tank which gathers expertise and facilitates new initiatives on global drug policy. The Council calls upon politicians, high profile academics, independent experts and non-governmental organisations. It aims to dialogue with senior policy-makers, both nationally and internationally, in order to foster high-level exchanges and new ideas on integrated drug policies.

http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/about_us

It is funded by several European NGOs.

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/links.asp?atoz=S

Some of the people on its staff and contributing to its research are leading scientists in drug policy.

Wilber · September 23, 2006

I'm calling our soldiers liars? How so?

They don't agree with you. Their comments are not in line with these Senlis guys you prefer.

First of all, you don't speak for soldiers. Secondly, you have no idea what I believe.

I've presented the findings of the Senlis Council. It's the only think tank that I know of with offices on the ground in Afghanistan. Your claim that I'm calling our soldiers liars is puzzling, as is your claim to know what I believe and what all Canadian soldiers believe.

You're right I don't speak for the soldiers but I have never heard any of them say that what they are doing in Afghanistan is futile or that they shouldn't be there.

I don't claim to know what you believe, I only know what you say on this forum.

killjoy · September 23, 2006

You're right I don't speak for the soldiers but I have never heard any of them say that what they are doing in Afghanistan is futile or that they shouldn't be there.

You got that right. Further more any single one of them could've gotten out of their mission to Afghanistan by simply claiming their family needed them right now or just about any other reasonable excuse. IOW, the soldiers in Afghanistan are members of a volunteer army who more-or-less volunteered to go to Afghanistan as well. Any one of them could've opted out and been replaced.

.

Wilber · September 23, 2006

You're right I don't speak for the soldiers but I have never heard any of them say that what they are doing in Afghanistan is futile or that they shouldn't be there.

You got that right. Further more any single one of them could've gotten out of their mission to Afghanistan by simply claiming their family needed them right now or just about any other reasonable excuse. IOW, the soldiers in Afghanistan are members of a volunteer army who more-or-less volunteered to go to Afghanistan as well. Any one of them could've opted out and been replaced.

.

This is something I am not entirely clear about. I understand it is so with the reservists but don't know if it holds true for the regulars. Perhaps Army Guy could enlighten us.

watching&waiting · September 23, 2006

If you read the copies of the speech given to the parliament by the president of Afghanistan, you will see that the vast majority of the people of Afghanistan welcome our troops with open arms and are very thankfull for the sacrifices they have made. He has said it has made a difference already in that of the 6 million students in school now 2 million are girls. Also the government is 20% female representatives. So I can see that this is not only a big change in the way things are done there now, but it looks like they are building a very open and modernized version of a muslim country. That to me is something we should be proud to have had a hand in.

Yes it will be very hard to crush the Taliban and the other insurgents, as long as they can easily cross into Pakistan and regroup and recruit and trian new forces from there. But for just how long do you and I believe that will be tolerated, and even if the Pakistani government were to decide to allow this, they know that it will soon find these bases bombed and destroyed if they do nothing. At this time it is just something of a festering sore, but they know they must either fixe the problem or give the USA permission to act on their behalf. It will come, it is just a matter of when. So as long as the Canadian and other UN troops can keep the border on this side blocked, there will be no room to run and hide. This will spell the beginning of thr end for major insurgents in southern Afghanistan. So yes this can be won and it can be come the first example of a modern government in a muslim country.

jdobbin · September 23, 2006

If you read the copies of the speech given to the parliament by the president of Afghanistan, you will see that the vast majority of the people of Afghanistan welcome our troops with open arms and are very thankfull for the sacrifices they have made. He has said it has made a difference already in that of the 6 million students in school now 2 million are girls. Also the government is 20% female representatives. So I can see that this is not only a big change in the way things are done there now, but it looks like they are building a very open and modernized version of a muslim country. That to me is something we should be proud to have had a hand in.
Yes it will be very hard to crush the Taliban and the other insurgents, as long as they can easily cross into Pakistan and regroup and recruit and trian new forces from there. But for just how long do you and I believe that will be tolerated, and even if the Pakistani government were to decide to allow this, they know that it will soon find these bases bombed and destroyed if they do nothing. At this time it is just something of a festering sore, but they know they must either fixe the problem or give the USA permission to act on their behalf. It will come, it is just a matter of when. So as long as the Canadian and other UN troops can keep the border on this side blocked, there will be no room to run and hide. This will spell the beginning of thr end for major insurgents in southern Afghanistan. So yes this can be won and it can be come the first example of a modern government in a muslim country.

There are 200,000 fewer students than last year according to Karzai himself in the CBC interview yesterday.

There is also fear that the new Vice and Virtue law could prevent women from running for office. We'll have to see how that law shapes up.

The Iranian border according to the U.S. may now become a security issue.

And now Harper is talking about a committment of troops beyond 2009. If they are fighting a resilient insurgency then, I don't know how successful he will be in getting yet another extension. That is if Harper is in power that long. Even another six months of sustained insurgency might be enough to keep the Conservatives from attaining a majority.

watching&waiting · September 23, 2006

It was said that yes the insurgents have destryed schools so 200,000 students are now without classes, but that still does not mean the 6,000,000 who are in school including the 200,000 girls are to be set aside. Yes in the south where our troops are now fighting, there are plans to again reopen the schools as soon as security can be brought about, and then those other 200,000 wil again be brought back into classes.

The present government is made up of 28% women and there is no real support of any law to change that. Since this government is one of the most modern thinking, we should leave this to them to work out a fair and viable solutions. Right now women have more rights in Afgahistan then most muslim countries in the world. You preferr to look at the dark side, when most others look at the bright side. Those fighting are fighting against the darker sides, and I do believe that we can and will win in that battle.

jbg · September 29, 2006

You just broke through the ice. You are saying I want NATO (and by extension, Canada) to be defeated in Afghanistan, so you get a F#CK YOU to.
Is this the rightwing tactic now, accuse messengers of hoping for a defeat in Afghanistan?

Just like many left-wingers are openly rooting for the US effort in Iraq to fail. I do not understand why leftists do not understand that folks like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban do not share their goals, beliefs or values.

gerryhatrick · September 29, 2006

Just like many left-wingers are openly rooting for the US effort in Iraq to fail.

Show me one.

I do not understand why leftists do not understand that folks like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban do not share their goals, beliefs or values.

I can imagine why you do not understand that, because it's total bullsh1t.

jdobbin · September 29, 2006

Just like many left-wingers are openly rooting for the US effort in Iraq to fail. I do not understand why leftists do not understand that folks like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban do not share their goals, beliefs or values.

So you believe that Iraq is well on the way to peace and that the insurgency will be defeated soon?

I wish that was the case. 60 Minutes will talk about the insurgency with Woodward this Sunday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15051776/

I don't know why they keep labelling attacks as "secret."

jbg · September 29, 2006

Just like many left-wingers are openly rooting for the US effort in Iraq to fail.

Show me one.

I do not understand why leftists do not understand that folks like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban do not share their goals, beliefs or values.

I can imagine why you do not understand that, because it's total bullsh1t.

Your use of foul language does not convince me that you are right. In fact, quite the contrary.

One example of left-wingers' rooting against the West is Jesse Jackson's various visits to the area. Another, from Viet Nam, was Hanoi Jane's broadcasts.

gerryhatrick · September 29, 2006

One example of left-wingers' rooting against the West is Jesse Jackson's various visits to the area. Another, from Viet Nam, was Hanoi Jane's broadcasts.

"Hanoi Jane" did not broadcast from Iraq, unless my memory fails me. The challange for you was to cite "left-wingers" who are rooting for the US to fail in Iraq.

As for Jesse Jackson visiting the area, that is not an example of a left-winger rooting for the US to fail in Iraq.

This was your claim:

"many left-wingers are openly rooting for the US effort in Iraq to fail."

Either admit you were wallowing in anti-left wing BS rhetoric, or cough up an example of what you've spouted off about.

and oh yeah, so sorry for the profanity. :rolleyes:

Army Guy · September 29, 2006

You're right I don't speak for the soldiers but I have never heard any of them say that what they are doing in Afghanistan is futile or that they shouldn't be there.

You got that right. Further more any single one of them could've gotten out of their mission to Afghanistan by simply claiming their family needed them right now or just about any other reasonable excuse. IOW, the soldiers in Afghanistan are members of a volunteer army who more-or-less volunteered to go to Afghanistan as well. Any one of them could've opted out and been replaced.

.

This is something I am not entirely clear about. I understand it is so with the reservists but don't know if it holds true for the regulars. Perhaps Army Guy could enlighten us.

Killjoy is right, both reg and res force volunteer for these missions, and there is alot of reasons that a soldier could use "NOT" to go, there is the medical which includes mental and phyiscal health reasons.IE tell them you hear voices and your grounded, There is the Padre, that there is any family issues, IE relationship problems ,and your grounded, Money problems and your grounded, problems with the law, IE that you would have to make a court apperance your grounded I seen a guy go through a full year of training only to get a speeding ticket, he was kept back. any divorce, family court, etc etc your grounded...

They want soldiers there that are going to be able to give 150% to the mission, and not thinking about thier kids are all right , or the wife is taking him to the cleaners at court because he was not there. It's not the place you want to be when your head is up "as we say up your ass". All that being said they never have much problem filling out the ranks for each mission, which speaks volumes for the type of people in the military and the support for our mission. I say "ours" because the majority of Canadians don't believe in it any more.

All of us over here are here because we want to be, because we believe in what we are doing. I'd also like to mention that a good majority of us are here on our 2 or 3 tour. that has got to say something about the mission and how we feel about it.

M.Dancer · September 29, 2006

One example of left-wingers' rooting against the West is Jesse Jackson's various visits to the area. Another, from Viet Nam, was Hanoi Jane's broadcasts.

"Hanoi Jane" did not broadcast from Iraq, unless my memory fails me. The challange for you was to cite "left-wingers" who are rooting for the US to fail in Iraq.

As for Jesse Jackson visiting the area, that is not an example of a left-winger rooting for the US to fail in Iraq.

This was your claim:

"many left-wingers are openly rooting for the US effort in Iraq to fail."

Either admit you were wallowing in anti-left wing BS rhetoric, or cough up an example of what you've spouted off about.

and oh yeah, so sorry for the profanity.

I'm not following this thread....but I suspect Michael Morre saying that the insurgents are the equivilent of the minutemen might come close....or...he could have been playing with the old reagan quote where reagan calls the contra terrorists the moral equivelant of the revolutionary minutemen.....

Topaz · September 29, 2006

I believe the author lived in the Middle-East for many years . I, too, don't think the west can beat this guys unless they go in and bomb continuously for days and then probably kill more innocent citizens in the process like the US has in Iraq. IF, NATO starts to kill the people than more troops will have more enemies, then just the Taliban. That's why Iraq is such a mess. Iraqis loss their loved ones by the US and then they turn on the US soldiers. I hate seeing our soldiers come home in caskets but I fear alot more are going to and then what will Harper do to replace them?? Our military is just as stetched as the US.

killjoy · September 29, 2006

Hey I get to be 'right' today

ArmyGuy: Don't forget to look both ways before you cross the street.

Don't worry - something else shiny and doom-filled will come along and distract the people. Pretty bad when you start to wish they'd just ignore us, non?

.