Afghanistan campaign

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Ocean Breeze said:
the invasion in Afganistan was retaliation. An emotional /angry response to a TERRORIST attack. Canadas support was , like most other nations ......in the lines of dealing with terrorism as the USG indicated that the terrorist stronghold ....including the OBL culprit was located in the region. Now, is it necessary to destroy a nation to find /capture a band of terrorists??

Since they said OBL was their guest, I don't think tea and crumpets would of worked.

Ocean Breeze said:
That was the Judgement call that the USG made. the situation at the time was very emotional. and REACTIVE. Spain had their 3-11 and did not go off invading nations in retaliation.

Thats because it was local terrorism. I don't recall the US invading anyone after the Oklahoma City bombing



Ocean Breeze said:
(like a gunslinger from the old west looking for revenge). It has dealt with the TERRORIST issue and continues to do so. Many more intelligent strategies are needed to deal with the terrorist issue .....then simply bombing nations to crap. Overall , the Afganistan situation was handled a lot more effectively /constructively.- than the Iraq nonsense. Kinda too bad it was not brought to a level of stability before going off gung ho into another war. But then gunslingers are not known for their intelligence and strategic planning.....they just shoot from the hip and bury the bodies as they fall.


btw: it is amazing how many problems can be solved over tea and crumpets.... if one is SMART. :wink: bombs and bullits are not the only strategy for challenging issues.

Sometimes it is necessary to go beyond tea and crumpets, and I don't necessarily mean bombs and bullets. For example, what has tea and crumpets done for Zahra Kazemi's torture and death?

Ocean Breeze said:
two wars later and OBL and a lot of his gang is maintaining camp somewhere on this planet. Someone lost his compass in all this.

Can't argue with you here.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Thats because it was local terrorism. I don't recall the US invading anyone after the Oklahoma City bombing

I do recall a lot of hotheads blaming Middle Eastern terrorists though. Even once it came out that it was Timmy McVeigh, nobody was suggesting that blue-eyed, blonde-haired be profiled. There wasn't even much about militia movement, comparitively speaking. Other than shutting down the Freebird website, there really wans't much action at all.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,397
94
48
Ocean Breeze wrote:
That was the Judgement call that the USG made. the situation at the time was very emotional. and REACTIVE. Spain had their 3-11 and did not go off invading nations in retaliation.


Thats because it was local terrorism. I don't recall the US invading anyone after the Oklahoma City bombing

don't think this comparison works. The issue remains: is bombing a country , killing thousands the "solution " to terrorism?? or does it foster more terrorism??? The answer should be obvious. .........and ergo the cycle of violence will continue. and providing "terrorists" more motivation to do more damage is strategically incompetant. How many more must die before the "terrorists" are killed or captured??? as long as the core issue that creates anger that causes terrorism is ignored , there willl be an ongoing "war " for some time now. Terrorism is not a new factor. It has existed in various forms for many years.
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
I think with Iraq (even Afghanistan) anyways it has spawned more terrorism and terrorists.

Amazing how not much has been accomplished in Afghanistan either. Since they have been there over 3 years now.

Between Iraq and Afghanistan it really does not say much for the (mostly) American ground forces.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
I met someone who lost the lower half of his leg last night and who was in the Army Reserve.

He was drinking Corona, very energetic about his prospects. Not too political, but who was immensely interesting describing his time in Afghanistan.

I don't know how you measure progress, but a sea change has happened over there. You no longer have the national soccer field holding daily executions with an audience in the stands. You have women who voted.

Yes you have the warlords and our soldiers follow the rules in those territories, but the warlords hate the Taliban and all of them are varying in their degrees of wisdom, degrees of fairness in providing security for the territory.

They are the strong men of tribal clans and the label warlord is a liberal media label mostly, accurate in the particular of some.

It will take years, but a change has begun.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Ocean Breeze said:
Ocean Breeze wrote:
That was the Judgement call that the USG made. the situation at the time was very emotional. and REACTIVE. Spain had their 3-11 and did not go off invading nations in retaliation.


Thats because it was local terrorism. I don't recall the US invading anyone after the Oklahoma City bombing

don't think this comparison works. The issue remains: is bombing a country , killing thousands the "solution " to terrorism?? or does it foster more terrorism??? The answer should be obvious. .........and ergo the cycle of violence will continue. and providing "terrorists" more motivation to do more damage is strategically incompetant. How many more must die before the "terrorists" are killed or captured??? as long as the core issue that creates anger that causes terrorism is ignored , there willl be an ongoing "war " for some time now. Terrorism is not a new factor. It has existed in various forms for many years.

If the comparison doesn't work, I'm not sure why you brought up Spain.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,397
94
48
http://author.voanews.com/english/2005-07-10-voa12.cfm

things are heating up in Afganistan too.

violence carries its own mometum and is almost "infectious".


Something the bush cabal did not consider as it went off into their version of "Glory of war". In fact , not sure if they considered ANYTHING as to the conseqences of these invasions. One track minds at work.--short sighted indeed. (might come from an instant gratification based society they live in.--the "I want now modality" and throw caution to the wind)
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
My daughter's uncle is being sent back to Afghanistan. He's expecting his first child early next year......
 

PoisonPete2

Electoral Member
Apr 9, 2005
651
0
16
I think not said:
Numure said:
Anonymous said:
We are in Afghnistan as part of a UN Mission in Kaboul. Our forces serve as security forces for the patical and the area around it. It is our only role. And if im not mistaken it is over, or soon will be over.

Answer - Please excuse this extended diatribe but we are, as a Nation, about to enter into a dangerous enterprise.

Canada was part of an international force that invaded Afghanistan in light that the Nation was providing safe harbour for those groups associated with 9/11. We did so as part of a NATO initiative. We have an obligation under NATO to act in defence of a member state under attack, and to pursue the perpitrators. We also have greater responsibilities under the U.N. Charter to ensure that Afghanistan returns to the world Community sovereign and stable and without protracted occupation. Afghanistan is not and has never been democratic. They have often been occupied but never controlled. Their historic pattern of rule has been city state with warlords controlling the hinterland and transportation. There are layers of clan control, ethnic grouping and religious affiliations defining a number of semi-autonomous political entities. Neither our NATO or UN obligations require us to democratize the Afghans, just to bring about functional government. Despite the fact that many of the warlords control and profit by the opium trade (which the Tailaban had effectively snuffed), they are still the mainspring of the real 'government' , not the central government under Karzai.

As part of the 'cold war' the U.S. poured millions of weapons into Afghanistan to resist the occupation by the USSR. It was a war of attrition in which every dollar spend by the U.S. was causing $10 in damage to the Russians. It was a war that crippled the USSR economy and contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union. Mostly old and much used weapons were brought in by the Pakistanis from China, Iran, Britain, but eventually the U.S. brought in the Stinger to bring down the russian helecopters. As the war ended the U.S. tryed hard to buy back the unused Stingers but mostly failed. Much of the Saudi money was used to set up Islamist schools all through Pakinstan, but concentrated on the Afghani border. Americans trained teachers went into this border area to help prepare the (mujhahidine??) to irratate the Russians. The American's made grandiose promises of forging a new Afghani nation with the many brave fighters at hand, but there was no thought of building a pipeline through Afghanistan at the time so the Americans saw no benifit to helping Afghanistan. So the Afghanis were left to the hands of the old warlords and new, very intent and well schooled (Mujhahidine). The Tailiban found themselves to be the most co-ordinated and so grew in power. Among these fighters was OBL. He could see that the US had air bases in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. had military bases in Kuwait, a navel base in Aden. The U.S. was seen as an occupying force in several Moslem nations that had repressive regimes that denied the flourishing of Islam. There was no political voice for opposition in these Nations but a growing resentment of the U.S. presence and influence on public culture. Further, the U.S. was seen as providing Israel with Billions of dollars to establish Israeli settlement in the West Bank and Gaza. Land occupied by Isreael from a landgrab in the 1967 war. This is a clear violation of International Treaty and the U.N. Charter. Many of the settlers are ex-pat Americans. Meanwhile millions of Palistinians live in the squallor of refugee camps. Anyone with no idea how terrorists are spawned just doesn't want to know.

We are going to have problems in Afghanistan. The Americans bombed over 5000 civilians in the first days of the campaign. We have to have very clear and limited expectations of what we must achieve there. And we must measure progress by the areas returning to control of their historic leaders. We can form a resistance against the Tailaban but it is up to the Pakistanis to drive them into our grasp. If the Pakistanis do not do their part, we should leave.

Under no circumstances should Canada EVER hand over to the Americans ANY prisoners of war. America is in violation of the Geneva Convention on Torture and to do so would put Canada in violation. We do not to be War Criminals do we. What goes on over there is done in the name of all Canadians. Speak out if you oppose torture or you will be condoning it.

After almost 4 years Afghanistan should be a settled issue. It is not and our government (and news media) has been less than frank on what is happening there. We need the truth and we need it now. I will certainly oppose this war with my whole being if it is not according to the standards set by the conventions of war.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,397
94
48
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0727-06.htm

the Brits might be left holding the bag on this one. Starting a second mess without stabilizing the first one was the height of arrogance and stupidity. Seems that the US"G" has replaced diplomacy / constructive dialogue/engagement with WAR as their political ploy/tool. (be it for revenge, or control . or other devious motives )
 

PoisonPete2

Electoral Member
Apr 9, 2005
651
0
16
Ocean Breeze said:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0727-06.htm

It's clear from your link that the aim of our invasion of Afghanistan is 'democratization' instead of stabilization. Well it ain't gonna happen. It goes beyond our obligations and Canada should reavaluate our commitment in this case. At the most the occupiers can hope for is to silence dissent by massive murder campaigns against opposition, or to support the political aspirations of certain gangsters over others. Perhaps Britain is eying Afghanistan for its position as the spigot for Asian gas resources.

"The only thing new is the history we didn't know" - Harry Truman
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,397
94
48
PoisonPete2 said:
Ocean Breeze said:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0727-06.htm

It's clear from your link that the aim of our invasion of Afghanistan is 'democratization' instead of stabilization. Well it ain't gonna happen. It goes beyond our obligations and Canada should reavaluate our commitment in this case. At the most the occupiers can hope for is to silence dissent by massive murder campaigns against opposition, or to support the political aspirations of certain gangsters over others. Perhaps Britain is eying Afghanistan for its position as the spigot for Asian gas resources.

"The only thing new is the history we didn't know" - Harry Truman


good post PP2. Good THINKING...
 

PoisonPete2

Electoral Member
Apr 9, 2005
651
0
16
Original Link: http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/12/12/778571.html

Afghanistan's new "democratic" president is the world's most expensive mayor. Karzai rules only downtown Kabul, protected by 200 U.S. bodyguards, 17,000 U.S. troops and a token NATO force that includes Canadians. It costs Washington $1.6 billion US monthly to keep Karzai in power. Without the foreign troops' bayonets, Karzai's little puppet regime would quickly be swept away.

The real power behind figurehead Karzai is the Northern Alliance, the rump of the old Afghan Communist Party, made up of Tajiks and Uzbeks.

Afghanistan's former Taliban rulers almost totally ended poppy/heroin production. Today, America's Northern Alliance communist allies have restored the multibillion-dollar drug trade and are now said to control 95% of the world heroin supply. As in Indochina, the U.S. again finds itself in bed with major drug dealers while espousing a platitudinous "war on drugs."

Outside Kabul, Afghanistan is a chaotic mess ruled by warlords, drug kingpins, and the Taliban, which is alive and well, waiting with legendary Pushtun patience for the U.S. to withdraw.

The U.S. has stuck its head in a hornet's nest in Afghanistan. Staying on is hugely expensive and painful. But a U.S. pullout would be hailed as a triumph by anti-American forces across the Islamic world. So the U.S. is good and stuck in Afghanistan -- just what Osama bin Laden wanted.
-----------------------------
This quote is in accord with what I have found in my readings. Another appalling American intrusion. Nobody in opposition to the American occupation were allowed to run in the last election. There is no democracy to protect. We should not pay with Canadian lives. The recent history of Afghanistan should be closely reviewed.
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
I guess our troops won't be coming home anytime soon :( The thing I've noticed about this war is the mainstream media's totally given up on covering whats going on there :? They used to put out feel good storys about how our troops are helping out small villages and people .Now theres nothing you don't hear a word.My guess is things are not going well :( And the next thing we are going to hear is about more dead soldiers :x
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,397
94
48
incredible. Another chapter in the bush book of failures. New alliances and sub power holds evolving. Yet not surprising. Don't think the USG gives a care about Afgans as a people or the environment that has been created. All about "image" and verbal distortion of the facts. Three critical situations running simultaneously now....... :( and they are all interconnected, with the US right in the middle.
Meanwhile CDA is sending another troop contingency to Afganistan. Seems CDA has placed itself between a rock and hard place by supporting this invasion.-----and it isn't even Canada's "war".