Afghanistan

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Brother Cooper, what many forget is that there are many Countrys and many Men and Women who are in foreign Countrys fighting for Freedom.

I /We have Brothers and friends over there. They are there for one reason only, to try and protect Us from having this going on In our own Countrys.

Ask the French and Germans who were trying to work with them. So, what do these morons care? They kill period!!!

It is time some think of them and what they are doing to really try to make it better for the people who are getting killed as civilians who are just there trying to live.

I'm sorry Tom but I can't accept your statement that we should remember that soldiers from many nations are in Afghanistan, when it's followed by your statement slamming the French and Germans.

The French and Germans have been in Afghanistan since the beginning, have both held command of operations, and both have had their people die. So I cannot allow you to slam these countries and their soldiers for their commitment to Afghanistan's future ~ that's the type of moronic statement I'd expect from a sh*t-stain like Bill O'Reilly, not from a Brother.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

Yet they are in the US military, and were serving in the country as the US military, so it does reflect on them, does it not?

It should reflect no more on the whole of the US forces any more than this did/does on the Canadian Armed Forces:


Do you think this is reflective of the members of the Canadian Armed Forces? I sure as hell don't think so. Just as the CAF don't make it habit to torture and beat to death teenagers, the US military doesn't make it habit to rape & murder. It is the sick and the criminal wearing the uniform that commit these horrible acts, not the uniform or what it represents.

Personally I think it's too bad that those soldiers in Iraq weren't under Canadian or British command, because then they'd be facing the firing squad: murder, rape, drunkness on guard duty in a combat zone, and abandoning your post in a combat zone; are all still punishable by death under the QR&R (the only other two are treason and collaborating with the enemy). Further I think it's also too bad that these "men" didn't take Matchee's route when their crimes came to light...

[shinerbock]

I think they have a problem with you using an extremely isolated example to discredit the entire U.S. military.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

Yet they are in the US military, and were serving in the country as the US military, so it does reflect on them, does it not?

No. It doesn't. A single incident by one or two people doesn't reflect on the entire US Military.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

Fact is, these incidents make the news more than the good going on over there does....and thus colours people's views of the military.

Fact is, this is only true for people who have problems with reading, learning or fully understanding the size of the military - as well as how things should "reflect" on others in dissimilar situations.

Originally Posted by ariesrising

I happen to believe the military is a place where people who have issues with dominance and power and violence to start with will thrive, and continue to put a black mark on the institution as a whole. I happen to believe the war in Iraq has very very little to do with Osama Bin Laden as well.

Oh, cute - so really all of this is clouded by your own biases against the military, as well as a distaste for US foreign policy/governmental actions?

I happen to believe that is f-ed up.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

Fact is, these incidents make the news more than the good going on over there does....and thus colours people's views of the military.

So you admit that your opinion is basically unjustified in that you're well aware of the fact that you're not getting the whole picture. Even so, you're willing to condemn entire nations. That's terrific.

I happen to believe the military is a place where people who have issues with dominance and power and violence to start with will thrive, and continue to put a black mark on the institution as a whole. I happen to believe the war in Iraq has very very little to do with Osama Bin Laden as well.

Military -- violence? Say it ain't so. If you give automatic weapons to a bunch of 18-21 year olds, you will have problems. It's no big secret. Also, I'd like to remind you to maybe review the thread. We were discussing some cowardly Canadian politician's thought that because of 4 casualties, Canada ought to withdraw from Afghanistan and bargain with the Taliban for a peaceful regime.

Of course, the Taliban's version of "peace" involves Al Qaeda training camps, stoning women, generally things which would make even the most criminally violent American or Canadian soldier blush. But that's neither here nor there, is it?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

Fact is, these incidents make the news more than the good going on over there does....and thus colours people's views of the military.

I happen to believe the military is a place where people who have issues with dominance and power and violence to start with will thrive, and continue to put a black mark on the institution as a whole. I happen to believe the war in Iraq has very very little to do with Osama Bin Laden as well.

I don't have much to say about this line of reasoning, as Kevin and RC have offered intelligent feedback. I will say, though, that I hope you understand just how offensive and short-sighted your statements are to those of us who have friends, relatives and parents who have served honorably in the military in this war and others.

You are taking isolated incidents and using them to characterize an entire military. Whether or not other people are doing the same, that doesn't make it right. Be for the war, be against the war, but don't misrepresent the troops who are fighting it.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by ktsnake

We were discussing some cowardly Canadian politician's thought that because of 4 casualties, Canada ought to withdraw from Afghanistan and bargain with the Taliban for a peaceful regime.

Of course, the Taliban's version of "peace" involves Al Qaeda training camps, stoning women, generally things which would make even the most criminally violent American or Canadian soldier blush. But that's neither here nor there, is it?

Sigh… it’s a little more complicated than the “hey he wants a withdrawal so he must be a coward” belief makes it out to believe (despite what Harper and the “Conservatives” are promoting up here).

Jack Layton wants a withdrawal of Canadian troops, unless two things happen:
1) That the Canadian Forces switch back to a role that is primarily security and reconstruction – something that they where having a lot of success with.
2) That the Parliament engages in a public debate that’ll will give all parties (and the general) a chance to understand and concretely define the role and goal of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.

Now the reasons for the above are the rising Canadian casualties as they have shifted into a primarily combat operations role. Now the casualties while disturbing to the NDP, it isn’t the deaths that is the main political concern: rather it is the assumption of combat operations. The Canadian Forces switched to combat operations at the behest the Pentagon/White House in order to relieve the pressure on US forces in Afghanistan, so that troops could be in turn shifted to Iraq.

The NDP objects to this as the Prime Minister ordered this done without consultation from Parliament, and because it is indirectly lending support for the US war in Iraq. The actual redeployment of troops was “technically” a violation of Parliamentary protocol; in that at the very least the PM should have announced it in session, and not done it while Parliament was on holiday. The second part, the indirect support for the US effort in Iraq, is a more troublesome political problem – in that the Conservatives effectively and unilaterally reversed the ruling of Parliament and the Senate (as well as the public) to not lend military or political support for the US actions in Iraq, which were declared a violation of international law. If they had debated the issue in the House there is a very good chance that the redeployment would not have gone through, and in fact would have caused a serious challenge to the Conservative’s minority government.

Now as for Layton's wish to have talks with the Taliban, again it is not so simple as "hey lets make peace and have them take over again"... Layton simply believes that the more moderate members of the Taliban should be included in the reconstruction effort, at least verbally if not physically.

Now all of this would be even more politically volitile if the Liberals actually had a leader and a firm political policy ~ as it is at the very least Layton's calls for debate or withdrawal are being recieved and echoed by a larger audience... including the Conservatives political partners in Parliament the Bloc Quebecois.

[RACooper]

An update on the latest "friendly fire" incident in Afghanistan:

Two A-10s strafed a Canadian platoon who called for air support, wounding 30 and killing 1.

Of the 30 wounded in the attack, 8 are seriously wouned of which 5 have been airlifted to Germany.

The soldier killed: Pte. Mark Anthony Graham was a former Canadian Olympian, who competed with x400-metre relay team at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics - he also attended University of Nebraska on a track and field scholarship and later went to Kent State University in Ohio after an injury ended his Oylmpic dreams. My heart goes out to his brother who is currently going through Basic Training with the Canadian Armed Forces.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

The US military follows strict rules of engagement, which does not include "shoot first, ask questions later".

While this is true, there is obviously a difference in attitude or standards when it comes to the setting of the ROE or it's enforcement - afterall when was the last time you heard of the British, Australian, or Canadian military being the instigator of "friendly fire" or for accidently shooting up a wedding party?

There was a wonderful study done on the mental indoctination and preperation for combat done by the US military that I read for me Force & Statecraft course ~ basically covering the training practices that reduce a battlefield to only "red and blue" forces, excluding allies, neutrals, or non-combatants; and how this is a problem when it comes to reality - if I can find the study again I'll link it.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

I have my opinions, you have yours, and that's all.

And yours are unfounded and stupid much like someone that stereotypes black people. If we're stereotyping, then wherever your from has a lot of morons.

-Rudey

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

I have my opinions, you have yours, and that's all.

And some of us happen to think your stated opinons are horribly unfair generalizations, and that's all.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

I have my opinions, you have yours, and that's all.

I'm not going to conclude anything from this except that you're now running away from having to defend your positions. You have admitted your opinion is largely based on unreasonable sources. How can you live with these "opinions" of yours which are based on sources which you admit are biased?

[AGDee]

We can make an analogy to the Greek system here. If one young woman gets raped at a fraternity house, the media publicity gives everybody a bad name, even though only one or two brothers of ONE fraternity were involved. People will generalize and stereotype, even though it's wrong to do so. We don't want people to generalize when it's our organization, so we should try not to generalize when it's something like the actions of a handful of military personnel.

[Kevin]

Robert, I'm really glad to have you here (and this is not in any way sarcastic). I have no idea what's going on with our neighbors to the north, and I thank you for your information. I apologize if I was too simplistic/terse in my earlier answer. Let me address some points here:

As to Jack Layton's points:

Jack Layton wants a withdrawal of Canadian troops, unless two things happen:
1) That the Canadian Forces switch back to a role that is primarily security and reconstruction – something that they where having a lot of success with.
2) That the Parliament engages in a public debate that’ll will give all parties (and the general) a chance to understand and concretely define the role and goal of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.

1 -- What do you think about this? Do Canadians not have a stake in the War on Terror? Do Canadians feel like Americans should do all of the killing and dieing? I personally feel like we're in this together. Bin Ladin is a serious threat to the Western world, and he must be dealt with. I would find it unconscionable that one of my country's leaders would even suggest that we talk about terms of surrender.

2 -- As to debate, what is this going to accomplish? It can be conducted in Parliament, or it can be conducted in the public square. If the floor of Parliament is anything like the floor of the American House/Senate, then it's all calculated grandstanding with no actual dialogue. If there's any dialogue, it happens behind closed doors and with lots of strings attached. Layton, from the looks of it (and this is just my initial reaction) simply wants a forum where he can make some nice sound bites while having a backdrop which gives him some sort of authority.

I don't know Canadian politics, but to me, we all have a role to play. To even suggest that "moderate" elements of a regime which in the past supported even some of the things the Taliban supported is unconscionable to me. These elements need to be exterminated, not bargained with.