Larenxis Takes You On: Canadian Military Presence In Afghanistan

[cleverlymadeup]

Personally, I want our Canadian military to come home.

My reasons: The past has contained "False Flag" operations before, so its not unreasonable to suspect the as yet poorly investigated events of 9/11 that for all intents and purposes bore a lot of striking familiarity to a demolition, which is something that came to mind as I watched that fateful day back in 2001. By extension, if I have reason to doubt the original premise of a unconventional attack by a foreign organization, I can not voice support for military action that occupies another country's recognized territory.

you know there's so much wrong with that, i don't even know where to begin. i would suggest you read a book by popular mechanics, who are actually credible compared to the truthers out there.

and as for unconventional attack. you do know that osama tried to take the towers down before right? cept he blew out the parking garage, with the structural damage caused by that, the other explosions from the planes caused the buildings to collapse.

i could go on and on about this, simply watching real demolitions and how the wtc buildings fell should be enough to actually know they are 2 totally different things.

the reason for canada going into afghanistan was very justifiable, the reason for them staying there and trying to help is noble, we aren't hostilely occupying them, we are there to make sure things don't get worse than they are

 

[bluemarsman]

does canada have any military presence in iraq?

 

[TrevorOfCrete]

Argumants like this can go one without ever getting anywhere.

Lets put this black and white. I have friends who are currnently serving and who are going to serve in Afganistan and Iraq. They have my full support in what they are doing and i will always back my friends no matter of my political views.

To people like HalfShadow war may be shits and giggles. Perhaps this is what computer games have done to the modern generation, or more likely perhaps it is just boistrous ignorance. War is not nice, was is not fun and games, and suggestion of being payed 'by the kill' is a true insult to the work of Soldiers from all nations. Soldiering is not about killing, for example what the fuck kind of question is asking somone 'how many people did you kill?'. That is not why people serve in the armed forces, and killing people is not fun, its not clever but it is regretable and part of the job of thousands of men and women.

It takes somone who has served with the military or lived alongside it to fully appreciate what Soldiery actually is, for the rest it is somthing Computer games and Hollywood movies make them think they understand, encouriging comments suggesting piece rate 'per kill' would be a more appropriate way of pay. It is extremely easy for somone to say somthing like that without having experianced the realisation that people are trying to kill you, this is not a game it is very real and no matter who you are, what you believe or what you have done in life makes no difference to those people. All blended the intence mental and pysical strains of extreme tension, stress and immence comradeship. Imagine your class at school, now imagine every month loosing one of those faces. That is the true magnitude of what a Soldier has to cope with.

This is also why i will always ignore the 'false flag' bullshit of conspiracy theorists. Also known as kids with 5 boxsets of x-files and too much time on there hands, these people discredit the actions of the people who stand up and make a sacrifice, put somthing on the line for there beliefs. There views built of years of dedicated service and actual experiance discounted for internet rumours of pathetic people hiding behind a forum name.

Goverments are full of crap, in Britain it happens to be an oligarchy of public school boys. Goverments of many nations are responcable for some of the shitist behavior from mastermining rigged elections and coup's, but this will never, never alter my unfliching support for my nations armed forces personnel.

 

[CanadianWolverine]

you know there's so much wrong with that, i don't even know where to begin. i would suggest you read a book by popular mechanics, who are actually credible compared to the truthers out there.

and as for unconventional attack. you do know that osama tried to take the towers down before right? cept he blew out the parking garage, with the structural damage caused by that, the other explosions from the planes caused the buildings to collapse.

i could go on and on about this, simply watching real demolitions and how the wtc buildings fell should be enough to actually know they are 2 totally different things.

the reason for canada going into afghanistan was very justifiable, the reason for them staying there and trying to help is noble, we aren't hostilely occupying them, we are there to make sure things don't get worse than they are

Well, its fine by me if the events of that day are clear to you and TomNook, I'm just saying the guilt being laid at Afghanistan's door was not beyond a shadow of a doubt for myself, the evidence just doesn't seem to stack up and the 9/11 commission has had its own issues that have yet to be satisfactorily addressed, so hopefully you'll excuse me if I think the rush to war was well, rushed. Its ok by me if you doubt that possibility, as long as you let me have my own doubts. I would gladly be proven wrong.

Honestly, if the evidence from that was presented from that days events was anything to go by, why not lay waste to where many of the accused came from, Saudia Arabia? Instead, it was used to go after Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now there seems to be a push to put Iran in the cross hairs. Hopefully you will allow that if someone found the evidence as presented from 9/11 to have some unanswered questions about it, they might be hesitant to march to war on that evidence. That is the picture that is bugging me about it, not some conspiracy theory, just that we might rush to war before a full and complete public investigation took place. Doesn't that send a shiver down your spine, the idea that you could rush to judgement and then kill people for that rush to judgement? I know it does mine.

I mean, if someone told me tomorrow that some disaster was the US's fault, you'd want me to have doubts unless I was presented with evidence that couldn't have any remaining unanswered questions or would it be fine to accept another's conclusion and start fighting? I hope that makes sense.

 

[Evilbunny]

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.

Your definition of peace is confusing the hell out of me. You see, I believe that two nations are at peace as long as one country has not declared war on the other. You clearly have another definition. From what I can gather, you seem to believe that a country cannot be at peace with another as long as one has any reason at all to attack the other. This can't be correct since every country could probably think of a reason for invading another country, they just don't do it.

So please, enlighten me, what is your definition of peace? If possible, include in your answer an example of two countries that are at peace.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Well, its fine by me if the events of that day are clear to you and TomNook, I'm just saying the guilt being laid at Afghanistan's door was not beyond a shadow of a doubt for myself, the evidence just doesn't seem to stack up and the 9/11 commission has had its own issues that have yet to be satisfactorily addressed, so hopefully you'll excuse me if I think the rush to war was well, rushed. Its ok by me if you doubt that possibility, as long as you let me have my own doubts. I would gladly be proven wrong.

ok they went after afghanistan because that's where osama was known to be, the last time they tried to get him, he was in afghanistan. they didn't order the strike because he was with the leader of a friendly nation at the time

so yes there was good evidence for them to go there and try to hunt for him, they also had a lot of good intelligence on his wheare abouts

Chomsky has publicly stated that he doesn't think 9/11 was pulled by the US government. The man is one of the great political thinkers, and you do him a disservice by wrongly labelling him.

actually he has done a lot of work with alex jones, so he's done it himself

 

[TomWest]

First, I'd like to thank WerePossum for his lengthy but highly informative post.

Second, I'd like to point out to Axeli that bin Laden's attack on the USA was not justified (by him) by American involvement with Israel. If you read any of his writings until very recently, he was really only concerned about American troops in the holy land. Given that Al-Qaeda's main objective is the re-establishment of the Caliphate, it's no wonder that he's far more concerned about Saudi Arabia being propped up than by Israel's existence. You may have noticed that the Saudi Arabian forces have been involved in numerous deadly gunfights with Al-Qaeda. (For the longest time, he really seemed to ignore the fact that invoking anti-Israel sentiment is pretty much a gimme in the Middle East - just another indication that ideology triumphed good strategy in this conflict.)

Lastly, I want to refine another point that a previous poster mentioned. If NATO forces withdraw and the Taliban come back to power, the USA simply cannot afford to ignore it. The last time they tried to, it cost $50 billion dollars and 3,000 lives. This means ensuring that the Taliban is not able to offer even the minimal assistance to Al-Qaeda that it offered before. Does anyone here think that can be done without costing, say, half a million Afghan lives, because I can't see how. (If you destroy all the infrastructure to prevent its use by the government, you can be certain the people suffer horrendously.)

So, as a Canadian, I support the Canadian mission because I am willing to see Canadian lives put at risk to preserve hundreds of thousands of Afghan lives.

 

[51gunner]

does canada have any military presence in iraq?

No.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

ok they went after afghanistan because that's where osama was known to be, the last time they tried to get him, he was in afghanistan. they didn't order the strike because he was with the leader of a friendly nation at the time

so yes there was good evidence for them to go there and try to hunt for him, they also had a lot of good intelligence on his wheare abouts

And yet he still remains at large...

yes but needles can be hard to find in haystacks, the last time they knew his actual whereabouts was during the clinton administration. almost got him then but didn't cause of who was with him

Yep, because the fact that he appeared on Jones' radio show means he simply must believe everything that Jones believes.

yeah and alex jones could run his methane plant from the stuff that comes out of his mouth. i get a paragraph into reading any of his stuff before i have to go do something else cause it's so wrong

one of the "experts" he got to explain how the towers were an inside job was an expert on cold fusion. he claimed telus was owned by verizon, a simple google would tell you how wrong that is.

 

[x434343]

Guys, you guys think that the only pullout that'll work is under a new president.

Currently:
1. Bush said we would pull out when Iraq was ready.
2. As of late April, Iraq has stated they were ready.
3. The last of the surge troops will be out in July of this year, 2008.
4. 45 days will be deliberated to determine if, when, and how we will pull out.
5 If, 45 days after the last surge troop is out, all are decided to pull out, we might end up with no war for the new president to inherit in January of 2009.

So, Iraq gets a free republic where women can vote, we are back at home, and idiots who have fought over the war in Iraq for presidency are gonna be embarassed.

Gonna go ahead and quote post this, because you guys ignored it the first time.

 

[werepossum]

Personally, I want our Canadian military to come home.

My reasons: The past has contained "False Flag" operations before, so its not unreasonable to suspect the as yet poorly investigated events of 9/11 that for all intents and purposes bore a lot of striking familiarity to a demolition, which is something that came to mind as I watched that fateful day back in 2001. By extension, if I have reason to doubt the original premise of a unconventional attack by a foreign organization, I can not voice support for military action that occupies another country's recognized territory.

you know there's so much wrong with that, i don't even know where to begin. i would suggest you read a book by popular mechanics, who are actually credible compared to the truthers out there.

and as for unconventional attack. you do know that osama tried to take the towers down before right? cept he blew out the parking garage, with the structural damage caused by that, the other explosions from the planes caused the buildings to collapse.

i could go on and on about this, simply watching real demolitions and how the wtc buildings fell should be enough to actually know they are 2 totally different things.

the reason for canada going into afghanistan was very justifiable, the reason for them staying there and trying to help is noble, we aren't hostilely occupying them, we are there to make sure things don't get worse than they are

Very well put. We say Osama bin Laden did it, Osama bin Laden tried to do it before, Osama bin Laden says Osama bin Laden did it, and yet some people insist on believing George Bush somehow sneaked into the Twin Towers building with 20,000 people inside and prepared it for demolition without anyone knowing, evidently suborned hundreds of eye witnesses into saying two planes hit the towers (not to mention faking dozens of videos), and hid away four planeloads of people. I find that beyond belief.

When we took away the Taliban (NOT a US creation except that some of the mujahideen in Afghanistan were trained and armed by the CIA to assist them in their fight for freedom), we had to establish some sort of government in their place. There were no opposition parties in Afghanistan, only groups fighting the Taliban for their own reasons. We (the USA and NATO, including Canada) gave them a choice: we'll assist you in your battle against the Taliban if you'll establish a free democracy. It's not our kind of democracy, but it's the democracy the Afghan people want. Failure to assist them as they start up their new society would have meant well-heeled evil people (e.g. Osama bin Laden, Iran) might have been able to pour foreign fighters and money into Afghanistan and take it over to establish a new terrorist-friendly nation to replace the one we helped destroy. At best it would have meant years more of fighting, and the Northern Alliance on its own was only marginally more friendly to women and the West than was the Taliban. This way we're not only helping Afghanistan develop embrace freedom and the rule of law rather than rule by clerics and warlords, we're also helping Islam to reform itself, at least in that area.

EDIT: X434343 - I did read your post. I didn't respond because I didn't have anything to add, and I don't know if it's possible to pull our troops out that quickly. Certainly they'll be drawn down - the major offensives in recent months have been by Iraqi troops with US fire support, and violence is way down - but I expect the terrorists to make a push to raise casualties around September or October to make the war more of an issue. Certainly the Iraqis don't want us around any longer than the think they need us; no nation wants to think it can't defend itself.

 

[Larenxis]

Oi! Stop talkin' about 9/11 being fake or real. Save it for another thread. I get that it can factor into this, but I'd prefer to not relive Zeitgeist.
Narrator: And the fish symbolizes the age of pisces and-
Me: Those morons! They don't even mention the greek word for fish being an acronym! What the hell?
Gullible Friend: Shh, it has good points.
Me: No it doesn't!

Ahem, sorry. To respond to werepossom's claims that Iran would 'start up their new society', may I ask why a Shi'a country would rule over a mostly Sunni country?

 

[werepossum]

Iraq also gets a shattered economy, ruined cities and hundreds of thousands of its citizens dead. That part sure doesn't sound so peachy...

But that's the great thing about having your ass kicked by the USA - afterward you get a Marshall Plan to rebuild your country and your society.

 

[Nugoo]

as for the anti-war sentiments, well they are rather misguided. canada is not there as a occupying force, they are there for peace keeping and to help maintain some order until the government/people can get a better control over the country

No, see that's the problem. We aren't there as peacekeepers, we're there in a combat capacity.

and as for unconventional attack. you do know that osama tried to take the towers down before right? cept he blew out the parking garage, with the structural damage caused by that, the other explosions from the planes caused the buildings to collapse.

That was in 1993. I don't think it took eight years to fix.

 

[werepossum]

Ahem, sorry. To respond to werepossom's claims that Iran would 'start up their new society', may I ask why a Shi'a country would rule over a mostly Sunni country?

Iraq is roughly 2/3 Shi'a, 1/3 Sunni.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html

Beyond that, Iran would love to dominate any country in the Middle East. It assists Syria financially in supporting the hardline terrorist factions in Lebanon - and Syria is a Sunni country.