|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 18, 2009 12:41:22 GMT -5
I have been around here long enough that nobody can mistaken me for a dove, in fact, they make for good eating. With that said....
I've had enough with Afganistan and us standing in silence on the side of our highways while our dead soldiers pass by. Not that I don't want to see the Taliban "fighters" hung like drying salted cod on a line, but I'm getting tired of Canadians getting in harms way while our so called "allies" protect their butts by hiding on the sidelines. Either Germany, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain put their asses on the line or we simply take our marbles and go home.
As for O'bama, that beer drinking telempromter reading Irsihman requesting that we stay past 2011, shove it.
Agree or disagree?
|
|
|
|
Post by halihab on Dec 18, 2009 15:14:32 GMT -5
Totally agree !
|
|
|
|
Post by ValkyrieNS on Dec 18, 2009 20:48:08 GMT -5
I respect the soldiers who are doing their job [do what they're told] and I am not upset with them for being over there. As a matter of fact, I get upset every time I hear of a Canadian soldier's death.
Our government needs to bring our men and women home. There have been too many Canadian deaths since we got involved in this conflict...
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 19, 2009 9:59:03 GMT -5
I think Canada is probably the only country that could see this conflict to the end ...
I don't think we should be bringing the soldiers home. The job is not done. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, the Taliban are strengthening ... and if Canada leaves, Afghanistan will once again become a safe haven for terrorists.
What I would like to see, is less media coverage tearing at the heart-strings of Canadians. Showing images when we have a casualty. Do we see images of the good that our soldiers are doing over there regularly? No ... just a blurp about a death and then images of a flagged draped coffin. Anyone sees those images and MPs phones will be ringing to bring them home. And that, my friends, is what the "enemy" is counting on .. that the Western public will not be able to handle the deaths of soldiers and cry out for them to come home - and then they can get back to planning another 9-11. Let's not forget, Osama put Canada on his top 5 nations he is going to attack .... the other 4 have had terrorist attacks already. Does anyone think that by leaving he is going to all of a sudden like Canada?
As HA said ... we need more support internationally.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 19, 2009 18:34:14 GMT -5
Bin Laden is likely not in Afghanistan, and even if he is, it's highly unlikely we'll catch him. The idea that our mission in Afghanistan is about preventing terrorism at home is a joke IMO. Even more so is the idea that it will succeed in that respect. Our presence there only creates more terrorists.
That said, I can imagine that good could be accomplished there with enough international support and a pragmatic strategy that doesn't have an outright military victory as its goal (because that will never happen). Whether Obama has such a strategy, and whether he can get the necessary support is not clear to me. I do think he is far less out of touch with reality than, say, GWB, so he may be willing to change course as needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 19, 2009 23:44:50 GMT -5
Whether Obama has such a strategy, and whether he can get the necessary support is not clear to me. I do think he is far less out of touch with reality than, say, GWB, so he may be willing to change course as needed. Obama is WAY more in touch.........with his mirror.  The issues is not that tem mission is worth it (lthough one can argue a point or ten) it's the fact there are a lot of NATO countries are not carrying their fair share. As for my buddy Bin, I rather nobody ever knew what happened to him. The last thing the world needs is a terrorist hero. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 20, 2009 11:14:08 GMT -5
Bin Laden is likely not in Afghanistan, and even if he is, it's highly unlikely we'll catch him. The idea that our mission in Afghanistan is about preventing terrorism at home is a joke IMO. Even more so is the idea that it will succeed in that respect. Our presence there only creates more terrorists. Its not about preventing terrorism at home ... it is about preventing terrorism period. When a bully beats you up in the schoolyard, do you walk away and continue to let him beat you up and steal your lunch money? When you stand up to him, people are more likely to come and back you up ... unfortunately for Canada, no one seems to wanna come help us. The fact that big acts of terrorism are down, shows that our presence is somewhat working. But the next big act (pray to God it is not in Canada please) and you will see that country want to get retribution ...and if it is in Canada, the Canadian public support will reach its zenith. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 20, 2009 14:00:17 GMT -5
The fact that big acts of terrorism are down, shows that our presence is somewhat working. But the next big act (pray to God it is not in Canada please) and you will see that country want to get retribution ...and if it is in Canada, the Canadian public support will reach its zenith. That argument is a fallacy. It's like saying that the fact that there hasn't been a blizzard in Vancouver yet this winter shows that my turning up the heat in my home is working. Correlation does not imply causation.Furthermore, acts of terrorism (big or small) are not down. In fact, if anything, it seems like they are up (though it's possible they just get more media coverage post-9/11). There haven't been any successful acts of terrorism perpetrated in Canada or the US by Muslim extremists since 9/11. There's a big difference there. More importantly, there's no reason to believe there's any connection between that and our presence in Afghanistan. If somebody from, say, Saudi Arabia, wants to blow up a bus in Toronto and they have the means, then they're going to do it unless they get arrested first. The fact that we are over in Afghanistan (in their opinion, probably murdering and raping civilians) is not exactly going to dissuade them. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 20, 2009 16:25:44 GMT -5
The fact that big acts of terrorism are down, shows that our presence is somewhat working. But the next big act (pray to God it is not in Canada please) and you will see that country want to get retribution ...and if it is in Canada, the Canadian public support will reach its zenith. That argument is a fallacy. It's like saying that the fact that there hasn't been a blizzard in Vancouver yet this winter shows that my turning up the heat in my home is working. Correlation does not imply causation.Furthermore, acts of terrorism (big or small) are not down. In fact, if anything, it seems like they are up (though it's possible they just get more media coverage post-9/11). There haven't been any successful acts of terrorism perpetrated in Canada or the US by Muslim extremists since 9/11. There's a big difference there. More importantly, there's no reason to believe there's any connection between that and our presence in Afghanistan. If somebody from, say, Saudi Arabia, wants to blow up a bus in Toronto and they have the means, then they're going to do it unless they get arrested first. The fact that we are over in Afghanistan (in their opinion, probably murdering and raping civilians) is not exactly going to dissuade them. Nothing is going to dissuade them ....and thats where your arguement has a fallacy. IF we pull out of the war on terrorism, and make no mistake it IS a WAR, and then an act of terrorism occurs on Canadian soil, we will look foolish going back to the US or any country looking for help ... why, you took your toys and went home .... we stay in the fight, maybe to a lesser degree, but we stay in the fight. What we need is for more countries to join us, not walk away like it isn't anything that concerns us .... ... I have relatives in the Canadian Army, the Canadian Navy, and the US Air Force. All of them have had time in either Afghanistan or Iraq. I am not talking like I have nothing to lose here. As much as I want them home safe and sound, they will tell you they are fighting for something that is worth fighting for ... |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 20, 2009 16:59:10 GMT -5
That argument is a fallacy. It's like saying that the fact that there hasn't been a blizzard in Vancouver yet this winter shows that my turning up the heat in my home is working. Correlation does not imply causation.Furthermore, acts of terrorism (big or small) are not down. In fact, if anything, it seems like they are up (though it's possible they just get more media coverage post-9/11). There haven't been any successful acts of terrorism perpetrated in Canada or the US by Muslim extremists since 9/11. There's a big difference there. More importantly, there's no reason to believe there's any connection between that and our presence in Afghanistan. If somebody from, say, Saudi Arabia, wants to blow up a bus in Toronto and they have the means, then they're going to do it unless they get arrested first. The fact that we are over in Afghanistan (in their opinion, probably murdering and raping civilians) is not exactly going to dissuade them. Nothing is going to dissuade them ....and thats where your arguement has a fallacy. No. I'm arguing that being in Afghanistan is not reducing terrorism, and you just agreed with me. I'm not arguing whether or not there is something else we could do that would reduce terrorism. No disrespect to your relatives, but being in the military does not mean they are qualified to determine foreign policy. They are entitled to their opinions like anyone else, but they might be wrong. In fact, it's just good military policy to have the people doing the most dangerous and unpleasant work believe that "they are fighting for something that is worth fighting for." |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 20, 2009 17:06:40 GMT -5
IF we pull out of the war on terrorism, and make no mistake it IS a WAR You can't fight a war on terrorism any more than you can fight a war on drugs. Those are just propaganda terms used to scare the public. We are talking about the war in Afghanistan, which is different, and which I do not believe is doing anything to make the world "safe from terrorism" - quite the opposite actually. What to do about Afghanistan comes down to what kind of success we can have. It doesn't matter how noble our intentions are if we are not going to be able to achieve anything, or are going to do more harm than good. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 20, 2009 20:37:47 GMT -5
... and make no mistake it IS a WAR, IMO, "War" is a term governments avoid using because it involves a whole different approach to conflict. There are specific obligations and responsibilities to a government that declares war. I honestly don't know what they, but a whole new set of rules apply when the term "war" is used. By avoiding the term it becomes a 'police action' (like Korea) or an 'intervension' or anything that avoids using the term 'war' and the obligations that go along with that. Could be why we never declared war on Iraq in 1991 too. I believe, not sure, but believe that was an 'intervention.' Other countries are making sacrifices also, Skilly. I know you know that already though. Why many Canadians feel we are alone in the Kandahar region is probably because we don't always hear of the other country's sacrifices, only our own. As of two years ago Britain's bloodiest conflict between Iraq and Afghanistan, was Afghanistan. That was odd to me when I first read it, but it's actually fact. I don't know what the numbers are today, but the point is we just don't hear about their fatalities. I served in two war zones and consider myself fortunate enough not to have seen any combat. In fact I'm very thankful of that. I have a neighbour just a few doors down from me who's an ex-Marine. He was born in Barry, ON and he lost his brother in Vietnam and his son in Iraq. He carries a framed 8 x 10 of his son in his truck. He's extremely proud of both his brother and his son. He said he joined the Marines because of his brother and when he showed me the photo of his son (dress blues with white hat) he actually ran back to the truck, got the photo and was beaming ear to ear. It's hard for me to relate, because while my military lineage can be traced back to WWI, I never lost any of my relatives or my son in a war. As a friend of mine told me, his pride is what probably helps him get through his day. He's about my age and he and his wife just had another son about a year or so ago. People will think that might be a bit late in age and I would agree with them; however, I fully relate as to why. He, too, was shot down in Iraq in 2004 and was the only survivor in that helicopter. I don't know his last name, but I can find out. There's probably a link with his brother's name and his son's name on it, but I won't be looking either of them up. None of this is bullsh*t. We can debate whether we should be in Afghanistan or not. We can debate about the merits or futility of whether or not terrorist organizations have been affected. But it's important that we not forget what war is really about ... war is about people ... nothing more ... nothing less. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 21, 2009 0:10:38 GMT -5
Deaths in Afganistan by country... USA: 864* UK: 239 Canada: 133* Germany: 40 France: 36 Denmark: 30 Spain: 26 Italy: 22 Netherlands: 21 Poland: 15 Australia: 11 Romania: 11 Estonia: 7 Norway: 4 Czech Republic: 3 Latvia: 3 Hungary: 2 Portugal: 2 South Korea: 2 Sweden: 2 Turkey: 2 Belgium: 1 Finland: 1 Lithuania: 1 Greeks, Croatians, Slovanians, Iceland, Laxemburg and Slovakians are vampires. Current troops sent by country..... United States - 68,000 United Kingdom - 10,000 Germany - 4,245 France - 3,070 Canada - 2,830 Italy - 2,795 Netherlands - 2,160 Poland - 2,035 Australia - 1,550 Spain - 1,000 Romania - 990 Turkey - 820 Denmark - 750 Norway - 600 Belgium - 510 Sweden - 500 Bulgaria - 460 Czech Republic - 340 Croatia - 325 Hungary - 310 New Zealand - 300 Greece, Albania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Portugal, Luxemburg, Lithuania and Iceland are on vacation. My point is simple. As a Canadian, I'm proud that we showed the courage and the fortitude to go into the worse areas and take the fight to the enemy. Now it's someone else's turn. Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Turkey, Hungary, Sweden and Poland have much larger armies and as well, if not FAR better equipped then us. It's time for them to step forward into the nasty areas and if their 'political will" is not there, then for us to step away. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 21, 2009 0:27:15 GMT -5
What to do about Afghanistan comes down to what kind of success we can have. It doesn't matter how noble our intentions are if we are not going to be able to achieve anything, or are going to do more harm than good. More harm then good? Chamberlain would be proud! Tell us in plain language, how fighting head chopping totalitarianism and medieval mentality to woman and children is going to do more harm then good? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 21, 2009 0:43:02 GMT -5
None of this is bullsh*t. We can debate whether we should be in Afghanistan or not. We can debate about the merits or futility of whether or not terrorist organizations have been affected. Did I mention that I eat doves? On the bbq with a bit of garlic and olive oil....tasty! The fight is a good fight. Of that there is no doubt. But what I don't care for anymore is the lack of political will by our "allies" to fight that good fight. Germany and France are massively more equipped then us and much larger armies, but nowhere near the commitment in the worse areas. Others have much larger armies. It's THEIR turn and if they don't want too, then we need to step away. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 21, 2009 3:52:55 GMT -5
What to do about Afghanistan comes down to what kind of success we can have. It doesn't matter how noble our intentions are if we are not going to be able to achieve anything, or are going to do more harm than good. More harm then good? Chamberlain would be proud! Tell us in plain language, how fighting head chopping totalitarianism and medieval mentality to woman and children is going to do more harm then good? You're describing it in terms of it's supposed objectives -- which may never be achieved -- rather than in terms of what's actually happening, which is a lot of people getting killed without much in the way of tangible results. I think there's a fancy term for that kind of argument but I can't remember what it is. Frankly, I consider it dishonest. It's the kind of thing politicians say. "How can you be against saving children from AIDS?" "Who doesn't support education?" "Anyone who doesn't support this bill is against women's rights." Etc. I already said I could imagine good coming from this mission if it was done right. But if it's done wrong, it can do great harm. I recall an Afghan woman saying something along the lines of "Sure, under the Taliban our rights were limited, but at least we didn't have to worry about being shot at." |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 21, 2009 9:15:39 GMT -5
None of this is bullsh*t. We can debate whether we should be in Afghanistan or not. We can debate about the merits or futility of whether or not terrorist organizations have been affected. Did I mention that I eat doves? On the bbq with a bit of garlic and olive oil....tasty! The fight is a good fight. Of that there is no doubt. But what I don't care for anymore is the lack of political will by our "allies" to fight that good fight. Germany and France are massively more equipped then us and much larger armies, but nowhere near the commitment in the worse areas. Others have much larger armies. It's THEIR turn and if they don't want too, then we need to step away. That was excellent research HA. Thanks. If you go back in the threads (I'm just too lazy to do it) you'll see I shared your opinion, that is getting other countries to step up to the plate for a change, about 2 years ago (see why I'm lazy now). As an aside, even if we do come out of Afghanistan in 2011, I doubt we'll ever fully leave the country. Canada has helped mentor 60,000 (that is the end total, don't know if they've actually achieved that though) Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers. Mentoring is only one of the jobs we're doing over there, but it's an important one because the guys are training the ANA to look after things themselves. You might remember Cpl Matthew McCulley. He was a former student of mine who stepped on an IED. However, he was part of the Operational Mentor Liaison Team (OMLT) when he was KIA. If we do pull out eventually we won't be pulling out every single Canadian. There will be some responsibilities left for us and mentoring will be one of them. Another responsibility will be Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT). These teams are responsible for repair/replacement of infrastructure. But, yes, I agree with you (and have felt this way for a long time) that it's high time other NATO countries assume responsibility or more importantly, some RISK. Got to go man. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 21, 2009 14:14:46 GMT -5
Interesting history and perspective on the whole campaign.If anyone can refute Prof. Warnock's 2006 article....have at it. Please don't dismiss it as left-wing fluff. Of course, the Taliban are abominable. But the Clinton and GWB governments gave them full support, hoping that a "stable" Afghanistan would be more conducive to the progress of the Pipeline. It's not as if the Taliban were "nicer" back then. And I don't remember their inhumanity making the news, either. I'm not claiming to favour one side or the other....but I'm willing to entertain a different picture than what the news spin gives us. Wherever there are Big Oil interests....I simply don't buy the mainstream/"official" word. Condoleeza Rice was on the board of directors of Chevron. Didn't know that before reading this article. Kenneth Lay (Enron), Dick Cheney (Haliburton)....two other big players in the Pipeline consortium. Wonder how progress, if any, on the Pipeline is going now? EDIT: As always, I have nothing but admiration for our troops....and my hope is that their involvement is truly for the reasons stated. Nothing worse than armed forces being misused....as they're only following orders. Their service and sacrifice should be called upon only for just causes...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2009 5:16:12 GMT -5
Interesting history and perspective on the whole campaign.If anyone can refute Prof. Warnock's 2006 article....have at it. Please don't dismiss it as left-wing fluff. Of course, the Taliban are abominable. But the Clinton and GWB governments gave them full support, hoping that a "stable" Afghanistan would be more conducive to the progress of the Pipeline. It's not as if the Taliban were "nicer" back then. And I don't remember their inhumanity making the news, either. I'm not claiming to favour one side or the other....but I'm willing to entertain a different picture than what the news spin gives us. Wherever there are Big Oil interests....I simply don't buy the mainstream/"official" word. Condoleeza Rice was on the board of directors of Chevron. Didn't know that before reading this article. Kenneth Lay (Enron), Dick Cheney (Haliburton)....two other big players in the Pipeline consortium. Wonder how progress, if any, on the Pipeline is going now? EDIT: As always, I have nothing but admiration for our troops....and my hope is that their involvement is truly for the reasons stated. Nothing worse than armed forces being misused....as they're only following orders. Their service and sacrifice should be called upon only for just causes... Rule number one....W5 the source....who, what, where, when and why...... When I did the above on John W. Warnock, I didn't wee left wing fluff...what I saw is a raging, socialist whack job. It's hard to argue against raging, socialist, whack jobs that see conspiracies in their tofu. Or pray to the alter of Chavez and Castro. Here is some of his other comments.... It is for all these reasons that capitalism must be replaced. But how can we do that? What is to be done? The second part of the book provides an overall plan. There must be, and will be, a transformation to a post-capitalist world based on socialism. What we need is a proliferation of "creative Utopianism," and "a plural inventive imagination." All our organizations must emphasize a radical critique of capitalism and globalization. "However, significant change cannot come without achieving political power. Today we can see how this is working in Venezuela but has failed in Brazil. In many countries there are broad popular movements, and they must interact with political parties, elections and governments. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 23, 2009 1:29:08 GMT -5
Does Warnock present the history and timeline of events correctly? That was my question. Does big oil have a big stake in the control of Afghanistan? Did Clinton/Bush/Chretien and all other allied governments support the Taliban when they first seized power, despite their crimes against humanity? Can you throw out the message with the messenger? W5s can be conducted on, and slanted against, anybody. Lawyers and political strategists make a living at that....  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 23, 2009 13:36:23 GMT -5
Was the US involved in oil and pipelines around Afganistan? Were SOME piplines planned to go through Afganistan? Does Cranky buy cars from companies that profitted from the Nazi regime? Is Christianity a religion that had pedophile priests? One can answer yes to all of them. What the author (I use this term loosely) is doing is nothing more then conjecture based on nothing more then s[inning related events. His "big oil politics" conspiracy theories are typical of the far left whackers. Let's look at this line... Then came the events of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration made new demands on the Taliban government. Once again, the Taliban agreed to extradite bin Laden to another country for trial, but only if some evidence was presented demonstrating that he had some ties to the U.S. airline hijackings. An agreement was reached to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan, but this was then rejected by President Pervez Musharraf, now closely allied with the U.S. government. The White House stated that “there would be no negotiations, no discussions with the Taliban.” On October 7 US and UK bombers attacked Afghanistan and increased their economic and military aid to the warlords of the Northern Alliance. Completely glossed over the inhuman act that caused 3,000 dead. Completely ignored the medieval Taliban regimes SUPPORT for terrorists. Completely glossed over the FACT that PREVIOUS terrorists attacked were based in Afghanistan and the Taliban ALLOWED it. Completely glossed over the Taliban intentional delay disguised as "judicial proof" to allow Bin Laden time to escape. They could of VERY EASILY detained Bin Laden until proof was presented. The Taliban REFUSED to arrest him under the pretense of applying Western law. How head slapping hilarious is that from a medieval regime? How head slapping hilarious is that from a regime that hung, beheaded and mutilated people on nothing more then innuendo? No one but a far left wingnut conspiracy weaving wacko like Warnock would ignore the DIRECT link between the Taliban and the terrorists. Or the inhuman behaviour of beatings, institutionalized mutilations, beheadings and gross oppression of the Talinam regime. I guess the socialist ideology of social justice can be thrown out the window when it comes to spinning "big oil politics" conspiracies. Phoney, typical and sad.      For the sake of some decency, I wont show the beheadings or mutilations nor am I going to waste any more of my time on this. . |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 23, 2009 14:03:13 GMT -5
nor am I going to waste any more of my time on this. Nor will I. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 23, 2009 16:02:21 GMT -5
"For the sake of some decency," I won't post pictures of children that have been mutilated by American-exported cluster bombs (the US has refused to sign the treaty banning them; Obama is the first president to take significant action in that direction), or of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay after their regular beatings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 23, 2009 23:20:41 GMT -5
Back to the original question, should we extend past 2011. Obama has redirected 35,000 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan (I think that's the number, not sure), so what I feel he's doing is re-establishing his priorities. I think BC pointed out many moons ago that he felt Bush's biggest mistake was taking his eye off the prize (was that referring to the hunt for Bin Laden, BC?).
While Obama may not be refocusing on that goal, I do think he's got his priorities right in redeploying those troops into Afghanistan.
Should we pull out in 2011? Yes, I feel we should. However, like I was saying before I don't think we'll ever pull out entirely. There will still be responsibilities to take care of; mentoring and reconstruction, but as far as active combat goes, I really think there are countries who haven't gone up to the plate as yet.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 24, 2009 0:17:38 GMT -5
Should we pull out in 2011? Yes, I feel we should. However, like I was saying before I don't think we'll ever pull out entirely. There will still be responsibilities to take care of; mentoring and reconstruction, but as far as active combat goes, I really think there are countries who haven't gone up to the plate as yet. Cheers. Do I want the troops pulled out ... of course, any reasonable person wants them out of there. Should our troops be withdrawn? Thats the question that I think needs a sober second thought. Yes, I totally agree that Canada needs help and HAS to apply pressure on other nations to supply that support ...... I never thought the day would come where Canada was seen as a military nation again. In recent memory we have been seen as nothing more than an American-tag-along, never publicly taking a stand against anything. Peacekeepers. Basically neutral. But Afghanistan has put us in the military spotlight once again and the world is seeing that Canada is still a military force, and though a small military we are one of the best trained. If we pull out, we will lose some face with the international community. And as I said earlier, getting support could then be hard if an act of terror occurs on Canadian soil .... we have to stay in this, maybe on a lesser scale. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 24, 2009 1:15:11 GMT -5
My Spartan forefathers are deeply ashamed and wish to apologize for what passes as Greek courage and honour these days. ~~~~~~~~~~ The Greek 122-strong contingent in Afghanistan is facing redeployment, a prospect likely to place troops in the firing line and trigger controversy at home. The Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan has proposed that the Greek construction battalion (TESAF), currently based in the relatively trouble-free northwestern province of Herat, be transferred to Farah, a troubled province beset by fighting, IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and suicide attacks. Kathimerini reported that the decision to relocate the Greek detachment was not approved by the Greek ministry of defence, nor is it likely to prove popular at home. Apparently, the "concept of a transfer" was "approved by the former Nea Demokratia government" but that was no longer the case with the current Pasok-led government. More... sofiaecho.com/2009/11/13/815313_greek-government-questions-afghan-frontline-redeployment |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 24, 2009 1:21:06 GMT -5
If we pull out, we will lose some face with the international community. And as I said earlier, getting support could then be hard if an act of terror occurs on Canadian soil .... we have to stay in this, maybe on a lesser scale. Lose face? We have the coffins to prove our bravery and commitment. I don't think we will lose one iota of face as long as we make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ONLY reason we are doing it is to put the spotlight on those countries who hide behind the bushes. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 24, 2009 1:32:13 GMT -5
This is one of the article I read that made me cranky abvout Afganistan. As if I need crankness justification!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Afghanistan: Germany says no to sending more soldiers to help US
Germany has cast doubt on the value of sending extra troops to Afghanistan despite pleas from the US for its Nato allies to bolster the fight against the Taliban.
Christain Schmidt, a junior German defence minister, said the country was not ready to commit additional forces to a revitalised military campaign to the war-torn state.
"I don't think we will want to seek a majority in our country for a stronger security commitment without stronger commitment in the civil sector," he said at a security conference in Bahrain.
The final German decision will be made in the run-up to the London summit on Afghanistan in late January. The summit was called by Gordon Brown, the prime minister, last month to show international backing after President Barack Obama announced a major surge as part of a new strategy in Afghanistan.
US officials said privately yesterday that Nato countries have already pledged more than 8,000 additional forces for Afghanistan and forecast the figure would rise further before the London meeting.
France and Germany have spurned calls for the main European powers to demonstrate confidence in victory over the Taliban by adding significant numbers of troops. (France and Germany? What a suprise! How many Canadians and Americans died for France? TWICE! And who was is that beat down the swastika with their lives Mr. Schmidt/)
German support for the war was badly damaged by a controversy over an air-strike its commanders ordered on petrol trucks that caused a large number of civilian casualities.
Berlin views Mr Obama's decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Iraq as a peak of the campaign launched in 2001. Mr Schmidt said the campaign should stop if the Taliban was not suffering broad scale reverses by the time the number of US and Nato International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) reaches its highest level.
"We've made it very clear that in our view the Obama speech alone does not provide a strategic basis, but that together with the Afghans we would like to hear and have binding agreements and what they are willing to contribute," said Mr Schmidt. (Nice spin for idiots who buy it).
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 24, 2009 9:52:52 GMT -5
Well, unlike Dis I'm not above quoting myself... Sadly, those same politicians who want us to cut-and-run in Afghanistan would be the same politicians who would send our troops to the mess that is Darfur, if that’s what the people said would get them votes. Anyways, I digress. I wrote this a while back, and I still think it’s pertinent: [/size] I am more convinced than ever that the invasion of Iraq was possibly the biggest foreign relations mistake of the last, oh 100 years or so. Certainly the biggest mistake our lifetime (and I’m counting Vietnam). As much as I hate quoting Democrats (who are as self-serving as any other politician, make no mistake), George Bush and the Republicans really did take their eyes off the prize when they gave up on Afghanistan, and went after Saddam Hussein. Yes, they still have what, 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, but how much better would that place be if the 100,000+ troops in Iraq were instead in Afghanistan? How much better would it have been if the Bush administration had of begged/bribed/brow-beat it’s allies to honor their commitments that they had already made to rebuild Afghanistan?
This isn’t about Afghanistan, or the Afghani people, or democracy, or anything like that. It’s not even really about the war on terror, if you ask me. It’s about dispelling the myths in the Islamic world that the West is out to get them. If you remove all the negative stereotypes that the Islamic world has about the West, that we want to conquer them, convert them, steal their oil, whatever, then what do you have? Nothing. There is no reason to hate us, anymore than there would be any reason to hate Buddists. Sure, you’ll your extremists, as you do in the West, but like the right/left wing nuts in the US or Canada, they’ll be mere annoyances on a societal scale.
I wrote this a while back too, while talking about the war in Lebanon:[/size] We had the table set for us in Afghanistan; we had the resolve, the capacity and the will to do it. From every nation in the world. In fact, I think the only nation that was against the invasion of Afghanistan was Iraq. Even Iran supported it. But we dropped the ball. And now, instead of being seen as a force for good (oh thank god, the world coalition is coming to save us, they’ll rebuild us like they rebuilt Afghanistan) the West is seen as invaders, occupiers, destroyers, pillagers, murderers.
The question is, is there enough political will in the world to finish the job in Afghanistan? To gain the trust of the Islamic world? Or will Canada be left to turn out the lights after every other country has cut-and-run? Is the war already lost?[/quote] Annnnnndddd.... But surely there's a better way to go about arranging a troop rotation than telling the world, and your enemies, that you're pulling out in a year? I agree with the entire article, with the exception of this one line. Canada has been clamoring, for years now, for help from it's NATO allies in the south, a cry that has fallen on deaf ears. "As long as you are there, why should we go?" has been the unspoken declaration. Eventually, and even the author acknowledges this, somebody else has to step to the plate. We can't stay in Khandahar in perpetuity. If no amount of asking, pleading, or threatening will get our "allies" to pitch in, then the last resort is to step away. The world can't say they didn't have ample warning, after all, they will have had a good three years to get off the pot, so to speak. They have to know we weren't bluffing, that when we said, three years in advance that we will be gone by a certain date, that we meant it. We will have done our part by then, much more than was ever asked of us. Having said all that, does the Obama administration's recent surge change things? Perhaps partly. If I were supreme dictator of Canada I would agree to stay in Afghanistan past 2011 under the following conditions; * We get pulled off the line, and assigned to a safer province, where we can concentrate on reconstruction and training efforts (perhaps somewhere in the North). * We get some military hardware out of this. Yes, it's a shakedown. Doesn't have to be an aircraft carrier, but say 3-5 military transports given to us by the US, for "free". Or whatever equipment of equivalent value that the military would like to have but has never been able to fit into it's budget. Something like that would be nothing to the US military complex, but it's something Canada desperately needs and has never had the chance to get. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 24, 2009 10:00:34 GMT -5
This is one of the article I read that made me cranky abvout Afganistan. As if I need crankness justification! ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Afghanistan: Germany says no to sending more soldiers to help US
Germany has cast doubt on the value of sending extra troops to Afghanistan despite pleas from the US for its Nato allies to bolster the fight against the Taliban.
Christain Schmidt, a junior German defence minister, said the country was not ready to commit additional forces to a revitalised military campaign to the war-torn state.
"I don't think we will want to seek a majority in our country for a stronger security commitment without stronger commitment in the civil sector," he said at a security conference in Bahrain.
The final German decision will be made in the run-up to the London summit on Afghanistan in late January. The summit was called by Gordon Brown, the prime minister, last month to show international backing after President Barack Obama announced a major surge as part of a new strategy in Afghanistan.
US officials said privately yesterday that Nato countries have already pledged more than 8,000 additional forces for Afghanistan and forecast the figure would rise further before the London meeting.
France and Germany have spurned calls for the main European powers to demonstrate confidence in victory over the Taliban by adding significant numbers of troops. (France and Germany? What a suprise! How many Canadians and Americans died for France? TWICE! And who was is that beat down the swastika with their lives Mr. Schmidt/)
German support for the war was badly damaged by a controversy over an air-strike its commanders ordered on petrol trucks that caused a large number of civilian casualities. Berlin views Mr Obama's decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Iraq as a peak of the campaign launched in 2001. Mr Schmidt said the campaign should stop if the Taliban was not suffering broad scale reverses by the time the number of US and Nato International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) reaches its highest level. "We've made it very clear that in our view the Obama speech alone does not provide a strategic basis, but that together with the Afghans we would like to hear and have binding agreements and what they are willing to contribute," said Mr Schmidt. (Nice spin for idiots who buy it).I've avoided this mainly because I've needed some time to think about what has been presented here before forming a complete opinion, but this seems as good a place as any to jump in. I have no problem with small countries, who have negligible GDP's (and thus significantly smaller military budgets) and smaller populations shying away from putting their limited resources on the line in Afghanistan. Countries like Greece (no offense HA), Iceland, Latvia and others have no place in this battle, because they don't really have an armed forces of the appropriate size to support operations. It is the countries that are capable of support large armed forces - France and Germany come to mind - who ought to be ashamed of themselves. With that said, I also don't see how we have the right to expect anything from them. Canada went in of her own accord. We didn't not need their permission. We did not need their assistance. We should not need their assistance. And if they are not able to step up to the bar and put their sons and daughters on the line for this cause - well, that's no reason to pull out of Afghanistan (where we are doing a great deal of good, contrary to what some people would have you believe). That's a reason to pull out of NATO, or to maybe think twice the next time they come calling for assistance. But that's just my opinion. I'm increably proud of the men and women from Canada who are serving overseas - in Afghanistan and elsewhere. I realize that the continued death toll is trying on those left at home, but it is a sacrifice that they chose to make for our sake and the sake of those less fortunate. And I don't tihnk the recalcitrance of some of our allies is reason enough to but the people of Afghanistan through a greater struggle. |
|
