Larenxis Takes You On: Canadian Military Presence In Afghanistan

[Larenxis]

This forum is home to many military men.
And me, a Canadian girl who also happens to be an anti-war activist.
Let the fun begin!

This is not a debate, but it's strongly encouraged to play fair. Anybody can post, but only if they've read everything. I'm really interested in everyone's views on this war, and any information (preferably with shown sources) will delight me (or enrage me, who knows?).

My current opinion, which is very flexible, as I'm still in a state of learning:
It is my understanding that a nation within NATO was attacked by an organization supported by an organization that was governing Afghanistan, and therefore Canada, as a member of NATO, must make sure that such an attack does not take place again. We want to feel safe, and through some form of twisted logic, we believe that war brings security. To quote Noam Chomsky, "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." I think it's outrageous to pretend that we are all divisible into two groups and that the only rest from battle comes with the complete annihilation of the designated opposition. I'm not sure that this is a belief of the Canadian government, but it's definitely in the mindset of all participating in this War on Terror. It is illogical to think that a purely military endeavor can solve all of our issues with Afghanistan, let alone build a peaceful and sustainable nation. No good can come if we continue with our current tactics, and what Canada is doing at this moment is wrong, according to my moral and logical judgments.

I also have a question for those who constantly repeat the phrase 'dying for our country' and it's derivatives. Where does this come from? Perhaps I'm not exposed to the same propaganda, or perhaps I'm the one being deceived, but in this particular war, how can anybody hold this sentiment? Do you truly believe that dying in a uniform with a gun in your hand (I repeat: in this particular war) does your country any good?

 

[shatnershaman]

I don't think many want to "die for your country" so much as "Get paid more than if I was at McDonalds".

 

[shatnershaman]

I'd only join the military if they had a 'by the kill' payment plan.

I don't like doing free wetwork.

You get a paycheck...

 

[Fire Daemon]

I'm guessing that by Organisation you mean al-Qaida and the nation you speak of is the United States of America.

Your correct in saying that war does not bring security but neither does peace. Before September 11 and the bombings of the Twin Towers America was at peace with Afghanistan and they generally ignored Al Qaida (oh sure, they would have had CIA operatives with their ears to the ground but they weren't bombing them). However after September 11 the USA launched Operation Enduring Freedom to destroy the terrorist training grounds.

America has a legitimate reason to be in Afghanistan. America was attacked and they responded to that attack (note that America is not at war with Afghanistan, they are at war with Al Qaida) by trying to destroy the attackers. Just like in WWII with that Japanese.

Just because this invasion is legitimate that does not make it good, I personally think the War on Terror is a bunch of bullocks and would rather it stop now then drag into a long war that revolves around Guerrilla Warfare, similar to the Vietnam.

The War in Terror is not pointless, it gives people a safe feeling and makes them feel like they are doing some good for the world but dying for these factors alone is pointless. People shouldn't have to die so that the people who witnessed 9/11 can sleep well. That is a cheap waste of life.

Generally my feeling on the war of Terror is that it is not a pointless war but it has a lot of pointless deaths.

I'm surprised you asked this question in regards to Afghanistan and not Iraq, surely more people have died in Iraq and the invasion of Iraq was (and still is) unjustified. Whatever.

 

[zari]

First of all, I'm Australian, and I also object to our participation in this conflict (both the reasons for it and the objectives).

We want to feel safe, and through some form of twisted logic, we believe that war brings security. To quote Noam Chomsky, "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."

I think that the 'turn the other cheek' philosophy is a little naive when not everyone plays by the same rules. I agree in principle that the key to not provoking more regional-religious terrorist attacks is to be less meddlesome in the affairs of other countries (although it is sometimes hard to consider onesself a humanitarian and still adopt a hands-off approach). However at some level there will always be people who disagree with your government, way of life and so on and choose to take violent action to oppose it. The provocation is that it exists, not that your society is imposing it on others.

It is illogical to think that a purely military endeavor can solve all of our issues with Afghanistan, let alone build a peaceful and sustainable nation.

As much as I hate playing apologist for the US, if Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter) were purely military endeavors, then the military would no longer be there years later. You can call it an exercise in promoting your own political ideology or profiteering (if you're more the cynical type), but there are longer term goals in play than simply killing everyone that opposes the US and its allies in this. Whether those goals are realistically achievable is another matter entirely.

That said, I think I need to go wash my hands :/

I'll ignore the 'dying for your country' bit. If anyone takes that literally then they're a bit silly unless it's in the context of reducing global population to make your region more environmentally sustainable.

 

[shatnershaman]

I'm surprised you asked this question in regards to Afghanistan and not Iraq, surely more people have died in Iraq and the invasion of Iraq was (and still is) unjustified. Whatever.

Because Canada isn't in Iraq(In significant numbers). This is about the Canadian presence in Afghanistan.

 

[Larenxis]

EDIT: Fixed to not include unnecessary quoting.

In response to Fire Daemon:
Peace does bring security. One can decipher from the attack that in fact, the US and Afghanistan were not at peace. If they were at peace, the attack wouldn't have occurred.

You say America is not at war with Afghanistan, they are at war with Al Qaida. That is incorrect. Also, I'm talking about Canada's involvement.

Do you feel safe? I don't. I'm afraid to go into the US because of the Military Commissions Act, something that came to be via the War on Terror.

How is it not a pointless war? How can war, whose purpose is to create fear, possibly be something to end 'terror'?

I'm surprised you asked this question in regards to Afghanistan and not Iraq, surely more people have died in Iraq and the invasion of Iraq was (and still is) unjustified. Whatever.

Iraq is a whole other slice of a whole other pie.

 

[Larenxis]

EDIT: I tried to make this so I didn't break up the quotes, but it just doesn't work. Sorry.

I think that the 'turn the other cheek' philosophy is a little naive when not everyone plays by the same rules.

Are you saying Jesus is naive? (I'm not attacking, just asking)

I agree in principle that the key to not provoking more regional-religious terrorist attacks is to be less meddlesome in the affairs of other countries (although it is sometimes hard to consider onesself a humanitarian and still adopt a hands-off approach). However at some level there will always be people who disagree with your government, way of life and so on and choose to take violent action to oppose it. The provocation is that it exists, not that your society is imposing it on others.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm actually a bit of a World Federalist (only a bit). I think it's more that terrorism is having a large and devastating effect on the world. Examples are loss of human rights, racism, and airport security.

As much as I hate playing apologist for the US, if Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter) were purely military endeavors, then the military would no longer be there years later. You can call it an exercise in promoting your own political ideology or profiteering (if you're more the cynical type), but there are longer term goals in play than simply killing everyone that opposes the US and its allies in this. Whether those goals are realistically achievable is another matter entirely.

I apologize for using the word 'purely'. I was more saying that no attempts at diplomacy or other discussions were being made.

 

[Fire Daemon]

Please don't break up posts, it is very annoying and I can't Quote them. Ok to reply:

America was at peace with Afghanistan in the sense they where not at war with each other. Just like before WWII Germany was at peace with Poland. By your logic it is impossible to invade a country because you are at peace with them, and hence war cannot exist. Contradiction much?

Al-Qaeda and Afghanistan are different. One is a terrorist organisation in Afghanistan and the other is a country. Canada is fighting Al-Qaeda not Afghanistan.

Do I feel safe, never. But I do feel safer that the United States government would not let the deaths of it's civilians by the hands of a foreign organisation be ignored, yes. That is the role of the War on terror. Let the people know that the Government is doing something about the threats to their lives.

Ok, lets get something straight. WAR'S PURPOSE IS NOT TO CREATE FEAR. That has to be one of the most stupid things I have ever heard. War's purpose is to kill, to gain land and resources and to remove threats to your nation! Fear is a byproduct of that! You have to be incredibly ignorant to think that people create war to scare people, people make ghost trains to scare, they make war for other reasons. Anyway, the War on Terror removes the fear of a terrorist attack on the people. Like I said before it makes the people feel safe and calm. That is why it is not pointless.

As for the Iraq Pie...your correct that they are different pies but in my opinion they have the same filling.

:EDIT: I don't know much about Canada's role and importance in Afghanistan but I'm guessing it is the same as America. That and they might be sucking up to a super power, it seems all First World nations apart from France are doing this.

 

[smallharmlesskitten]

can i just point out that, under the cover of darkness, engineers can sneak in and install radio guided machine gun turrets, mate them to Unmanned aerial reloaders, also unmanned and get a man to sit on a battleship and controll it from there.

the only reason any of these current wars america has started dont actually need to happen.

the main reason in my opinion is that the Bush administration (ding dong the ***** is dead) wanted to create jobs and reduce unemployment

 

[shatnershaman]

Might as well use the double post. George Bush is unable to speak good. Jean Chrietien Just can't speak.

 

[shatnershaman]

Why is the thread drifted to being about US and Iraq? Its suppose to be Canada and Afghanistan.

 

[Larenxis]

EDIT: Realized it's against the rules to break up quotes, so I'll cut down.

In response to Fire Daemon:
Our concepts of 'peace' are very different. In my opinion, Germany was not at peace with Poland before WWII. Germany was not at peace with anybody who wasn't bending to their will.
Obviously, our definitions are nowhere near identical.

No, we are also fighting the Taliban, as well as serving as a vigilante police force.

A life for a life is a disgusting way to find satisfaction, and the War on Terror's death toll has exceeded that of 9/11.

I find this amusing. How does one gain land, resources, and security through war? Two ways. The first: Killing everyone (which I don't believe has ever happened). The second: Threatening to kill everyone. It is the fear in your enemies that leads them to surrender.

Anyway, the War on Terror removes the fear of a terrorist attack on the people. Like I said before it makes the people feel safe and calm. That is why it is not pointless.

Also, these sentences I quoted are utter falsity in my eyes, please convince me otherwise.

 

[Larenxis]

Might as well use the double post. George Bush is unable to speak good. Jean Chrietien Just can't speak.

Um, he's not Prime Minister anymore, why are you bringing him up?

can i just point out that, under the cover of darkness, engineers can sneak in and install radio guided machine gun turrets, mate them to Unmanned aerial reloaders, also unmanned and get a man to sit on a battleship and controll it from there.

the only reason any of these current wars america has started dont actually need to happen.

the main reason in my opinion is that the Bush administration (ding dong the ***** is dead) wanted to create jobs and reduce unemployment

You honestly think a machine gun can- I don't think you- I can't even respond to this!

 

[zari]

Cool. Do you go to protests?

Uh, I live in a smallish country town, protests around here tend to be in the form of complaining to friends down at the pub Regardless I wouldn't consider myself an activist beyond participation in the democratic process. I'm a bit of a cynic when it comes to the effectiveness of political protest that doesn't have teeth (as blunt as the threat of not being returned to office is).

Are you saying Jesus is naive? (I'm not attacking, just asking)

I don't have enough faith in human nature to believe otherwise. I'd prefer not to get sidetracked in a debate about religious beliefs however, I just used the term since it seemed to fit with the Chomsky quote as I interpreted it.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm actually a bit of a World Federalist (only a bit). I think it's more that terrorism is having a large and devastating effect on the world. Examples are loss of human rights, racism, and airport security.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your original meaning.

Frankly this is a really tricky issue. On one end is a policy that doesn't involve direct retribution as a reaction to terrorism, namely increased 'security' at the expense of civil liberties and with the huge potential for abuse, and at the other end is the potential for further attacks and the perception by the populace that nothing is being done. It is difficult to see much in the way of middle ground that is effective one way or another, especially in the short term (ie decade or so).

Edit: The above paragraph is based on the current state of world politics whereby there are varying degrees of cooperation between regimes, and a lack of an effective world court.

I think that once things get to this state, there is no short term solution which will really be the right choice, just varying severities of wrong choices.

Racism is a different kettle of fish. Government policy (and mainstream media) may encourage it, but it is not a direct result, unlike the loss of civil liberties and basic human rights.

(It could be argued that Bush and co are also World Federalists, in a manner of speaking - just a little joke)

I apologize for using the word 'purely'. I was more saying that no attempts at diplomacy or other discussions were being made.

From my rather hazy recollection I think there were diplomatic attempts made, however I doubt they were very genuine (ie they were made with the expectation that they would fail and thus lead to a military solution).

 

[smallharmlesskitten]

Might as well use the double post. George Bush is unable to speak good. Jean Chrietien Just can't speak.

Um, he's not Prime Minister anymore, why are you bringing him up?

can i just point out that, under the cover of darkness, engineers can sneak in and install radio guided machine gun turrets, mate them to Unmanned aerial reloaders, also unmanned and get a man to sit on a battleship and controll it from there.

any of these current wars america has started dont actually need to happen.

the main reason in my opinion is that the Bush administration (ding dong the ***** is dead) wanted to create jobs and reduce unemployment

You honestly think a machine gun can- I don't think you- I can't even respond to this!

reply to the bit down the bottom then about what i think if you want to reply to something

 

[Larenxis]

From my rather hazy recollection I think there were diplomatic attempts made, however I doubt they were very genuine (ie they were made with the expectation that they would fail and thus lead to a military solution).

I believe they consider having discussions with the Taliban as being 'negotiating with terrorists'.

:EDIT: I don't know much about Canada's role and importance in Afghanistan but I'm guessing it is the same as America. That and they might be sucking up to a super power, it seems all First World nations apart from France are doing this.

Ooh, I'd love to have discussion about this. And since it's my thread, I can go off-topic (muah-ha-ha). Harper is sucking up to the US, because he's that kind of guy (by US, I obviously mean their administration, who no longer represents the majority), but most countries realize the US will not be the world's superpower much longer. America got to the top by making stuff, which they no longer do, resulting in a plummeting dollar (which is tied into Iraq in the most interesting ways).

 

[Fire Daemon]

Yes our definitions of Peace are very different and I think that changes our opinions on this topic greatly.

Yes we are fighting the Taliban, that lost control of Afghanistan in 2001 and is currently opposed to the Afghanistan Government.

I don't find satisfaction in The War of Terror, in fact I feel the opposite but I would rather be apart of a country that responds to an attack on it's people with further violence then a country that ignore the attacks. If the USA, Canada and many other countries did not invade Afghanistan then there may have been more attacks (maybe not but I don't like to take risks) and that would result in more deaths.

You could say Fear is a tool in war, but that is not wars purpose. You said so yourself, scaring the enemy helps achieve victory, is victory not therefore the purpose of war and fear an instrument to gain that? I don't think people go to war for the sole purpose of scaring the enemy.

As to the Last 3 sentences...*sigh*

Look, 9/11 scared the fuck out of people. They had been bombed by an enemy they knew nothing about, they where at risk of being attacked again, the people had no idea how or why they would be attacked and hence killed. The Government responded to this by saying "don't worry, we will remove this vile and dirty threat and you shall be safe" and the people where happy.

The war in Afghanistan gave people that sense of security, that is its point, that is why there are still combats between Canadians,Americans Australians etc occurring. To make people feel safe. There are other reasons for other countries, such as gaining popularity with other countries but I don't feel up to listing them all.

And I still stand by the my statement "you have to be incredibly ignorant to think that people create war to scare people, people make ghost trains to scare, they make war for other reasons." Like I said before, fear is used to win a war but that don't make war to scare other people. War is about other things then scaring the beejevus out of other people,

*examples*If Hitler wanted to scare the world he would have dressed up as a ghost, if he wanted to control it he would have invaded his enemies. If France wanted to scare England during the Napoleonic wars then they would have run up an said "boo", if they wanted to control England then they would have tried to conquer it.

I'm not going to spend all day arguing about the point of war, I was just giving you my opinions on the matter and now it has gone horribly off topic.