Canada eyeing reservists to bolster force in Afghanistan

[mabudon]

No, because if that were to happen now, who knows, it could be someone who somehow made it out of Afghanistan after losing everything and was simply responding in kind

Seriously, is floating the "mushroom cloud" the best you've got??

Besides, after Harper said the liberals would "pay" for voting against extending something that was against Canadian values (and already had sunset clauses written into them by the Liberals- how letting the clauses expire as was intended to happen is "playing" anything or "two faced" as has been suggested is beyond me) I would be rightly very suspicious about the true nature of such an "attack"

 

[BitWhys]

Well, maybe you would reconsider if a bomb went off in a Canadian city...

Even if the attack were out of Afghanistan wouldn't that just indicate the mission is failing?

 

[mabudon]

it's a kind of dark humour when someone suggests that folks like "us" would be smartened up by an attack on our country, it really is, just wanted to add that

 

[Sean D]

Can't know for sure, but maybe us being there has already prevent an attack. I remember hearing that a couple of months after the Afghan mission started they found plans the seemed to indicate that there might be an attack on the Montreal metro.

Also I remember hear that Ressam said in a New York court that him and some of his buddies had considered taking gas tankers into Westmount and blowing them up.

All this would seem to indicate that we were a target before 911


I have been tring to find some reference to these events, but have been unable to at present...but I will continue to look.

 

[Sean D]

Why mabudon, do you believe it could not happen to us?? After all before 911, the worst terrorist attack happened on Canadian soil with the Air India event.

 

[BitWhys]

so we've got troops in Afghanistan because of Air India?

 

[Sean D]

What?????? I never said that...

 

[Zzarchov]

North America (including Canada) are targetted all the time. Apparently the most frequent problem is that once would be attackers get over here they notice the lack of brothels on every corner and the inexplicable absence of baby meat vendors. Often they just abandon their cause for our high quality of living (I imagine its also alot harder to view people as demons when they greet you on the welcome wagon and help you move your stuff..I mean, Its hard to find friends to help you move).
But some do make it through, and it is only a matter of time before some goes boom. Not that you can stop that anymore than you can stop the next serial murderer from running rampant. Only cut down on the frequency.

If you think this is a pointless mission, whats your objection to let it continue on? Much of the country, including the military there, does think it has merit. If you aren't opposed to it, you just don't care about it, why not just let it go on?

If you are opposed to it? on what grounds?

 

[Zzarchov]

we've got troops in Afghanistan because of Air India

Thats not True BW, Im not sure where you got that Idea.

 

[BitWhys]

What?????? I never said that...

then why even mention it?

 

[Sean D]

I thought it was rather obvious but to point out to those that don't believe that we can be a target, that it has happen and that it can happen again

 

[BitWhys]

I thought it was rather obvious but to point out to those that don't believe that we can be a target, that it has happen and that it can happen again

Even if pointing out the obvious was necessary, how is it relevant to establishing that the current mission in Afghanistan being the only acceptable solution to the problem?

 

[Sean D]

Do you believe there is never a reason to go to war?

 

[BitWhys]

Do you believe there is never a reason to go to war?

I believe that sometimes its necessary to go war.

 

[Sean D]

In the beginning did you think that going to war against the government that protected the terrorist that planned 911 was justified???

 

[mabudon]

Why mabudon, do you believe it could not happen to us??

First thing is the whole "IT" part, lends itselfs to being a concept with no factual basisbehind it, but whatever, that's just semantics

For me to believe that naything possible "could NOT happen" would just be stupid, wouldn't it? so I believe no such thing...
However I DO believe as zzarchov said, there's nothin you could EVER do to outright prevent such an occurence. You COULD try to do things to decrease the liklihood of a "terror strike" tho, so I would support such measures, but bombing and occupying other countries really does nothing to stop "stateless actors". Enhanced security at home is good enough, and a less provocative foreign policy would be a good idea too (although Harper has already stated the goal of building a "more robust foreign policy" which is worrisome) But I most certainly do NOT live in fear of such things- the REAL fear I have is what might be done as a "response" to "IT", a good example would be the reaction of the US to the "terror attacks" of 9/11


Zzarchov- why do I not just "let it happen??" and why do I think it's a bad idea??

Well, as for not just "going ahead and leting it happen since most folks agree with it"- there'd still be slavery if folks were like that man, so that I can't do, morally OR intellectually

Why am I opposed?? Cos I pay taxes, and this boondoggle is expensive, in terms of lives, money, time and to a lesser extent something I was once proud of, our role as an intermediary in Global affairs (start a new thread to rip on that last thing, it's only part of my point)
Why am I opposed?? Might be the same fear of "IT" that some folks feel- for the opposite reasons, as I stated above, but really, we are NOT making friends by our actions in Afghanistan, not with the boogeyman "them" whom we are supposed to fear so much.

I am opposed because the objectives are historically idiotic, WHY should I sit back and support something that I am damn near 100% certain is a colossal waste of whatever we throw at it??

Hell, the headline should say it all- we don't have what we need to keep up our "commitment", and I sincerely believe that even if there were no shortage of equipment and manpower, the "victory" we seek would remain unattainable... just the shifting justifications show me that those in charge have no real plan- no plan=no chance in most smart folks books

 

[BitWhys]

In the beginning did you think that going to war against the government that protected the terrorist that planned 911 was justified???

You mean the government that insisted on following international protocol regarding the extradition of the perpetrators of 911? I think it was bound to happen eventually and perhaps even would have considered human rights to be a possibly acceptable casus belli (considered, mind you) had it been offered at the time, but that doesn't give the politicos and the brass that goes with it carte blanche now.

 

[darkbeaver]

They do have a plan it's just not acceptable for the public to hear the truth, finding out that our Afghanistan adventures principal goal is to secure and protect a pipeline route would not advance the corporate interests who control the placement of military forces to protect capital invesment. This Christmas I talked with two Canadian soldiers who had just come back from Ghan as they say, they told me that gaurding the pipeline route was an open secret among them and it was much discused in thier particular circle.:wave: