Larenxis Takes You On: Canadian Military Presence In Afghanistan

[werepossum]

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.

Peacekeepers imply someone who wishes to break the peace. If that someone is willing to fight the peacekeepers, they have three choices.
(1) Become a combat force and remove those who are breaking the peace.
(2) Become a bunch of passive targets.
(3) Declare peace isn't worth keeping and run.

Duh.

(Sorry for stealing your moron, cleverly.)

 

[Larenxis]

You linked me to Iraq there buddy. But according to the same site, Iran has Shi'a 89%, and Sunni 9%.

 

[werepossum]

You linked me to Iraq there buddy. But according to the same site, Iran has Shi'a 89%, and Sunni 9%.

Sorry, I've seen so many "why would Iran want to rule Iraq?" questions lately that I just assumed yours was the same. To answer your question then, I can think of three reasons right off the bat. First, the same reason that Iran wants to destroy Israel and convert Lebanon into a theocracy. The ruling clerics of Iran want to establish an Islamic Caliphate, first across the Middle East, then across the world. Read about the Mahdi - the 12th Imam, who supposedly descended down into a well and disappeared - and what will bring him back, and what he is expected to do, in Iranian Shi'a dogma.

Second, Afghanistan borders Iran. A free, democratic, and Western-leaning Afghanistan threatens Iran in at least two ways. Afghanistan could serve, willingly or not, as a base for anti-government guerrilla fighters raiding into Iran, smuggling weapons to dissidents inside Iran, smuggling wanted dissidents out of Iran... In short, all the things one nation does to an unfriendly neighbor. A free Afghanistan next door to oppressive Iran also emboldens Iranian dissidents. "If they can have freedom why can't we?"

Third, Iran hates the West, especially the USA. The roadside bombs that can take out Strykers and even Abrams tanks are not made in some disgruntled Iraqi's garage; they are advanced, precisely machined shaped charge mines, many remotely triggered, designed to take out modern tanks and IFVs. Iran is furnishing those for a reason, and that reason is to stop democratization of Islamic countries. It's a cause about which Iran feels strongly enough to risk war with the West.

Is that a little more pertinent?

EDIT: The Mahdi disappeared as a child; the well was seventy years later.
EDIT 2: Translated from the IRIB's website in 2006:

"The Mahdi's far sightedness and firmness in the face of mischievous elements will strike awe. After his uprising from Mecca all of Arabia will be submit to him and then other parts of the world as he marches upon Iraq and established his seat of global government in the city of Kufa.

Then the Imam will send 10 thousand of his forces to the east and west to uproot the oppressors. At this time God will facilitate things for him and lands will come under his control one after the other."

Jesus will be his lieutenant, by the way. Seriously.

EDIT 3: (sigh) Forgot to add the Mahdi was to appear in spring 2007 to establish his global Islamic government. I don't recall hearing about it; evidently the liberal media refused to cover it. lol

 

[cleverlymadeup]

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.

well they can fix some things however with large scale explosions they can't fix everything 100%. also with other evidence of bad construction and repair job around the states it's kinda hard to believe they fixed it 100%, they did do as best they could job, well hopefully they did.

explosions are strange things, they do damage that isn't always apparent, especially large scale ones such as the one in 93 and the one in 2001, hence why they had to study several of the buildings and also demolition them as a result of the 2 towers collapsing.

and as for afghanistan, we aren't there in a combat roll, although yes they do engage the enemy from time to time, it's mostly in defense with the occasional offensive move when they are hunting down pockets of resistance.

the last country canada entered in a hostile manner was iraq during the first gulf war, we didn't go the second time because there wasn't the proof there. before that i think it was possibly the falklands if not then it was korea.

 

[PurpleRain]

Only one correct answer, to slowly and quietly exterminate them...

Slip pills in their drinks.

 

[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.

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

Have you personally been to Iraq and seen this? The media IS capable of lying, you know.

 

[raemiel]

So you seriously think that Iraq hasn't had cities ruined, an economy destroyed and thousands of citizens dead?

Why on earth would the media be lying through saying that? If anything the media would lie and portray a rosy view on Iraq.

There is also the fact that there are many more sources of what's going on in Iraq then the media.

 

[Larenxis]

In response to x434343, even if there is a tremendous media conspiracy, how can you account for all the amateur video footage and blogs by independent journalists and citizens?

 

[Rolling Thunder]

*Sigh*

As the ONLY impartial voice (so it seems) on this forum, I shall endeavour to assist all of us in understanding the situation:

1. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified by the fact the Taliban=the Afghani goverment of the time. And the Taliban= Al-Quaeda supporters, as far as can be ascertained by everyone from Al-Jazeera to the BBC (one is a source partially biased towards the Taliban, one is neutral). The occupation has been, at times, a problem- some people are naturally angry at a foriegn prescence in their country. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Bin Laden was inside Afghanistan, and thus sheltering him was tantamount to an act of war.

2. The Iraqi invasion was completely unjustified and, to be quite frank, bloody stupid. Saddam had been one of Bin-Laden's most hated enemies as far as internal politics in the Mid. East, and his removal dealt a serious blow to the coalition's credibility (despite him being a warmongering despot) and has, in essence, bankrupted the war effort in a pointless, bloody quagmire from which nobody excepting Bin Laden is benifiting. We have succeded, by the invasion of Iraq, in transfroming several million neutral Iraqis into Al-Quaeda sympathisers. Bravo, Senor Bush. Bra-fucking-vo.

3. Anyone seriously proposing an invasion of Iran is bloody insane. America CREATED the whole bloody mess there by deposing the Shah- so they should leave it alone. Leave it alone. The Iranian goverment is making, like the Shah before them, a good, steady progress towards democratic liberalisation. IF ANY of you suggest that America involve itself there- you lose all your intelligence points. ALL OF THEM. and that is the cause of most of the problems of the united states- THE INABILITY TO STOP MEDDLING IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

4. Israel is dangerous, unstable nation propped up with American guns and money. It's conduct would have destroyed any other nation long ago- yet it persists in treating the Arabs like shit, and they return the favour.

That is impartial. Beleive me- just because you disagree with me, dosen't make me wrong.

 

[zari]

Third, Iran hates the West, especially the USA. The roadside bombs that can take out Strykers and even Abrams tanks are not made in some disgruntled Iraqi's garage; they are advanced, precisely machined shaped charge mines, many remotely triggered, designed to take out modern tanks and IFVs. Iran is furnishing those for a reason, and that reason is to stop democratization of Islamic countries. It's a cause about which Iran feels strongly enough to risk war with the West.

Your argument is a little flawed here - stating something without substantiating it doesn't make it so (just like your 'most warlike nation' assertions in your first post). You talk about disgruntled Iraqi's garages as if to imply (using nothing but your statement as basis) that that's the only option for creating IEDs and to further imply that this makes them primitive. You then use this as a basis for blaming Iran (as a nation, rather than Iranians).

I went and did a bit of reading and found a report to Congress on the IED issue [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22330.pdf] (production, source and countermeasures), which among other things provided arguments for and against Iran backing Iraqi insurgents. It mentions one source of munitions to be materials stockpiled before the war, as well as evidence of specialised bomb-making terrorist cells being involved. While there are obvious limits to what you can make in the field, the idea that an expensive tank (and whatever you call the new 'not quite tanks' - military scholar I am not can't be blown up by something that isn't proportionately expensive is a bit fanciful.

(I like this thread, it makes me go learn new things.)

Edit: I'd also like to have a bit of a giggle at Fondant's mention of the media and the word 'neutral' in the same sentence You can't escape bias.

 

[Drong]

ok sorry to hijack the thread a little here but in response to the deaths of september 11 there was 2,998 (excluding the 19 hijackers)

since then the war on terror has killed 4101 American troops and injured a further 30333 however Iraqi civilian deaths number between 733,158 to 1,446,063
Afgani civilian deaths measure another 20,000 to 49,600

on top of this there have been an estimated 20,000 Afgani insurgent deaths, 3,225 Pakistani insurgent deaths, 17,642 - 23,471 Iraqi Insurgents, 7,600-10,800 Saddam Hussein-era Iraqi Army

thats a total of 7099 american deaths both military and civilian and a couple from other nations on both sides but when you look at it in total it's something like 20 - 1 as a ratio compared to the 10-1 americans were threatening so congratulations in terms of wholesale murder we in the western world have really outdone ourselves

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Have you personally been to Iraq and seen this? The media IS capable of lying, you know.

Have you personally been and seen that it isn't so? The US Government IS capable of lying as well.

<--- HAS personally been to Iraq/Kuwait, hence doesn't really want to talk about it.

As the ONLY impartial voice (so it seems) on this forum, I shall endeavour to assist all of us in understanding the situation:

Fondant, you may be knowledgeable on a great many things, but Impartial you ain't.

 

[Oh-Wiseone]

The purely military operations in Afghanistan are almost completely limited the the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. However the presence of military forces throughout the entire country remains. Why? Simply put we(NATO) went into Afghanistan to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, his orginization, and supporters, but we have also seen the causes of people like Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. After the Soviet-Afghanistan war the entire country was left in ruin, the population was uneducated and half the people were under the age of 14. This extreme poverty and uneducation led to radicalism that manifested itself in people like Bin Laden and terrorism like 9/11. For example Europeans are generally not militeristic today because they live good lives, have a high standard of living and are educated. They have too much to lose from conflict. If you want someone to be a suicide bomber would you pick an older college educated person with a successful life, perhaps family and a good job? or a kid with no education, can't even write, and is heavily manipulateable. The choice is obvious and the situation in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion was perfect to create the right kind of person to be a terrorist.
Therefore while NATO could have entered Afghanistan, kicked down every door, dropped bombs everywhere, killed a ton of people and destroyed what little inferstructure that country it may have helped us in the short run in destroying Al Qaeda and the Taliban, it would have created a situation perfect for creating future hostiles agianst the west.
Therefore if a soldier dies in pursuit of ending this situation that creates terrorists, by improving education and the general standard of living he has died for a good cause and for his country's security by removing a potential "terrorist-creating" situation.

Edit: To Fondant: The USA didn't remove the Shah of Iran from power or aid in his removal in anyway. The Islamic Revolution of 1979 resulted in his removal, the same revolution that placed the current government in power which is headed by the Ayatollah, certainly not friends of ours. It was in fact the Shah who was a friend to the west and was very disliked for it.

 

[Nugoo]

Peacekeepers imply someone who wishes to break the peace. If that someone is willing to fight the peacekeepers, they have three choices.
(1) Become a combat force and remove those who are breaking the peace.
(2) Become a bunch of passive targets.
(3) Declare peace isn't worth keeping and run.

Duh.

(Sorry for stealing your moron, cleverly.)

What?

Maybe it's because I'm a 'moron', but I don't know what you're trying to say. What I'm getting from your post is that either you think peacekeepers try to break peace, or that peacekeepers cause conflict because of people who don't want them there. In either case, you should probably read this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeper].

Peacekeeper (or PeaceKeeper, Peace Keeper or Peace-Keeper) has many meanings: Generally - Peacekeepers, although soldiers, are different from a traditional military force, in that peacekeepers, use minimal force, distribute humanitarian aid, and on rare occasions take offensive action.

Peacekeepers are generally viewed as an outside impartial third party force, who has no stake in the conflict, except in maintaining peace.

This does not apply to Canadian operations in Afghanistan.

 

[poleboy]

Fondant: While I hardly consider your statements impartial, I agree with most of them. But as has been mentioned before, I'm pretty sure the US government had nothing to do with deposing the Shah, since he was exiled by Islamic revolutionaries who considered him an oppressor backed by the West.

 

[werepossum]

Peacekeepers imply someone who wishes to break the peace. If that someone is willing to fight the peacekeepers, they have three choices.
(1) Become a combat force and remove those who are breaking the peace.
(2) Become a bunch of passive targets.
(3) Declare peace isn't worth keeping and run.

Duh.

(Sorry for stealing your moron, cleverly.)

What?

Maybe it's because I'm a 'moron', but I don't know what you're trying to say. What I'm getting from your post is that either you think peacekeepers try to break peace, or that peacekeepers cause conflict because of people who don't want them there. In either case, you should probably read this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeper].

Peacekeeper (or PeaceKeeper, Peace Keeper or Peace-Keeper) has many meanings: Generally - Peacekeepers, although soldiers, are different from a traditional military force, in that peacekeepers, use minimal force, distribute humanitarian aid, and on rare occasions take offensive action.

Peacekeepers are generally viewed as an outside impartial third party force, who has no stake in the conflict, except in maintaining peace.

This does not apply to Canadian operations in Afghanistan.

Perhaps you prefer the more traditional UN "Peacekeeping" mission where lightly armed UN forces huddle in compounds whilst genocide takes place around them. That might be the wikipedia definition of peacekeeping, but it sure as hell ain't mine! What NATO (including Canada) is doing now is my definition of peacekeeping - disarming the various tribes, warlords, and factions of their heavy weapons (armor, crew-served or anti-armor weapons), patrolling the countryside and engaging armed bands of men who aim to topple the democratically elected government and re-install the Taliban's theocratic tyranny.

Here is a synopsis of the original NATO mission in Afghanistan.
http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/050816-factsheet.htm

Here is a BBC report on a typical UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/714025.stm

Please explain to me how the former is worse than the latter.

And I apologize for calling you a moron. The idea that Peacekeepers should not actually engage the bad guys, but should be some sort of neutral, impotent human shields, really gets on my last nerve. But it was wrong of me to attack you for holding that view, as you are entitled to your own opinion.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Peacekeeper (or PeaceKeeper, Peace Keeper or Peace-Keeper) has many meanings: Generally - Peacekeepers, although soldiers, are different from a traditional military force, in that peacekeepers, use minimal force, distribute humanitarian aid, and on rare occasions take offensive action.

Peacekeepers are generally viewed as an outside impartial third party force, who has no stake in the conflict, except in maintaining peace.

This does not apply to Canadian operations in Afghanistan.

actually it does, sure they have to go after the taliban but most of the time they are there trying to keep the violence to a minimum and clean up a lot of stuff there

canada certainly isn't there as an occupying force