Canada’s cost in Afghanistan!

[Socrates the Greek]

Re: RE: Canada’s cost in Afgh

Hey Mogz I got a medal once, know what it's worth, nothing. Your comment about the author of the article is racsist. It'll be interesting to hear from you in about six months when your expert analysis will be just as skewed for the empire as it is now. Do yourself a favour and look up the meaning of brainwashed.

Perhaps your medal in basket weaving means nothing, however the one I was given, at least to me, gives me the rights to discuss with merit something I was a part of. My comment wasn't racist, it's highly accurate. To me, someone who spent a great deal of time in South West Asis, the article is utterly moronic. It's chalk full of inaccuracy, and clearly anti-coalition. I merely pointed out the corelation between the spin of the article and the name of the person writting it. If that bothers you, I don't care. Anywho, you're right, my analysis won't change, because it's based on life experience, what's your experience based on? How old are you beaver? I won't expect an answer on those. You'll just sulk until you find some other biased article to post :lol:


Now to more important things:

I find it funny how people often deem the War in Afghanistan a "failure of a war", or fall one step short and deem it a failure in the making, when the end is no where in site. I myself find it rather a presumptuous conclusion to make, especially by individuals sitting in North America, utterly removed from the war. I've come to realise that more often than not the same people making such baseless claims, are those with a deep dislike of the United States and/or George W. Bush. It's interesting how a corelation can somehow be drawn between Canadian military action in South West Asia and the United States President. Tunnel vision is a pathetic thing.

That said, with regard to Canadian cost in Afghanistan, i've been meaning to touch on this for some time, however never had the time nor inclination to actually post on it. I would like to point out for the edification of those on these forums (regardless of how ignorant some of you really are) that the situation in the region is often misleading. Take for example, darkbeavers utterly stunning post on the "uprising" of Afghanistan. The author of said article would have you, the reader, believe that the entire nation is utterly taken up in arms against the coalition, when in reality, it's far from that. Couple that with media reports of 300 dead in the following weeks, and it's easy to see how the hamburger-helper eating masses could believe it. Folks, I won't beat around the bush, Afghanistan is a warzone, but certainly not an uprising, and most certainly going our way. When you hear 300 dead, what do you think? Coalition troops? Civilians? Militants? The poignant truth is that the vast majority of the 300 killed in Panjwai Province in the last two weeks have been militants. In the last week alone, 130 were killed by Canadian Forces supported by the Afghan National Army and United States Air Force. We've, sadly, lost 1 Canadian Killed (Captain Goddard). While I am certainly no military tactician, i'm inclined to think that a kill ratio of 130:1 is pretty good. Granted yes we've taken casualties other than KIA, we've had several Canadians wounded, and an Afghan interpreter working with the PPCLI lost both his legs in an RPG attack. However what the media utterly fails to get across is the severity of the "wounds" the soldiers receive. A great example is how the media often lumps everyone involved in an "incident" as wounded, and often utterly fail to use the term injured when it should apply. A brief lesson:

In a War Zone:

Wounded - Bodily harm as a result of weapons and/or the enemy
Inured - Bodily harm as a result of an accident and/or circumstantial incident

When a LAV-III Infantry Fighting Vehicle is hit with a militant RPG and the media deems 5 soldiers are wounded, they fail to accurately report the situation. Yes, the crew commander in the turret received facial shrapnel and is in serious condition, he's truely wounded. The other 4 inside that were tossed around by the explosion and suffered a black eye, whip-lash, and bruised muscles are NOT wounded, especially when the article states they returned to duty a few hours later. The press has been increasingly misleading since the campaign started in 2001. It's misinformation on an epic scale, and the masses are buying in to it.

In summary, a word of advice to the self-proclaimed "pragmatics" on these boards. Before you start running off at the mouth about something you have no knowledge on, I highly urge you to get informed on the War, and ALL the circumstances surrounding it. If you think a biased article properly unveils all the information you require to be impartial, then I say poor you.

Hay Mogz When your sovereignty is threatened at your own soil war than is justified, to go to Afghanistan a foreign land and set up law and order when in fact all we are doing is creating civil wars, it is utterly stupid and unjustified.

Canada & the US they can go to any place in the world and play the bully when it come to energy, but the truth is you don’t see Canada or the US in any other part of the planet if there is no energy to take.

Canada and the US can stay in Iraq or Afghanistan for 100 years and they will never succeed in their mission, we are talking about Islam in a lawless turf which will cost Canadian lives with out a true and sincere justification.

All we have done this far is create a further divide with in the people of these two countries, a divide which will keep a civil war going on for ever. Canada or the US can not afford to fight wars that cost billions to finance, while the taxpayers of the country realise that the National deficit will sky rocket as it has done so miserably for the US this far today. The US is painted in red ink and the future for the US is not a good one economically. Could it be that the greatest Imperial power of the world is at its last run? Very possible, the US may have to concede to China one day only because China doesn’t have the same monetary problems as the US dose, which may allow China to sail in to the position of a current world power. The American military machine is powerful but as with everything a past tense is a realistic possibility for the US. Much like a poker table there is five players on the table and for sure one of the five will not win always.

 

[jimmoyer]

Socrates claims to be pragmatic.

Discuss the pragmatism of leaving Afghanistan.

And what it will do to Afghanistan.

 

[darkbeaver]

Mogz scribbled

"Perhaps your medal in basket weaving means nothing, however the one I was given, at least to me, gives me the rights to discuss with merit something I was a part of. My comment wasn't racist, it's highly accurate. To me, someone who spent a great deal of time in South West Asis, the article is utterly moronic. It's chalk full of inaccuracy, and clearly anti-coalition. I merely pointed out the corelation between the spin of the article and the name of the person writting it. If that bothers you, I don't care. Anywho, you're right, my analysis won't change, because it's based on life experience, what's your experience based on? How old are you beaver? I won't expect an answer on those. You'll just sulk until you find some other biased article to post Laughing"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-coalition, most of the world is anti-coalition. Your life experiance means little to me or anyone else for that matter, it's personal. I'm twice your age and then some, I have hemerrhoids older and smarter than you are. If there is some difficulty with the articles I post you could easily post some of your own so we can check out the source of your hugh wisdom.
:lol:

 

[Johnny Utah]

Re: RE: Canada’s cost in Afghanistan!

Ya know what Johnny, I don't think we'll ever get an answer to any of our questions. STG is only here to spout his own agenda. Guess he's not ready for a meaniful discussion because the only thing meaningful to him is his own opinion.
"in general Jews are very friendly and happy people"
Racial stereotyping? Tsk Tsk

Watching paint dry is how I spend my time until he gives me the answer to my question.. :lol:

 

[jimmoyer]

Hemeroids older and smarter than Mogz ???

Darkbeaver, you've passed a new frontier with that
one.

Slippery slope.

Next thing will be warts, bunions, callouses, zits,
underwear, jock straps, cold sores all older than
the much maligned posters.

Let's stop this NOW.

NO MORE BODY REFERENCE PROLIFERATION !!!

um...

But there is a loophole that will allow this to
continue.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: Canada’s cost in Afgh

HAHAHAHAHAH OK no more body parts today, I only mentioned them because they've sat with me all these years and I think about them all the time.

 

[jimmoyer]

LOL !!!

Darkbeaver you are King of Comedy today.

I bequeath you the crown, as your majesty is the only
rightful heir today.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Re: RE: Canada’s cost in Afghanistan!

Socrates claims to be pragmatic.

Discuss the pragmatism of leaving Afghanistan.

And what it will do to Afghanistan.

Hey jimmoyer, it will turn Afghanistan in to a long term civil war zone, as it is starting to become ugly with all the suicide bombers. If that is not pragmatic you are living in Alice and wander land, my friend. Both Iraq and Afghanistan will become the long term civil war zones, the west will witnes that both wars will not go down on the history books as victorious, and only time will tell. I have a bad feeling about both of these wars and my premonition tells me we have squander life and money for a stubborn unrelated cause.

 

[Mogz]

darkbeaver wrote:

Anti-coalition, most of the world is anti-coalition. Your life experiance means little to me or anyone else for that matter, it's personal. I'm twice your age and then some, I have hemerrhoids older and smarter than you are. If there is some difficulty with the articles I post you could easily post some of your own so we can check out the source of your hugh wisdom.

How can most of the World be anti-coalition if a large chunk of the Worlds nations MAKE UP the coalition? For those that don't know, the coalition in Afghanistan is made up of the following nations (but is not limited to, as some nations drift in and out):

Albania
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia*
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States of America

You may be twice my age, but given your most recent claim in this thread, you clearly (in some areas) are NOT smarter than me. I'm not going to get in to a pissing match with someone old enough to be my father, because frankly beaver, if you really are that much older than me, shouldn't you be exercising some maturity? Maturity i've yet to see on these forums from you, especially when you went on that childish tangent with cortez a few weeks back. So, you may be older than me, but age doesn't in and of itself signify intelligence nor for that matter maturity.

Socrates the Greek wrote

Hey jimmoyer, it will turn Afghanistan in to a long term civil war zone, as it is starting to become ugly with all the suicide bombers. If that is not pragmatic you are living in Alice and wander land, my friend. Both Iraq and Afghanistan will become the long term civil war zones, the west will witnes that both wars will not go down on the history books as victorious, and only time will tell. I have a bad feeling about both of these wars and my premonition tells me we have squander life and money for a stubborn unrelated cause.

All the suicide bombers? You make it sound like this is a new thing? Remember Jamie Murphy? I highly doubt it, but just to inform you, he was killed by a suicide bomber in January 2004. Short and Berenfeenger were killed by an IED in 2003. Why now, does the public deem the war turning ugly? Can you answer that for me SocrateS?

 

[Mogz]

Canada & the US they can go to any place in the world and play the bully when it come to energy, but the truth is you don’t see Canada or the US in any other part of the planet if there is no energy to take.

Oh shit, how'd I miss this doozy. Are you that ignorant? Do you simply sit there and pick and choose what international operations you read about? I know this won't get through, you're obviously not as pragmatic as you "claim to be", considering the basis for pragmaticism is FACT.

Fact, The United States and Canada are two of the most proactive nations on the planet with regard to lending assistance. Some operations worth mentioning that had NOTHING to do with "energy":

- Haiti
-Somalia
-The Former Yugoslavia
-East Timor
-The Congo
-Eritrea

Those are just a fraction of the missions both the United States and Canada have deployed on. In every one of those operations, there was no "energy" to control, it was for the better good of people. So Socrates, how did those operations have to do with energy? I won't expect a response, as more often than not people end up waiting forever for you to retort after they sink your claims.

 

[Mogz]

RE: Canada’s cost in Afgh

Still waiting on answers to my questions....

 

[Lineman]

Get in line Mogz. We're all waiting......

 

[Mogz]

RE: Canada’s cost in Afgh

I know, I just wanted to bump this up to the top so everyone can see that the "pragmatic ones"; aren't

 

[Lineman]

Please, by all means, take the lead. At least one of us should get the "honour" of a response. I think Johnny U might have given up or nodded off while waiting so he won't mind.

The standard fare so far has been, let me see "Bush and Harper are having a war so we don't have to pay Hep C victims." or something like that. Hope yours is different.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Re: RE: Canada’s cost in Afghanistan!

Canada & the US they can go to any place in the world and play the bully when it come to energy, but the truth is you don’t see Canada or the US in any other part of the planet if there is no energy to take.

Oh shit, how'd I miss this doozy. Are you that ignorant? Do you simply sit there and pick and choose what international operations you read about? I know this won't get through, you're obviously not as pragmatic as you "claim to be", considering the basis for pragmaticism is FACT.

Fact, The United States and Canada are two of the most proactive nations on the planet with regard to lending assistance. Some operations worth mentioning that had NOTHING to do with "energy":

- Haiti
-Somalia
-The Former Yugoslavia
-East Timor
-The Congo
-Eritrea

Those are just a fraction of the missions both the United States and Canada have deployed on. In every one of those operations, there was no "energy" to control, it was for the better good of people. So Socrates, how did those operations have to do with energy? I won't expect a response, as more often than not people end up waiting forever for you to retort after they sink your claims.

Hey Mogz sorry for the long wait, How long was Canada and the US helping these Nations?

- Haiti
-Somalia
-The Former Yugoslavia
-East Timor
-The Congo
-Eritrea


I can tell you were ever the energy was on the planet as well military strategic consideration the American republican military machine was there longer than of the humanitarian nations. Look Monz, if you want to protect your sentimentality about military idolism it is your indisputable right to do so. The only time I will take a fire arm in my hands is only if and when the Canadian sovereignty will be threatened here at home. Anything else has imperialistic connotation. The British did the same thing during the 17 and 18 hundreds colonisation was the name and occupation was the game, and Mogz my dear friend if you do not want to be used by any one than my suggestion is do not go around the world using others. Iraq and Afghanistan will never ever be the same again. They will go on with a civil war that will last for decades. A period of time that neither the US or Canada can afford to stay that long to fight two very unpredictable stupid as well un-winnable wars. So the moral of the story boys and girls is SELF INTEREST if it isn’t energy it is strategic military positioning. In sort my good friend Mogz war sucks.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Re: RE: Canada’s cost in Afghanistan!

Please, by all means, take the lead. At least one of us should get the "honour" of a response. I think Johnny U might have given up or nodded off while waiting so he won't mind.

The standard fare so far has been, let me see "Bush and Harper are having a war so we don't have to pay Hep C victims." or something like that. Hope yours is different.

Lineman your priorities are screwed right up my friend, I never on my posts during this forum did I ever state that the Afghani war was set up by Bush and Harper so they didn’t have to pay the Hemp C victims. Get your head out of your ass and realise you are grinding the wrong axe. You want to play stupid about the truth, man you can call me all the names under the sun, but that isn’t going to change the fate of the dead Canadian and American young men and women who are coming back in body bags. The proof is in the eating not in the putting. Get your head out of your as my good friend

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Re: RE: Canada’s cost in Afghanistan!

darkbeaver wrote:

Anti-coalition, most of the world is anti-coalition. Your life experiance means little to me or anyone else for that matter, it's personal. I'm twice your age and then some, I have hemerrhoids older and smarter than you are. If there is some difficulty with the articles I post you could easily post some of your own so we can check out the source of your hugh wisdom.

How can most of the World be anti-coalition if a large chunk of the Worlds nations MAKE UP the coalition? For those that don't know, the coalition in Afghanistan is made up of the following nations (but is not limited to, as some nations drift in and out):

Albania
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia*
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States of America

You may be twice my age, but given your most recent claim in this thread, you clearly (in some areas) are NOT smarter than me. I'm not going to get in to a pissing match with someone old enough to be my father, because frankly beaver, if you really are that much older than me, shouldn't you be exercising some maturity? Maturity i've yet to see on these forums from you, especially when you went on that childish tangent with cortez a few weeks back. So, you may be older than me, but age doesn't in and of itself signify intelligence nor for that matter maturity.

Socrates the Greek wrote

Hey jimmoyer, it will turn Afghanistan in to a long term civil war zone, as it is starting to become ugly with all the suicide bombers. If that is not pragmatic you are living in Alice and wander land, my friend. Both Iraq and Afghanistan will become the long term civil war zones, the west will witnes that both wars will not go down on the history books as victorious, and only time will tell. I have a bad feeling about both of these wars and my premonition tells me we have squander life and money for a stubborn unrelated cause.

All the suicide bombers? You make it sound like this is a new thing? Remember Jamie Murphy? I highly doubt it, but just to inform you, he was killed by a suicide bomber in January 2004. Short and Berenfeenger were killed by an IED in 2003. Why now, does the public deem the war turning ugly? Can you answer that for me SocrateS?

The public can only take the propaganda for a limited time only; it is a matter of time before we will witness a bigger out cry as the casualties start to mount. Sorry Monz my good friend war sucks.
To try and insure democracy in foreign soils, when in fact all we are doing is creating civil wars that may take decades of fighting is utterly idiotic and aggressive especially when the Canadian sovereignty has not been threatened. Invasion is the name and oil is the game.

 

[Mogz]

Hey Mogz sorry for the long wait, How long was Canada and the US helping these Nations?

- Haiti
-Somalia
-The Former Yugoslavia
-East Timor
-The Congo
-Eritrea

- Haiti - 4 years and we're back there again
-Somalia - Just shy of 2 years
-The Former Yugoslavia -13 years
-East Timor - 2 years
-The Congo - 1 year
-Eritrea - 2 years

What's your point?

The only time I will take a fire arm in my hands is only if and when the Canadian sovereignty will be threatened here at home. Anything else has imperialistic connotation.

Ever heard the term "the global village"? Just because it doesn't happen to Canada directly, that doesn't mean it doesn't affect us. Look at World War II, that War never touched Canada yet the very means behind the war did. In essence you'd have Canada adopt a policy of isolationism, something akin to the United States pre-1941? Look how that turned out for them? Furthermore, what about Peacekeeping and U.N. missions? Those, really don't have ANYTHING to do with Canada. Did Haitians killing eachother affect us directly? No, yet we deployed en mass to that nation for almost half a decade to help them. One could then deduce that given your callous opinion of "if it isn't happening to me, it isn't important", that we should never have sent soldiers to Haiti? Or anywhere for that matter since what? 1939? 1950? What do you have to say to that?

stupid as well un-winnable wars.

You're qualified to make that prediction? Did you know that people said the same thing about the Balkans? Look how that turned out. Your retort?

So the moral of the story boys and girls is SELF INTEREST if it isn’t energy it is strategic military positioning.

As I said in a previous post, how can you come to that conclusion given the history of past operations? How was the Balkans either self interest or military positioning? How was Haiti self interest or positioning? The Congo? Eritrea? East Timor? The Golan Heights? Somalia? Rwanda? Cyprus? Explain those operations and either their military or self interest potential to me? I'm dying to know.

 

[darkbeaver]

Albania
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia*
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States of America

You may be twice my age, but given your most recent claim in this thread, you clearly (in some areas) are NOT smarter than me. I'm not going to get in to a pissing match with someone old enough to be my father, because frankly beaver, if you really are that much older than me, shouldn't you be exercising some maturity? Maturity i've yet to see on these forums from you, especially when you went on that childish tangent with cortez a few weeks back. So, you may be older than me, but age doesn't in and of itself signify intelligence nor for that matter maturity.

That's a nice list Mogz they've all been bought or coeerced into participation. Don't mistake maturity for gullibility and niaveity.You
have a simple packaged appreciation of the reality of the world. As for my childish tangents, when we loose the enjoyment of play we become poor creatures indeed.
:lol:

 

[Mogz]

I wasn't debating the merits of the operation or the above listed nations reasons for joining the coalition. You said the world hated the coalition. I know you, being oblivious to the War in general, probably assumed the coaltion was Canada, the U.S. and Britain. I pointed out that the coalition consists of a large group of nations, and the list I posted is only those as of now (2006) currently involved in Afghanistan (feel free to check out the ISAF website). That list grows and shrinks as nations come and go based on their military capabilites. So to reiterate, how can the world hate the coalition when a large chunk of the World IS the coalition. I like how you seem to think you know better than the leadership of 36 nations on this planet. How is that? Is everyone out to lunch except you? Honestly beaver, 36 nations think that Afghanistan is a just operation, you don't. Furthermore i'd like to point out that a large portion of the ISAF nations refused to invade Iraq. Lending more credit to the fact they have a mind of their own. Your retort?