Canada debates pullout from Afgnaistan

[talloola]

It's interesting folks, talloola appears to claim that we are in Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden. I have a lot of difficulty believing in that justification because the search for Bin Laden has almost been abandoned.

You have a very short memory, it is exactly why we were in Afghanistan after 911, and of course
we all know how bush piddled that away.

 

[talloola]

@ talloola

Canada joined the "War on Terror" when it moved to Kandahar and the mission is counter-insurgency now.

That is true, but necessary, as ,and when canadians were sent there last time,
it was to be in a combat/help position, we all knew that.

Any aid is secondary and any good will we build from it is quickly destroyed when we kill locals.

As I said before, all locals won't feel that way, they aren't all stupid and stubborn. I'm sure there
are many who can see the advanage of accepting help from NATO, and I'm sure they can separate
NATO from "just" the u.s. war on terror.

 

[talloola]

Under international law I think the U.S. was justified in attacking Afghanistan. The attacks by Al-Queda where planned and launched from there. There was an opportunity for the U.S. and it's allies to turn things around in the country but it was lost when Iraq was invaded. All the resources and troops that could have stabilized and rebuilt the country were wasted.

I completely agree

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

@ talloola

Canada joined the "War on Terror" when it moved to Kandahar and the mission is counter-insurgency now.

That is true, but necessary, as ,and when canadians were sent there last time,
it was to be in a combat/help position, we all knew that.

Any aid is secondary and any good will we build from it is quickly destroyed when we kill locals.

As I said before, all locals won't feel that way, they aren't all stupid and stubborn. I'm sure there
are many who can see the advanage of accepting help from NATO, and I'm sure they can separate
NATO from "just" the u.s. war on terror.

Time will tell. I hope I'm wrong but from what I know of the people and the history there they won't stop fighting till all the foreign troops are dead or gone. The cookie cutter approach being used by Bushs' "War on Terror' doesn't take into account regional differences and it's met with nothing but failure.

Once again IMO it's Majical thinking to believe that if you hope for something hard enough it will come true despite all evidence to the contrary.

If you haven't already, you should watch "Fog of War". It's a documentary featuring Robert McNamara.
He was the architect of the U.S. war in Vietnam and in the film he admits he had it all wrong. He and the Johnson adminstration totally misunderstood the North Vietnamese and as a result had no hope of victory. The same is happening here and the more we escalate the use of force the more resistance we'll encounter.

 

[CDNBear]

It's interesting folks, talloola appears to claim that we are in Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden. I have a lot of difficulty believing in that justification because the search for Bin Laden has almost been abandoned. Popular opinion is that he is in Pakistan and the U.S. is not intent in rooting him out because they need Pakistan to continue to pretend to be their ally in the war. Sort of beside the point but the people of Pakistan regard Bin Laden as a hero, but nevertheless.... Could it be that the U.S. is intent on expanding their influence and is in fact doing that in the Stans and surrounding territories which were once part of the Soviet Union? Could it be that the U.S. is intent in diminishing Russia's influence and thereby enabling themselves to sit on the oil resources of the M.E. and far East?

Then Colpy is of a different opinion. He seems to suggest that we are in Afghanistan to save the people from Taliban rule. I wonder if Colpy thinks that if 9/11 had never happened we would still be in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban for the U.S. Or if he doesn't think we would be there if not for 9/11, would he think we should be there fighting evil anyway? I don't think so! In fact I believe that Colpy's priorities would not be to send Canadian troops anywhere for strictly humanitarian reasons. I think this because Colpy's thinking seems to be in line with the U.S. agenda and the U.S. agenda is to send their troops to where it will serve the national interest.

Which leads to the question, why are we fighting in Afghanistan? Could it be because we have been sold on the U.S. agenda of political and economic gains which come with controlling the M.E. in their own interests? Could it be that the LIberals made a mistake by supporting the war and are not courageous enough to admit the mistake. Could it be that we were conned again in the same manner that we were conned to support their Kosovo war?

Just some questions in the interest of getting some people to really start thinking about the whole matter a little more honestly.

Do you wonder at all why people like myself, come at you locked and loaded? Look at the smug self righteous attitude you smear your posts with.

I would be absolutely guilty of the same offence, but I usually get to know the person or persons I'm going to lambaste, before I show them how superior I am to them.

But seeing as you seem to want to engage in a discussion and you seem to have already come up with all the answers. I have some questions for you...

When should we pullout?
Who should fix the ensuing mess?
Who should pay for that?
Should Canada pull all the agricultural and infrastructure techs and Eng?
Who should be held accountable for the outcome of the mess that happens after NATO pulls out?
If Afghanistan reverts to Taliban rule and once again becomes a training ground for attacks on the west, who should be held accountable?

Will you accept responsiblity in part?

Well, you are more or less correct.

I hope we can stabilize Afghanistan for purely humanitarian reasons, but our NATO "partners" seem to be unwilling to hold up their end (except for the USA and UK). I love seeing Afghan girls off to school, etc.

BUT, that said, our main reason for being there is absolutely self-interest......if you are going to allow people to organize and train for attacks on us or our close allies on your soil, with your aid, then you die. That is how it should be.

Ever hear of self-defense?

Colpy as usual, you sum it up well, but I must add. Our young brothers and sisters are not only at the frontlines help stablize, but they are front and center, trying to build an agricultural system that can sustain the populous and remove the need of sustinance from the drug trade, also, building an infrastructure to assist the Afghan people to begin forming a Nation, as apposed to a terrorist strong hold. Run by religious zealots, determined to rid the area of anything outside their twisted view of Islam.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As some have elluded to, yes the Taliban had the trains running on time, but at what cost? Isn't that just a tad to easy and convenient you, to simply say there were less people dying, when the Taliban ran the roost.

I have never condoned forcing a form of government as foreign as poutine, on the Aghan people, but if it possibly paves the way to a future, minus the drug trade, minus a lifetime lived in fear, minus oppression and a slow painful death in forced ignorance, then that is something I can put my support behind.

Besides all that, have any of you asked a Canadian Soldier for their opinion?

I have. You may or may not be surprised as to how they feel.

 

[talloola]

Time will tell. I hope I'm wrong but from what I know of the people and the history there they won't stop fighting till all the foreign troops are dead or gone. The cookie cutter approach being used by Bushs' "War on Terror' doesn't take into account regional differences and it's met with nothing but failure.
I also hate bush's style, and he has done much more harm than good

Once again IMO it's Majical thinking to believe that if you hope for something hard enough it will come true despite all evidence to the contrary.
I have been warmed by some of the interviews with "actual" canadian troops who have direct contact
with Afghan people/children, and there has been a genuine warm contact between the two, and
that has to count for something, along with the help which is given.

If you haven't already, you should watch "Fog of War". It's a documentary featuring Robert McNamara.
I have watched it, real eye opener.

He was the architect of the U.S. war in Vietnam and in the film he admits he had it all wrong. He and the Johnson adminstration totally misunderstood the North Vietnamese and as a result had no hope of victory.
I don't equate Afghanistan with Vietnam at all.

 

[lieexpsr]

It's interesting folks, talloola appears to claim that we are in Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden. I have a lot of difficulty believing in that justification because the search for Bin Laden has almost been abandoned.

You have a very short memory, it is exactly why we were in Afghanistan after 911, and of course
we all know how bush piddled that away.

I invite you to read that over to yourself so you will see that you are just attempting to say something intelligent by disagreeing with me when in fact you have agreed with me. You need to learn to understand the difference between 'are' and 'were'.

And Colpy- Now you are saying that we are there for our self-interest. Is that the last time you are going to change your mind? Take your time and think hard about the question before you make any more stupid comments colpy.

Cdnbear- Go play, the adults are talking. If in the future you want me to treat you like an adult then contribute something to the topic as opposed to trolling and harassing me continuously. Are you sure you really want to do this bear, because you aren't very good at it?

 

[CDNBear]

Cdnbear- Go play, the adults are talking. If in the future you want me to treat you like an adult then contribute something to the topic as opposed to trolling and harassing me continuously. Are you sure you really want to do this bear, because you aren't very good at it?

That's all you got!!!??? Oh bring it on hunny, you got nothing on gopher, darkbeaver, MikeyDB. At least they can put up an argument, unlike you.

Give your empty head a quick shake, you tried to trash me in one thread, I see you doing the same childish shyte in another to other posters, I point it out to you, then try and engage you in a discussion and you call me childish? Oh brother!!!

Grow up lil girl.

So in other words, your reply to me pretty much says, you can't answer the questions, you're just full of sanctamoneous hot air and nothing more. So I have beat you down twice now. Cool!!! And in doing so, I have forced you resort to childish behavour because of your lacking, pffft. And you call me a child? What a joke you are.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Time will tell. I hope I'm wrong but from what I know of the people and the history there they won't stop fighting till all the foreign troops are dead or gone. The cookie cutter approach being used by Bushs' "War on Terror' doesn't take into account regional differences and it's met with nothing but failure.
I also hate bush's style, and he has done much more harm than good

Once again IMO it's Majical thinking to believe that if you hope for something hard enough it will come true despite all evidence to the contrary.
I have been warmed by some of the interviews with "actual" canadian troops who have direct contact
with Afghan people/children, and there has been a genuine warm contact between the two, and
that has to count for something, along with the help which is given.

If you haven't already, you should watch "Fog of War". It's a documentary featuring Robert McNamara.
I have watched it, real eye opener.

He was the architect of the U.S. war in Vietnam and in the film he admits he had it all wrong. He and the Johnson adminstration totally misunderstood the North Vietnamese and as a result had no hope of victory.
I don't equate Afghanistan with Vietnam at all.

I'm sure Canadians have touched many Afghans, just as they have wherever they've served.

The politics of Afghanistan make it hard for us to find support in the south where we are now. We're in a factional fight on the side that is seen as the enemy where we're operating. I'm not sure whether there's any way Canadian forces will be able to win the trust of the Pushtuns as long as we support the Karzi government. These are the people who made up the majority of the Taliban and they have traditional rivalries with the north. Throw in the fact that the insurgents have a fairly safe base in Pakistan and access to large amounts of arms and we're faced with the same grinding war that tore the heart out of the Soviet military in the 1980s.

The Afghans and Vietnamese are similiar in their fierce independence. Neither is a country where any sane leader would want to engage in a long war of atrition.

 

[CDNBear]

I'm sure Canadians have touched many Afghans, just as they have wherever they've served.

The politics of Afghanistan make it hard for us to find support in the south where we are now. We're in a factional fight on the side that is seen as the enemy where we're operating. I'm not sure whether there's any way Canadian forces will be able to win the trust of the Pushtuns as long as we support the Karzi government. These are the people who made up the majority of the Taliban and they have traditional rivalries with the north. Throw in the fact that the insurgents have a fairly safe base in Pakistan and access to large amounts of arms and we're faced with the same grinding war that tore the heart out of the Soviet military in the 1980s.

The Afghans and Vietnamese are similiar in their fierce independence. Neither is a country where any sane leader would want to engage in a long war of atrition.

That is very insightful CK, and you are very correct. That is also the reason why I think the mission plan was a tad flawed. No one should have tried to force a new form of governace on the Afghan people. They should been allowed to form a government of their choosing, with politicians of their choosing.

That would have gone alot further to show that the presence of the Troops was indeed a positive, not the negative of their bitter past.

The fact that they still feel at the mercy of an invading force, will only serve to divide not unite.

 

[talloola]

I invite you to read that over to yourself so you will see that you are just attempting to say something intelligent by disagreeing with me when in fact you have agreed with me. You need to learn to understand the difference between 'are' and 'were'.
Don't you have any memory at all, is that why you choose to pick apart my english, I remember very
well why we went to Afghanistan, and "yeah" we are still there, (is that better?), smart ass.
If you can't figure out what I mean, then you need some help, you remind me of my dad many
years ago, avoided the important issue, by picking at the trivial things.

 

[talloola]

I'm sure Canadians have touched many Afghans, just as they have wherever they've served.

The politics of Afghanistan make it hard for us to find support in the south where we are now. We're in a factional fight on the side that is seen as the enemy where we're operating. I'm not sure whether there's any way Canadian forces will be able to win the trust of the Pushtuns as long as we support the Karzi government.

So. what exactly is the reason to be in the south. I thought it was to drive the taliban out, but if
they are the "citizens" of the south, how will that happen. Is the taliban trying to regain all of
the territory they had before 911, and move to the north again or?

These are the people who made up the majority of the Taliban and they have traditional rivalries with the north. Throw in the fact that the insurgents have a fairly safe base in Pakistan

Are the insurgents mixing with the taliban to fight, then returning to western pakistan, and if that is
the case, it is going to be very difficult. The U.S. is sending in many more troops, do you think that
will improve your situation?

and access to large amounts of arms and we're faced with the same grinding war that tore the heart out of the Soviet military in the 1980s.
The soviet union were trying to conquer and take over Afghanistan, NATO isn't doing that, don't
they understand that concept.

The Afghans and Vietnamese are similiar in their fierce independence. Neither is a country where any sane leader would want to engage in a long war of atrition.
Is all the fighting "only" in the south, and what is the reason that NATO has to stay there. If the
northern area is stable, isn't it sufficient to be there as "peacekeepers", and not go into the southern
area.
Will the two factions live side by side, or will the taliban insist on pushing their way into other
areas as well.
I would think most countries in the world would be "fierce" in their independence, I know we would
as Canadians, so that is natural, and in their case, they have been attacked so many times, many
of them will live their whole life in a state of war and destruction. What a shame.

I need more education on this matter, obviously, as long as it is not "politically motivated".

 

[CDNBear]

talloola, you seem very bright and genuinely open to discussion...

There will always be an political motivation in wars, Armies have commanders, they answer to the land holders and so on up the food chain, throughout time, but that does not negate the value that may come from even the most sinister of motives.

The war in Afghanistan is not all that it is made up to be.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/50170-hunt-oil-manifest-destiny-new-millenium.html
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/50207-hunt-oil-manifest-destiny-new-millenium-part-ii.html

But the actions and mandates of individual Nations, do bring some forms of good beyond what I outlined in those two threads.

Beyond the typical and predictable rhetoric of usual suspects, the Canadian Armed Forces is not just occupying Afghanistan as the Russians did, they are there to rid the country of those that would see all, subjugated by their preverse and thoroughly blasphemous version of Islam. All while trying to bring agriculture to the forefront of the Nations economy, as apposed to funds from the Opium trade and the financial contributions of terrorist groups.

 

[talloola]

talloola, you seem very bright and genuinely open to discussion...

There will always be an political motivation in wars, Armies have commanders, they answer to the land holders and so on up the food chain, throughout time, but that does not negate the value that may come from even the most sinister of motives.

I just, don't appreciate receiving information from people based on "their" political beliefs, if that
is possible.

The war in Afghanistan is not all that it is made up to be.
I checked the map, found Tajikistan, saw the narrow strip in Afghanistan over to Pakistan.
What were those oil companies doing there in the first place, were they there "legally"?

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/50170-hunt-oil-manifest-destiny-new-millenium.html
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/50207-hunt-oil-manifest-destiny-new-millenium-part-ii.html

But the actions and mandates of individual Nations, do bring some forms of good beyond what I outlined in those two threads.

Those two articles are completely "exhausting", are they your observations/theories, or do they come from elsewhere, and how reliable it is. There are conspiracy stories floating around, and some have
jumped on board to support that theory. The previous article states that Bush planned 911, and
it backfired into the huge mess, it became, and they panicked at that, but it gave them a "right" to
invade Afghanistan, thus pick up that "oil" mentioned in Tajikistan.
If a story like that could ever be proven, (and even if it could, it would be hushed),then what, the
people of the U.S. could do nothing about it.
There is no way to prove or disprove the article, and that just takes me back into my little world,
not knowing what is going on re: this subject, and back to reading all sorts of "theories".

Beyond the typical and predictable rhetoric of usual suspects, the Canadian Armed Forces is not just occupying Afghanistan as the Russians did, they are there to rid the country of those that would see all, subjugated by their preverse and thoroughly blasphemous version of Islam.

Isn't that what the "real" citizens of Afghanistan would ultimately want!!! If they could replace the
money coming from poppy growing, with something else, "legal", and make a decent living. They
must realize that poppy growing and sales is such a "dangerous" occupation to be in, in the eyes
of the "affected" parts of the world, or don't they really "care".

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

I'm sure Canadians have touched many Afghans, just as they have wherever they've served.

The politics of Afghanistan make it hard for us to find support in the south where we are now. We're in a factional fight on the side that is seen as the enemy where we're operating. I'm not sure whether there's any way Canadian forces will be able to win the trust of the Pushtuns as long as we support the Karzi government.

So. what exactly is the reason to be in the south. I thought it was to drive the taliban out, but if
they are the "citizens" of the south, how will that happen. Is the taliban trying to regain all of
the territory they had before 911, and move to the north again or?

These are the people who made up the majority of the Taliban and they have traditional rivalries with the north. Throw in the fact that the insurgents have a fairly safe base in Pakistan

Are the insurgents mixing with the taliban to fight, then returning to western pakistan, and if that is
the case, it is going to be very difficult. The U.S. is sending in many more troops, do you think that
will improve your situation?

and access to large amounts of arms and we're faced with the same grinding war that tore the heart out of the Soviet military in the 1980s.
The soviet union were trying to conquer and take over Afghanistan, NATO isn't doing that, don't
they understand that concept.

The Afghans and Vietnamese are similiar in their fierce independence. Neither is a country where any sane leader would want to engage in a long war of atrition.
Is all the fighting "only" in the south, and what is the reason that NATO has to stay there. If the
northern area is stable, isn't it sufficient to be there as "peacekeepers", and not go into the southern
area.
Will the two factions live side by side, or will the taliban insist on pushing their way into other
areas as well.
I would think most countries in the world would be "fierce" in their independence, I know we would
as Canadians, so that is natural, and in their case, they have been attacked so many times, many
of them will live their whole life in a state of war and destruction. What a shame.

I need more education on this matter, obviously, as long as it is not "politically motivated".

We're in the south to contain the Tailban there. Most of the attacks in other parts of the country are suicide attacks and IEDs.

I think NATO would need about 70,000 troops in action to effectively suppress the Taliban. That's in action in the south. I don't see much hope for that happening.

NATO can project overwhelming force for short periods of time but they lack the ability to secure the country. Afghanistan is one of the worst places in the world to conduct military operations as a Canadian forces study found before we deployed there. The best we can hope for is a holding action.
There's no way we're ever going to destroy the Taliban, something our minister of defence admitted last year.

 

[talloola]

We're in the south to contain the Tailban there. Most of the attacks in other parts of the country are suicide attacks and IEDs.
I think NATO would need about 70,000 troops in action to effectively suppress the Taliban. That's in action in the south. I don't see much hope for that happening.
No, it seems not. The taliban are a persistent bunch, and more show up all the time, and their
numbers never go down, even after casualties.

NATO can project overwhelming force for short periods of time but they lack the ability to secure the country. Afghanistan is one of the worst places in the world to conduct military operations as a Canadian forces study found before we deployed there. The best we can hope for is a holding action.
There's no way we're ever going to destroy the Taliban, something our minister of defence admitted last year
Is it possible for the Taliban to be happy to remain in "their" part of the country, and not bother
others, and mind their own business, or are they, along with the insurgents determined to overtake
the northern areas as well, and become the dominant ones, again.
That would be so bad for the women, as they are treated so shabbily under the taliban, how can
the Afghan women ever gain any kind of independence and power for themselves, and it seems
they aren't treated very nice by the regular Afghan men either.

This Afghan problem that has risen again, is so disturbing, and I feel even more angry and bitter
toward the Bush administration, as they mishandled this whole situation, and made everything so
bad in that part of the world, how will it ever be "healed", in Afghanistan and Iraq. I can't wait
till after the 2008 election, so that, whoever is next president, can begin to turn this catastrophe
around, and help the u.s. to return to the great nation it should be, and has been in the past.

And, if all military forces leave Afghanistan, what do you think would happen "within that country".

 

[Fingertrouble]

The best we can hope for is a holding action.
There's no way we're ever going to destroy the Taliban, something our minister of defence admitted last year.

If the NATO forces can not only undermine the ability of the Taliban to attack targets without taking large casualties, but also assist the government of Afganistan train its own forces while NATO and the United nations provide humanitarian assistance and continue rebuilding efforts, then Canadain Forces will not have to be there indefinitely.
If the country can get to a point where there is hope for its population and they have their own forces to stand up to those who wish to oppress them, then the Taliban will have found a battle that they may not be able to win...even if they want to continue their fight. That is why the taliban are trying to stall or damage rebuilding efforts, as they know that the more that Afgani's stand on their own feet and control their own futures, the less likely the Taliban will be able to control them......

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

"Is it possible for the Taliban to be happy to remain in "their" part of the country, and not bother
others, and mind their own business, or are they, along with the insurgents determined to overtake
the northern areas as well, and become the dominant ones, again.
That would be so bad for the women, as they are treated so shabbily under the taliban, how can
the Afghan women ever gain any kind of independence and power for themselves, and it seems
they aren't treated very nice by the regular Afghan men either.

This Afghan problem that has risen again, is so disturbing, and I feel even more angry and bitter
toward the Bush administration, as they mishandled this whole situation, and made everything so
bad in that part of the world, how will it ever be "healed", in Afghanistan and Iraq. I can't wait
till after the 2008 election, so that, whoever is next president, can begin to turn this catastrophe
around, and help the u.s. to return to the great nation it should be, and has been in the past."

I don' t think the Taliban are able to coexist with anyone. They're true fundamentlist and not even neccessarily Islamic. They seem to want to go back to a strictly patriarchical society where women are just property and no one has any identity outside of what they think is acceptable.

I'm angry a Bush myself, he's incompetent at best. Some people I know think he's trying to bring about the end of the world. I think he's just unqualified for anything that demands you actually care for others.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

If the NATO forces can not only undermine the ability of the Taliban to attack targets without taking large casualties, but also assist the government of Afganistan train its own forces while NATO and the United nations provide humanitarian assistance and continue rebuilding efforts, then Canadain Forces will not have to be there indefinitely.
If the country can get to a point where there is hope for its population and they have their own forces to stand up to those who wish to oppress them, then the Taliban will have found a battle that they may not be able to win...even if they want to continue their fight. That is why the taliban are trying to stall or damage rebuilding efforts, as they know that the more that Afgani's stand on their own feet and control their own futures, the less likely the Taliban will be able to control them......

That's a lot of ifs.

IMO it's a question of the lesser of two evils. If the Karzi government can convince Afghanis that they present less of threat to their well-being than the Taliban then there's some hope. The only problem is the members of the Karzi government seem more bent on aquiring wealth and power than helping anyone in the country. They're not even doing much to support better treatment of women. NATO can only be a supporting force, it's really up the Afghanis.

On the other hand people know how oppressive the Taliban can be. It could go either way, but the Karzi government needs to change direction and they don't have a lot of time. The Taliban is getting stronger with each passing month.

 

[talloola]

[
I don' t think the Taliban are able to coexist with anyone. They're true fundamentlist and not even neccessarily Islamic. They seem to want to go back to a strictly patriarchical society where women are just property and no one has any identity outside of what they think is acceptable.

I'm angry a Bush myself, he's incompetent at best. Some people I know think he's trying to bring about the end of the world. I think he's just unqualified for anything that demands you actually care for others.[/quote]

Where did the taliban actually come from, did they come out of western pakistan originally, as they
are such a fundamentalist group, so horribly stuck in the "violent" past, modern civilization must
move those sorts of people out of the dark ages, as, if left to their vices, they will build a nation
of others like themselves, and drag innocent people down with them.

Bush is so incompetent, it is very disturbing that a man such as that could have risen as high as
he did. The U.S. must examine how their leaders rise to the top. They must be very careful
next time at the polls. But, I see allready that it is a popularity poll, and money driven, becomes
like the oscars when, finally they vote. I can see that Barrack Obama is a genuine guy, with the
right thoughts in his head for his country, but they will probably elect someone like Hillary, or
McCain. They have to focus on "diplomacy" first, and someone who will respect other countries.
OK, I must end this day on a happy note, so I will go to the joke department, thanks for the chat.