Discussion of Canada's Role in AFG (merged)

[Ex-Dragoon]

Did I miss something? I thought your profile was empty half an hour ago. Maybe I'm mistaken. Oh well, in that case, I am even more disappointed in your views. But that's just me.

It was emptry when I sent the Warning PM.

It was empty when I sent the warning pm. Sorry recceguy hit Modify post vice quote initially.

 

[Slim]

If that indeed who you really are then I would say that you have even less excuse to be speaking the way that you are...

If you were a 1 VP soldier and are running down the guys on the ground after your former mates were hurt and killed this week that's deplorable!

 

[Mark Antony]

Wow,

I don't agree with cannonfodder's original comment but the cause of this sniping has been simply because you called him a jackass Slim rather than discuss a diametrically opposing view.  It doesn't matter that he (or I) haven't been there.  You name called first and he ended up with a verbal warning.

I'm surely a nobody but this thread was started by Pike for the sole purpose of creating conflict and he's done it.  I recommend everyone shake hands and the thread be locked by the Mods.

 

[Franko]

Did I miss something? I thought your profile was empty half an hour ago. Maybe I'm mistaken. Oh well, in that case, I am even more disappointed in your views. But that's just me.

It was emptry when I sent the Warning PM.

I though I was going crazy for a while....checked it out earlier this am....and it was blank.

Regards

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Wow,

I don't agree with cannonfodder's original comment but the cause of this sniping has been simply because you called him a jackass Slim rather than discuss a diametrically opposing view.  It doesn't matter that he (or I) haven't been there.  You name called first and he ended up with a verbal warning.

I'm surely a nobody but this thread was started by Pike for the sole purpose of creating conflict and he's done it.  I recommend everyone shake hands and the thread be locked by the Mods.

Don't try second guess. That's not why he got the verbal. It's also not the reason that all this is going on.

Now, add to the original intent of the thread or leave it alone. Got a problem. Report it.

 

[Slim]

Wow,

I don't agree with cannonfodder's original comment but the cause of this sniping has been simply because you called him a jackass Slim rather than discuss a diametrically opposing view.  It doesn't matter that he (or I) haven't been there.  You name called first and he ended up with a verbal warning.

You know its been pretty well laid out why I called him a jackass (which I hold to stronger than ever) and why he's taking the flack and the verbal (not from me as I'm involved in the debate).

He does not know what he is talking about...That's where the grief is coming from. If you have issues with the post then use the report post button like you're supposed to and any outstanding issues will be looked at and dealt with by mods who are not involved in the thread.

 

[Cannonfodder]

 This is pointless , you have your opinion and I have mine , agree on something we will not .

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Mr. O'Leary has gone to great lengths to ask you to post reasons for your opinions.....and you haven't, so why post rhetoric if you wont back it up?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Only pointless because your argument is indefensible. However, so be it. Your last statement let's you bow out gracefully. BuBye

Everyone, let's put this to bed and carry on with the original intent of the thread.

 

[Bert]

I have to kinda agree with Cannon Fodder on this one.

Afghanistan IS a worthy cause, but our mission there will not prevent terrorism from happening.

Terrorism is a global problem rooted in countries around the world.  Though much of Al-Qaeda was and may still be in Afghanistan, killing them off in Afghanistan will not remove cells, and their recruiting, in other countries.

Obviously if our mission succeeds, Al-Qaeda will lose a major advantage and staging area they once had, but we have to remember, Terrorism thrives in many environments and it would not surprise me if Al-Qaeda simply further expanded its network to make up for the lack of one large space.

After all, the Terrorists who bombed London this past summer probably didn't fly directly in from Afghanistan to do their deed.

Afghanistan is but one small piece of the large terrorism jigsaw puzzle.

I believe Canada needs to do more at home and abroad.

Tougher immigration and border security comes to mind.  Also I believe immigrants must not be allowed to move where they want, but be assigned a geographic location where they may live, this prevents cultural ghettos from forming (and thus terrorism recruitment pools) and allows Canada to send people to areas that need them.

From my reading, your points are:
1.  Canadian involvement in Afghanistan will not prevent terrorism from happening;
2.  Terrorism is routed in many areas;
3.  Terrorism is one big jigsaw puzzle;
4.   More immigration conditions at home.
5.  Summary is questioning why Canada is in Afghanistan.

The current "war on terrorism" conflict is not unlike anything else that has happened in the last
2.5 million years of human history.  More recently, there are causes, effects, and consequences
affecting 19th and 20th historyin regards to Europe, the US, Russia, China, central Asia, old
empires, authoritarians, Afghanistan, warlords, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda
wannabees.  This sets the context, those who ignore geo-history are  doomed to repeat it.

Canadian involvement in Afghanistan is affected by the attacks performed by Al-Qaeda on
our allies, the cells and documented terrorist activities occurring through and within our borders,
threats made against our country by terrorist organizations (Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah directly),
and terrorist intimidation of Canadian interests  overseas.  Can it be argued that Canada is involved
whether we want to be or not?

Afghanistan was the major physical training region for Al-Qaeda for some time.  Taliban
support of Al-Qaeda is a fact.  Since the Taliban would not cease their support of Al-Qaeda in
the light of 9/11, the US/NATO had the means to take the fight to the region.

Canadian continuing involvement in Afganistan reduces the ability of old Taliban elements
returning to power, stops further physical support of Al-Qaeda in the region, and reduces
one area/support structure in which ourenemies can exploit.

The US and other countries are pressuring African, Middle East, Central Asian, and SE
Asian governmentsand NGOs/other from supporting AL-Qaeda through diplomacy, the UN, and
financial/military threats or incentives.

If Canada was to remove itself from Afghanistan, or countries of interest, the warlords and
Taliban authority figures with weapons would once again take power in the various AFG regions
and any rule of law or humanitarian undertaking developed would disappear.  Al-Qaeda would
gain further support and that is not in Canadian interests.

In another sense, global conflicts like this cannot be solved simply in one day.  Theres no easy
solution.  Most conflicts are based on actions, counteractions, strategy, consequences, that play
out until there is a conclusion.  Continuing involvement by countries in Afghanistan will allow the
establishment of the rule of law in the long term and eliminate the return of terrorist support.

As far as domestic Canadian policy affecting immigration, the charter of rights, and various
Acts, ...well...good luck with that.  Old country problems brought into Canada from first generation
immigrants and idealogical festering in cultural ghettos can be in conflict with Canadian laws and
main-stream social value.  I know a Chinese restaurant owner who served in the PLA
(or so he said).  He said if the US and Canada ever went to war against China, he wouldn't be on
our side.  I have no idea how much fact or bravado was in that statement.  However, it kinda
bothered me as this is IN Canada.  Despite this, I've seen this guy hand out food to hobos, help
people off the street, engage anyone in conversation, and seems like a decent enough guy,
even more than most.  Complicated issues that cannot be addressed in bi-polarized
discussions.  Good luck with that.


** Since typing this up, there were 23 replies to the thread.  Holy Cr*p! I have no idea whether
anything I've written is relevent anymore (or ever was so) but I've spent enough time that i'm not
deleting it so I'm clicking post...

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

No worries Bert if you can help bring this back on topic despite CannonFodders attempts to derail,  it would be a godsend.

 

[KevinB]

The comments of a lot of armchair experts in Afghan political Affairs and Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs are quite astounding. :


I had a rather large rant typed up - but I figure it would be lost on those who have never worn the uniform - or are like Cannonfodder disgruntled about the UNPROFOR days.

However Afghan is a win-lose situation -- if we (coalition) help the Afghan gov't and the ANA, ANP stabilize the country we have gained a productive ally and are supporting a democratically elected gov't - if we dont help the Taliban and Al-Q will via allies in Pakistans ISI and other nations that would profit  from our failure - will step up and the country will be in turmoil for years.

Sudan is a LOSE-LOSE situation - like the 92-93 Somalia deployments -- IF the troops do nothing - they are worthless paper tigers.  IF the troops are active they will end up in large firefights with the Gov't, military and the supported jajawe militias  -- white troops killing blacks - not good press either...


I'd like to see a robust CF able to conduct Brigade sized missions in both theatres -- however the realist in my says the Cdn taxpayer will never fund it -- and we saw from Somalia that even 1000 good deeds does not mitigate 1 misdeed and that is all the public seem to care about.  IF the forces went into Sudan it would have to be with the Cdn poulaces full knowledge it was a drag them out dirty shooting WAR...

 

[Slim]

Very good post! (this was meant for Bert's post but your is good too Kev)

Thanks for bringing this back on track everyone.

 

[Franko]

** Since typing this up, there were 23 replies to the thread.  Holy Cr*p! I have no idea whether
anything I've written is relevent anymore (or ever was so) but I've spent enough time that i'm not
deleting it so I'm clicking post...

:rofl:

Thanks for that.....and this thread needs all the help it can get.

Regards

 

[Cannonfodder]

    Fundementally the the terrorists fled Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban . At this point Canada is not threatened by terrorists in Afghanistan . Not to run down the work of our troops because they are doing good work in Astan but this does prevent terrorist attacks in the west .

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

    Fundementally the the terrorists fled Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban . At this point Canada is not threatened by terrorists in Afghanistan . Not to run down the work of our troops because they are doing good work in Astan but this does prevent terrorist attacks in the west .

So what do you suggest? We let them work unmolested and wait for the next 9-11 to happen and kill more innocents? That might your modus operandi but I believe most decent folks with two brain cells would disagree with you.

 

[RangerRay]

    Fundementally the the terrorists fled Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban . At this point Canada is not threatened by terrorists in Afghanistan . Not to run down the work of our troops because they are doing good work in Astan but this does prevent terrorist attacks in the west .

So who has been attacking us there?  The tooth fairy?

 

[Michael OLeary]

    Fundementally the the terrorists fled Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban . At this point Canada is not threatened by terrorists in Afghanistan . Not to run down the work of our troops because they are doing good work in Astan but this does prevent terrorist attacks in the west .

No one action in any one area of the world will absolutely "prevent terrorist attacks in the west".  Do you agree, however, that the removal of the Taliban, and a long-term goal of improving the government system and standard of living for the average moderate Afghani citizen, will most likely reduce the possibility of terrorist activities being regularly supported from that particular corner of the world?

Is that not a worthwhile mission goal in a global context?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
Fundementally the the terrorists fled Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban


WOW......... :rofl:    .so maybe we should chase them into Pakistan/Kashmir also? How about we finish one job at a time, those countries aren't going anywhere.

 

[Bert]

But Cannonfodder, you are assuming that if the terrorists are scattered, they'll likely go away.
Usually if person/groups are scattered from their "home", they will go to the next and sometimes
closest place of support/shelter.  If the coalition left Afghanistan, do you really really think
the Taliban and their sympathies/support of Al-Qaeda would not return?  Think of the weapon caches.
What impact would result on the people of Afghanistan?  Terrorism and its global influence will
affect us.  I'd rather take the fight to them (participate in a meaningful sense) than deal with the
consequences (perhaps due in part to inaction) in my backyard but thats my opinion.