War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

#juan

No Party Affiliation

#1May 6th, 2007

War in Afghanistan keeping Harper from Majority according to recent polls.

--

New SES Research Poll - Canada's Mission in Afghanistan - Obstacle to Harper Majority

-- Latest by NNL
Although some may consider this a black and white issue, the reality from a public opinion viewpoint is that we are looking at shades of grey. Generally, Canadians are divided on the government’s handling of the mission (44% agree with how the mission is being handled, 48% disagree the rest were unsure). However, 55% of Canadians believe that Canada and NATO together have not deployed the resources necessary to succeed.
Sixty-seven percent of Canadians think our mission makes Canada more of a terrorist target and 55% of Canadians think that if the casualties continue Canada should pull out (39% of Canadians think that casualties are a necessary part of our mission).
Politically, whenever Afghanistan is in the news the Tory numbers in Quebec drop. Although the mission may be good at consolidating core Tory support it basically throws a wrench in any effort for the Tories to build a majority coalition (even 40% of committed Conservative supporters think the government should pull out if the casualties continue).

mabudon

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 6th, 2007

what a shocker!!

Sad part is, the powers that be have all but suceeded into makin everything black and white, like the whole of reality can be solved with "If-Not-Then-Else" logic and nothing more.....

Oddest thing about this is that while I am strongly against the war, I feel a certain schadenfreude- Harper seems to want the war AND his majority, but it looks like he can't have both- oh what is our leader to do??
Despite all the smears, Dion isn't looking so bad right now, I have actually been pretty impressed by what he has said on a few subjects. Layton, while I admire certain aspects of the man himself, has really proven himself to be some kind of tool these last few weeks and months- I think the recent hockey debacle saw my opinion of him sink to its lowest point yet, and I have no idea whatsoever what the guy is trying to prove and to whom anymore

The only real worrisome part of this news is that it's possible that Harper will do something drastic- I know it seems ridiculous, but the calls of "sympathizing with the enemy" against anyone who would so much as question elements of the Afghanistan mission sort of frighten me. It is possible, however unlikely, that some form of "with us or against us" could be sneaked into Law to deal with the pesky opinions of dissenters- since as we all know, it's the folks questioning the "mission" who are the REAL enemy, and the sole reason why we might fail in our efforts over there
(and before anyone goes hogwild on that last part, members of the Conservative government HAVE said that a LOT- accusing half of the country of treason is not something I take lightly and I am surprd more hasn't been made of this fact)

#juan

No Party Affiliation

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 6th, 2007

I've always been against Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan. I think most Canadians would be happier if we were spending all of our efforts on reconstruction and well-drilling projects that actually help people rather than jumping in with both feet like the Americans and shooting at anything that moves. On a proportional basis, considering the number of troops we have there, we have likely lost more soldiers than anyone else there. Somehow, this doesn't sound like winning. Following the American lead is not making us popular, or successful.

Tim Hamilton

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

I think most Canadians would be happier if we were spending all of our efforts on reconstruction and well-drilling projects that actually help people rather than jumping in with both feet like the Americans and shooting at anything that moves.

You're being incredibly naive if you think this can be accomplished without any combat. Afghanistan is a warzone; do you really think people can just walk in and start building schools/hospitals like they would in the middle of Edmonton?

The Taliban does not want our schools, hosipitals, wells or anything else we could possibly build for the Afgani people. Without an armed force keeping them distracted or driving them out of regions where reconstruction is taking place, everyone involved in the reconstruction effort would be dead long before they ever finished and their projects would be completely destroyed shortly after.

Hundreds of humanitarian groups have left Afghanistan because it's too dangerous, and this is with our soliders there, so what do you think is going to happen when we start pulling our soldiers out?

mabudon

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 6th, 2007

I think if we left then the failing, phoney thing we are trying to build there would finally die and then things would, however violently, work their way back to stability. (not that you asked me, of course)

snfu73

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 6th, 2007

To me, the war in afghanistan is just ONE of the many, many things that would prevent me from EVER voting for harper.

#juan

No Party Affiliation

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by Tim Hamilton

You're being incredibly naive if you think this can be accomplished without any combat. Afghanistan is a warzone; do you really think people can just walk in and start building schools/hospitals like they would in the middle of Edmonton?

The Taliban does not want our schools, hosipitals, wells or anything else we could possibly build for the Afgani people. Without an armed force keeping them distracted or driving them out of regions where reconstruction is taking place, everyone involved in the reconstruction effort would be dead long before they ever finished and their projects would be completely destroyed shortly after.

Hundreds of humanitarian groups have left Afghanistan because it's too dangerous, and this is with our soliders there, so what do you think is going to happen when we start pulling our soldiers out?

At the moment I don't know exactly what we are trying to build, but France and Germany are not taking as active a role in the war and they are not losing nearly the number of soldiers we are. Canada donned a more aggressive stance with the election of Harper and since then we have had the majority of our losses. Is anything that might be gained going to justify those losses? I don't think so.

talloola

No Party Affiliation

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

I've always been against Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan. I think most Canadians would be happier if we were spending all of our efforts on reconstruction and well-drilling projects that actually help people rather than jumping in with both feet like the Americans and shooting at anything that moves. On a proportional basis, considering the number of troops we have there, we have likely lost more soldiers than anyone else there. Somehow, this doesn't sound like winning. Following the American lead is not making us popular, or successful.

They 'are' doing much reconstruction and other projects, they just 'don't' like being shot at, while
doing it, like sitting ducks.

Tim Hamilton

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

At the moment I don't know exactly what we are trying to build, but France and Germany are not taking as active a role in the war and they are not losing nearly the number of soldiers we are. Canada donned a more aggressive stance with the election of Harper and since then we have had the majority of our losses. Is anything that might be gained going to justify those losses? I don't think so.

What you think of the losses isn't important. The lives being lost are the lives of the soldiers, and those soldiers are overwhelmingly in favor of the mission. It's nice that you seem to want to protect them, but they don't want your protection and they don't need your concern.

You say nothing will be gained to justify the losses, yet the only people who are risking their lives disagree with you and feel it's well worth it. If a solider feels the benefits he can bring to an entire country is the worth the possibility of him dying, who are you to tell him he's wrong? It's not your life, it's theirs, and they feel the losses will be worth it.

Fingertrouble

#10

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by snfu73

To me, the war in afghanistan is just ONE of the many, many things that would prevent me from EVER voting for harper.

Then you shouldn't vote for the Liberals either....they put them (the troops) there in the first place.

Now you will say the Liberal's didn't send the troops there to fight the Taliban. Well if that is the case then you shouldn't vote for them either, for a party that sends troops but doesn't expect them to fight when shot at or attacked by road side bombs are very naive and don't deserve to govern.......

snfu73

#11

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by Fingertrouble

Then you shouldn't vote for the Liberals either....they put them (the troops) there in the first place.

Now you will say the Liberal's didn't send the troops there to fight the Taliban. Well if that is the case then you shouldn't vote for them either, for a party that sends troops but doesn't expect them to fight when shot at or attacked by road side bombs are very naive and don't deserve to govern.......

Generally speaking, I don't vote liberal either...I'm not a fan. I like some of their stances and policies...and I feel they fit me far better than any conservative I have run across. If I didn't have much choice, I would sooner vote liberal as opposed to conservative...at least at this point in history...on a national level. But, I have never voted for a liberal candidate in my life, to this point.

But, I am uncomfortable with the current role that Canada has taken.

able

#12

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 6th, 2007

Hamilton, you talk a damn good fight, don't you think it's about time you joined up, take some of your goofy ideas with you, and be prepared to get a rifle butt bounced off your head. Don't worry about the other side harming you, your buddies will deal with you long before you make it into combat. Having been in the military myself, I believe a heroic horses ass should put their money where their mouth is, get going, I'll cheer for you.

Tim Hamilton

#13

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by able

Hamilton, you talk a damn good fight, don't you think it's about time you joined up, take some of your goofy ideas with you, and be prepared to get a rifle butt bounced off your head. Don't worry about the other side harming you, your buddies will deal with you long before you make it into combat. Having been in the military myself, I believe a heroic horses ass should put their money where their mouth is, get going, I'll cheer for you.

Actually I was there last year. I just left the military 7 months ago, but good job completely avoiding the subject, making random assumptions and a general ass of yourself.

able

#14

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 6th, 2007

If you did serve your time there, then you have my deepest respect, and thanks. Far too many people on the internet say much the same things as you did, but never spent a minute in uniform. From my own experience, I can say that I would not be happy in Afghanistan, primarily because there are too many cheerleaders and not enough soldiers. Also, fighting with outmoded equipment would cause me to wonder if I were there to win or to just put on a good show.

earth_as_one

#15

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 6th, 2007

I don't like Harper. His nose is way too far up Bush's arse. If Harper was PM when Bush was shopping for allies in Iraq, Harper would have committed Canada to the disaster unfolding in Iraq. When Israel killed hundreds of innocent people in Lebanon last summer, including Canadians, Harper quickly parroted the Bush administration's talking points about Israel's "measured response". That tells me he is an idiot whose strings are pulled by the same people who pull Bush's strings.

But I'm not in favor of Canada pulling out of Afghanistan. Canada made a post 9/11 commitment to the American people. Now we are obligated by our word to our closest friends regardless of mounting casualties. But we don't have to be stupid about our involvement.

Canada should not take on missions until we are properly prepared. Our soldiers must have the best training and equipment. Canada is not obligated to win the Afghanistan war single handedly, make up for a lack of commitment by European allies or compensate for inadequate American involvement due to their adventure in Iraq.

Canada should not renegue on our commitments because of increasing casualty rates. Instead Canadians must demand our wounded recieve the best medical care possible and that they and their families recieve generous benefit packages. Veterans leaving the forces should get free education, training and preferential employment opportunities. Veterans and their families should be honored for their sacrifices.

The war in Afghanistan might be a lost cause. But that's beside the point. What is important is that Canada does what we said we would do to the best of our ability. Canada should take advantage of this experience. Our troops are being battle hardened in modern warfare. The lessons learned in this war, should be used to prepare our military for future wars.

Unfortunately, Canada does not appear to be learning the lessons of modern warfare. Harper is about to spend billions on obsolete tanks and helicopters. That effort and expense makes about as much sense as France's pre-WW II marginot line. Tanks and helicopters are expensive weapon systems which have been rendered obsolete by low cost RPGs and MANPADS. Instead we should focus our efforts on modern weapon systems like unmanned surveillance and attack drones. Unfortunately none of Canada's political or military leaders seem aware that buying this obsolete equipment is a huge expensive mistake.

Last edited by earth_as_one; May 6th, 2007 at 10:08 PM..

Lineman

#16

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 6th, 2007

Obsolete equipment?
The leopard 2 upgraded to the 2A6 standard is viewed as the best Main Battle Tank available. The future chinook helicopter has no equal. Though an old design its most recent upgrade packages makes it as modern and more effective than any other mid to heavy lift helocopter out there. The LAVIII is state of the art and packs as big a punch as any other infantry fighting vehicle out there. Coyotes have a surveillance package most other militaries drool over. Where the CF does trail behind is the unmanned aerial reconnaisance and escort/attack helicopters. Still, next to our southern neighbours, one of the best equipped militaries in Afghanistan.
As for the Germans, French, and others not suffering the number of casualties as Canada, they're in the "quieter" northern provinces. From what I've read they don't leave their bases very often either. "Nobody moves, Nobody gets hurt" but they don't accomplish much either.
Canada took on the toughest job in the most dangerous part, the home of the Taliban, Kandahar. Now we can act like politicians and cry and whine about who got the bigger piece of cake but my impression is our military has accepted their task and have done it with quiet conviction and professional pride. Not full out aggressive "shoot it if it moves" but not "sit behind the walls and keep your head down" either. It's not American but not German, the right mix.
Our troops are there, they're commited (as mentioned above and confirmed by the few I have had the pleasure to talk to), let's support them and let them finish the job.
As for PM Harper being President Bush's puppet, well, Chretien put Canada in Afghanistan and Martin put Canada in Kandahar. I wonder why they've never been accused of the same...

earth_as_one

#17

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 7th, 2007

The French Marginot Line was the most advanced fixed defensive system ever devised. But German mechanized infantry and tanks simply went around it, rendering it obsolete.

Similarly, tanks and LAVs are obolete. I don't care how sophisicated they are. I don't care whether they have heavy armor or active armor. Any idiot armed with an RPG-29 costing less that $1000 can take that stuff out. That's why the Israelis couldn't invade Lebanon last summer. Israeli tanks are as good as tanks get, but they were more or less useless against Hezbollah RPGs and IEDs using shaped charges.

--

Quote:

...the RPG-29 is a severe blow to the West. It is the great equalizer. For $500 per launcher and $250 per missile round, a militant group can purchase a light, mobile weapon that is easy to conceal and that can reliably destroy a main battle tank that costs millions of dollars.
The long-term implications for Israel are even more significant. If Palestinian militants are ever able to acquire significant quantities of RPG-29s they could for the first time ever present a significant challenge to the Israeli army. This is particularly true because the Israelis have demonstrated an aversion to ground fighting and taking casualties in the campaign against Hezbollah. There is no doubt that groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both of which have close ties to Hezbollah, have been observing the conflict in South Lebanon with strong interest and have noted Israel's reluctance to send more ground troops in against Hezbollah fighters who are armed primarily with RPG-29s.
In fact, given the proximity of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to major Israeli population centers (the distances could easily be traveled on foot by armed militants, who would have to keep themselves dispersed enough to avoid being destroyed by aircraft or armored vehicles) it is possible to imagine that sometime in the future that a Palestinian militia armed with such man-portable weapons could possibly successfully invade and conquer Israel without the use of expensive military...
Quote has been trimmed

MANPADS are why Iraqi insurgents have been shooting down American helicopters lately. Here is an Iraqi insurgent propaganda video:

httpwwwyoutubecomwatchvuo2EzjuMhA8

That was a primitive MANPADS. Iran is currently cranking out next generation MANPADS which aren't fooled by flares and can take out low flying aircraft from the side and front as well as from behind:

--

Tanks, LAVs and low flying aircraft may have been effective in past wars, but they are now OBSOLETE. We may as well arm our troops with slingshots and muskets.

Those Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) which take out tanks and LAVs have gotten more sophisticated. They aren't primitive roadside bombs, but sophisticated modern weapnons which use shaped charges.

--

I don't claim to understand the physics behind them, but new generation IEDs using shaped charges can cut through armour like a hot knife through butter.

I don't think the new reality has dawned on our war planners. We can't rely on armor or mobility anymore. The only way our soldiers can be safe from these next generation weapons is for them to use remotely operated and expendible drones. If a MANPADS missile downs a remotely piloted vehicle (RPV), no soldier dies. We just lost some replaceable hardware. Soldiers are much harder to replace than hardware.

Last edited by earth_as_one; May 7th, 2007 at 02:58 AM..

able

#18

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 7th, 2007

More and more, I am in favour of remotely controlled vehicles ( air, land, sea), and don't understand why they have to cost so much. I used to design, and build, industrial machinery, and when I see the prices of these remote control weapons, I am shocked. Far less expensive units could be put in the field, after all, they are expendable aren't they? It seems to me that everything in todays world has been elevated to rocket science, when it is in fact not the truth. A remotely controlled vehicle of any kind, should be able to be produced for under 20,000 dollars, and yet, it costs millions. How much profit do people require these days. As an example, an aircraft can be built for less than $10,000, the electronics for $10,000, now how in the hell does that become $1,000,000 or more dollars, talk about a markup for a disposable weapon.

earth_as_one

#19

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 8th, 2007

I have to admit I can't believe how expensive this stuff is either. Remotely piloted vehicles should be dirt cheap. Instead of spending hundreds of millions on helicopters and tanks, the Canadian forces should visit the various Remote Control clubs across the country and enlist the services of people who play with this technology as a hobby. How expensive can it be to mount a video camera on a remote controlled airplane? Add a few instruments and an uplink to a satelite and now you have a vehicle which can be flown in Afghanistan be controllers in Canada. Add a little more horse power and the remote controlled aircraft can carry a bomb or a missile. I can't see why these systems should cost more than 30K.

Tanks cost about 30,000K. We could put a 1000 RPVs in the air for the cost of a single tank. The insurgents could shoot them down, but when they do we loose a cheap expendible vehicle and no Canadian soldiers. Tanks have their place, but they aren't the biggest bang for the buck.

able

#20

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 8th, 2007

Earth: You are not wrong in your assumptions, but a trip to Afghanistan by an aircraft might leave it a little travel worn, and out of fuel. Believe it or not, you can build a man carrying plane for under $10,000. Of course, in this age of experts, everything has to be carried to ridiculous extremes. When I see a fighter pilot reduced to the job of controlling a ridiculously overpriced model plane, it makes me want to cry. I suppose my main gripe is the workforce itself, everyone wants to be classified as an expert, when their job was previously regarded as superfulous knowledge for a well trained tradesman. I guess that is what makes these toy planes so expensive, instead of one well trained person building the whole thing, we have to employ 100 plus, so called experts.

snfu73

#21

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 15th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by Tim Hamilton

What you think of the losses isn't important. The lives being lost are the lives of the soldiers, and those soldiers are overwhelmingly in favor of the mission. It's nice that you seem to want to protect them, but they don't want your protection and they don't need your concern.

You say nothing will be gained to justify the losses, yet the only people who are risking their lives disagree with you and feel it's well worth it. If a solider feels the benefits he can bring to an entire country is the worth the possibility of him dying, who are you to tell him he's wrong? It's not your life, it's theirs, and they feel the losses will be worth it.

Um...if you were the gentlemen that posted "Who cares what you think" in my reps...kindly **** off.

mabudon

#22

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 15th, 2007

I got a grey "lol" for something I posted in this thread but it didn't concern me too much, still, seems like a "rep troll" about lately eh?? I "sign" all the stuff I drop on folks just cos I'm not a coward like some folks

MikeyDB

#23

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 15th, 2007

What’s the rationale for Afghanistan again?

Let’s see if I’ve got this issue in focus…

A radical Islamic group orchestrates and executes a criminal attack on the WTC. The target was chosen one can reasonably surmise because there isn’t any other suitable symbol of western greed…globalization and economic corruption…capable of symbolizing the depth and breadth of this corruption as eloquently as the financial capital of the city that greed built. (With all apologies to Las Vegas of course)…

NATO agreement declares that if one member nation is attacked that all member nations will be called upon to “defend” against this military incursion….

The United Sates was attacked by a gang of criminals not the attacking military of another nation…Afghanistan/Iraq or any other….

Did Canada send troops to Belfast to assist in quelling the IRA? Did Canada invest in sending troops into any other nation involved in secular violence/turmoil (after the second world war) that wasn’t in some way serving the interests of the United States….Bosnia….

Didn’t the United States organize and arm the mahujadeen in Afghanistan under the aegis of assisting the Afghan people in expelling Soviet troops…now for the narrow of mind and dim of wit…. Were there any other reasons at play why the United States voluntarily involved itself in Afghan Soviet debacle….perhaps a pipeline of some kind….?

So we have the United States supplying arms and intelligence (once again) to a nation for the purposes of protecting the fossil fuel market balance in the world….

East Timor, assasination attempts on Chavez (potential in the mind of the American oil cartels for socialization of petroleum interests in Venezuela)…incursions into Nicaragua to combat the “Red Menace” (included of course an entirely illegal deal for missiles guns and money with the Contras and Iran…brokered through Israel of course…the worlds historical middle-man in everything from slavery to the proliferation of weapons of all kinds…. If the lesson of America with respect to Suharto Pinochet and the Marco’s family wasn’t convincing enough for the Canadian government to invest Canadian lives and money in “regime-change”…assassination attempts and the rape and pilliage of several nations around the world on the many many occasions when the United States was the government instigating and fomenting war and destruction in other nations…..what makes the war in Afghanistan any different?

America our great ally provides WMD to Saddam Hussein…then invades the Iraq nation under the rationale that this government (Saddam Hussein) constituted a “threat to world peace”….

But what can you really expect after all from a nation of sheep like Canadians?

Despite spending one hundred and thirty million dollars to find out that the RCMP and CSIS and the members of parliament responsible for the ineptitude and possibly… corruption that cost 329 lives in the Air India tragedy…that successive Canadian governments have stolen millions from the taxpayer….Liberals padding the Quebec question…

That the petroleum cartels of the United States have established in effect a petroleum monopoly that scams billions into the bank accounts of American petroleum companies…That the loony-tunes of both America and Canada can have their attention swayed from the corruption and ineptitude that both nations call …government….by focusing attention on the “gun” as the source of all evil…..

It’s misdirection all around….and Canadians and Americans lap it up….

Oh yeah…Afghanistan…..a nation (America) that lies to the world can legitimately lay claim to Canadian lives because of the NATO agreement…but this same nation (America) can forgo the nasitness of the Geneva Conventions whenever it feels like it…

Crap….all of it….

snfu73

#24

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 15th, 2007

Actually I should start signing as well. I haven't been. It's not so much that it bothers me...well, it does, to be honest...but, it's unfortunate. He can disagree with me, and he can express that in the reps...but, you know...well...I think you know...

mabudon

#25

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

May 15th, 2007

I know, I know..

Back on topic now then shall we??

MikeyDB- as usual, an almost cubic slab of arranged material, much of it totally pertinent

I agree with the summation tho, entirely- "crap"

The whole "new government" promise of "transparency and accountability" is the sham many feared it would be, the treatment of practically every aspect of the "war" is shabby beyond belief.

The "war" should be blocking Harper from a lot more than just a majority government- I do believe it should block Harper from claiming much beyond a strong interest in supporting the military-industrial complex.

Humanitariansim?? Nope. Altruism?? Nope.
The desire (and heck, actual stated F-ING "goal") to allow women to not wear a Burkha, to send "little girls to school for the first time", to "free the people of Afghanistan from the rule of ruthless dictators"??

ALL LIES

Still don't know what we're doin there, but it's only a matter of time before we (by way of Co OR O mission) actually are guilty of war crimes

Pure Crap

OH and fore the F-ing stupid areseholes who will no doubt slam this post for "not offering solutions" WE NEED TO GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE AND A LOT OF OTHER PLACES LIKE HAITI AND GET TO THE ACTUAL BUSINESS OF MONITORING THREATS AND CONTAINING THEM ABROAD AND THEN SERIOUDLY TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN F-ING COUNTRY AND CITIZENS HEREIN

So SHUT UP about no options- I'm sure the loudmouths will not like my suggestion but there is no disputing that it IS an "option" and I HAVE tabled it along with my gripes

So you can stuff the "they offer no solutions" garbage right up your pucker

dumpthemonarchy

Free Thinker

#26

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

Oct 5th, 2007

The mission in Afghanistan has UN backing, but the US has lost interest there-they were the ones who asked for the UN to support their invasion. So Cdns wonder, "Why are we in Afghan if the Americans have lost political interest there?" I feel a bit ripped off.

Yet, a few thousand US troops from Iraq would knock back the Taliban a step or two and help rectify the situation. Say 25,000. But are they coming? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Zzarchov

#27

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

Oct 5th, 2007

1.) If we left Afghanistan it would not "stabilize"

It wasn't stabilized when we went in, it was in a massive civil war.

2.) We cannot rebuild without fighting. The Taliban are like violent Amish, they don't want our secular and blasphemous schools, hospitals or anything of the sort.

3.) France and Germany take less casualties because they don't fight. They also don't help in any policing (peacekeeping) duties nor do they do any reconstruction.

Unforgiven

#28

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

Oct 5th, 2007

The Afghans need to step up here. There needs to be an end to the massive coruption of the Afghan government too.

darkbeaver

Republican

#29

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

Oct 5th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by Unforgiven

The Afghans need to step up here. There needs to be an end to the massive coruption of the Afghan government too.

If the Afghans could "step up" who would they step up against? They've been stepping up for thirty years that I can remember and everytime they've been slapped down by the same pinstripped pirates and murderers presently occupying the land under the cover of benevolent reconstruction by munitions. The corruption of the Afghan government is a necessary condition of any western reconstruction, it mirrors in a crude way the corruption of the occupying nations.

MikeyDB

#30

Re: War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

Oct 5th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by Tim Hamilton

What you think of the losses isn't important. The lives being lost are the lives of the soldiers, and those soldiers are overwhelmingly in favor of the mission. It's nice that you seem to want to protect them, but they don't want your protection and they don't need your concern.

You say nothing will be gained to justify the losses, yet the only people who are risking their lives disagree with you and feel it's well worth it. If a solider feels the benefits he can bring to an entire country is the worth the possibility of him dying, who are you to tell him he's wrong? It's not your life, it's theirs, and they feel the losses will be worth it.

Tim..greetings!

There was another little war raging a few years back, it was called VietNam, and a whole lot of people here and there thought it was the thing to do....

Because a jarhead/grunt/E2 etc. "thinks" he's doing something for a just cause or "doing the right thing", that isn't necessarily the case. The gung-ho "be all you can be" , "better dead than red", mindset for killing is drummed into young people who're regarded by their families communities and local friends as "serving" the greater interests of the majority....

This has been the case in many conflicts so I can't say it's a falsehood, but like South East Asia and many other "actions" by Canadians and Americans, its all hype to keep the machinery of arms production and nationalism humping along while a select few make millions.

Harper doesn't have a clue about "foreign policy" nor has he any experience of living through the kind of life he's claiming as a "moral victory".

It's hogwash no matter what way you look at it.

Leave Afghanistan and let those people deal with their own problems.

Similar Threads

Harper Embraces Gay Rights For The Majority
by Liberalman | Nov 26th, 2009

365

A Harper majority would harm Canada and the world.
by earth_as_one | Oct 7th, 2008

Harper has support to win majority
by sanch | May 25th, 2006

Confident Harper talks majority
by Andem | Jun 11th, 2004