Layton/NDP wants Canada to pull out of Afghanistan

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by White Doors

How clever. So you admit that you were wrong about the diplomacy then I assume? Excellent.

You'll have to show me where I 'admitted' anything. In your fantasy world you seem to think that the Taliban will be wiped from the face of the earth and peace will reign. Not going to happen. Like it or not, everyone involved in the conflict will have to be involved in any solution to the anarchy.

Originally Posted by White Doors

The withdrawal plan? They stay until the democratic government of Afghanistan says that they are no longer needed. Kind of obvious isn't it?
Well, maybe not for you?

That's the best you can come up with? No link? No source? Pitiful but not unexpected considering your history.

I guess you're saying Canadian troops will never leave because I don't see Afghanistan turning things around in my lifetime.

You've got to do better than that young fella.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

The withdrawal plan? They stay until the democratic government of Afghanistan says that they are no longer needed. Kind of obvious isn't it?
Well, maybe not for you?

Why do I see this as another version of the never ending story. I don't want to see us bogged down in another Viet Nam scenerio. We need to do better than that. We have to approach this as a war that we can win in the near future and have a plan to do this.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Well, fair enough, but I didn't get that from his post. I'll let him clarify himself. I do believe that the civilized world is facing a different, albeit just as dangerous, threat as last faced in WW2 - which was my point.

Just to clarify, equally dangerous in what way? Do you think that the current conflict in the middle east could reach a similar death toll (62 million), or that it will result in the use of nucleur weapons, or that the theatre of combat will be as global? Or equally dangerous in a different way? Not saying your wrong here.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Why do I see this as another version of the never ending story. I don't want to see us bogged down in another Viet Nam scenerio. We need to do better than that. We have to approach this as a war that we can win in the near future and have a plan to do this.

Can you really see a different solution? All in all, the perfect time to exit would be when Afghanistan has a country, both militarily and economically capable.

Plus the political side of course.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Can you really see a different solution? All in all, the perfect time to exit would be when Afghanistan has a country, both militarily and economically capable.

Plus the political side of course.

Sure there is a different solution. Send in a huge allied force and wipe them out. Secure the border so the Taliban don't have a continuing cause. This slow ongoing war will become sickening to western voters and we could end up losing our resolve.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Sure there is a different solution. Send in a huge allied force and wipe them out. Secure the border so the Taliban don't have a continuing cause. This slow ongoing war will become sickening to western voters and we could end up losing our resolve.

To do that, and to secure the board with pakistan your going to need between 150,000 to 250,000 troops, heavy air support on call, heavy artillary support. Probably up to 5 armored divisions, and an equal number of light mechanized infantry formations. Plus the logistics to support these men.

Its an impossible task if your in a rush to do it. The current way of doing it is probably the smartest way to do it if you can santitize the areas that your taking and secure those.

Just my 2 cents

[Vulcan]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, CaptainC but aren't most of the Taliban part of the general population. If this is right then how can you sanitize the areas? They'll just blend into the population and pop back up after you've moved on. The only way to keep control of these areas is to have large amounts of troops with military rule. Democracy is just a feel good ruse.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Sure there is a different solution. Send in a huge allied force and wipe them out. Secure the border so the Taliban don't have a continuing cause. This slow ongoing war will become sickening to western voters and we could end up losing our resolve.

Yet you must still establish the Afghani government.

I agree though, the Allied force is playing politics.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Correct me if I'm wrong here, CaptainC but aren't most of the Taliban part of the general population. If this is right then how can you sanitize the areas? They'll just blend into the population and pop back up after you've moved on. The only way to keep control of these areas is to have large amounts of troops with military rule. Democracy is just a feel good ruse.

By Sanitize, I'm not talking about removing or exterminating every thing in the area. However I think you have to take an area, find a way to clear out insurgents, and hold it for the long term. Send in the reconstruction units, and build up the infrastructure, education and as much good will as possible, make sure that the area is policed and safe before you move onto the next area.

You need a massive amount of troops to pacify a population if you do it by conventional means as above. It used to be that you could hold an area with few troops because you wouldn't see the type of insurgancies that you see now.

I read a white paper that talked about needing a quarter million troops to patrol both sides of the border properly while continuing to fight the Taliban in both Afghanistan and in the areas of Pakistan where they're leadership is holed up.

[octothorp]

The thing that concerns me (and this is getting a bit off-topic) is whether democracy is going to work at all in Afghanistan. All the political parties currently are focused on ethnic minorities (Uzbek and Tajiks), the minority Shia element within the Pashtun population, or special interest causes, such as the women's party and the communist party (not suggesting these two are similar, simply that they aren't a universal appeal party). That leaves just one major political party for the Pashtun Sunnis, who represent the largest demographic in the country. And that party is led by Abdul Rasul Sayyaf. Who's he? A quick resume:a comrade of bin Laden during the civil war years; rumored to be responsible for the assassination of the former leader of the northern alliance; current member of legislative assembly; responsible for appointing a chief justice who in turn created a government department that seeks to prevent un-islamic behavior in women. Oh yeah, he was also a mentor to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. And it's very conceivable that this guy could return to power. There's still a few years before the first partisan election so it's difficult to say how the country will look in a few years, but I don't think that Karzai will be able to maintain power as an independent.
My concern isn't so much whether the current Taliban forces can be removed from power; it's whether the democratic system in place is sufficient enough to prevent a new talibanesque regime from emerging through democratic process and then dismantling the democracy.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

By Sanitize, I'm not talking about removing or exterminating every thing in the area. However I think you have to take an area, find a way to clear out insurgents, and hold it for the long term. Send in the reconstruction units, and build up the infrastructure, education and as much good will as possible, make sure that the area is policed and safe before you move onto the next area.

You need a massive amount of troops to pacify a population if you do it by conventional means as above. It used to be that you could hold an area with few troops because you wouldn't see the type of insurgancies that you see now.

I read a white paper that talked about needing a quarter million troops to patrol both sides of the border properly while continuing to fight the Taliban in both Afghanistan and in the areas of Pakistan where they're leadership is holed up.

What I like about using a massive amount of troops is, it should be over quick if we can also clean out the leadership and gun dealers in Pakistan. Cutting off their armaments and leaders should lead to the death of the movement. The longer it lasts, the more western democracies will wonder if it is worth it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

What I like about using a massive amount of troops is, it should be over quick if we can also clean out the leadership and gun dealers in Pakistan. Cutting off their armaments and leaders should lead to the death of the movement. The longer it lasts, the more western democracies will wonder if it is worth it.

Even with a massive amount of troops it won't be over quickly, and to be honest our casualties will increase.

And even if after 5 years or 10 years you do manage to win a war of attrition (sp?) and reduce the Taliban in numbers to a point that they're a non entity, you will still need to have enough troops on the ground to augment the local military.

I figure this is a 10 to 15 year mission

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Just to clarify, equally dangerous in what way? Do you think that the current conflict in the middle east could reach a similar death toll (62 million), or that it will result in the use of nucleur weapons, or that the theatre of combat will be as global? Or equally dangerous in a different way? Not saying your wrong here.

I see that it could be an equal threat to the civilized western world. If we can't get the fascist islamic terrorists further removed from the general muslim population, then we lose. Demographics will play a larger role than one rogue nuclear explosion, in my opinion.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I see that it could be an equal threat to the civilized western world. If we can't get the fascist islamic terrorists further removed from the general muslim population, then we lose. Demographics will play a larger role than one rogue nuclear explosion, in my opinion.

That didn't really answer anything. I'll restate: in what way would the repurcussions of not removing fundamentalist islamic elements be equal to the WWII? You might want to tuck the republican catch-phrases like 'fascist islamic' in your back pocket (it's a complete mischaracterization) and present some real facts.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by octothorp

That didn't really answer anything. I'll restate: in what way would the repurcussions of not removing fundamentalist islamic elements be equal to the WWII? You might want to tuck the republican catch-phrases like 'fascist islamic' in your back pocket (it's a complete mischaracterization) and present some real facts.

You asked and I answered.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by White Doors

You asked and I answered.

You didn't really answer, you gave a bunch of rhetoric that really only restated your original assertion. "If we don't ..., we lose". What exactly would losing entail, and how would that be equal to WWII?

[White Doors]

If a significant proportion of the world's populaiton is willing to kill civilians of the west, then that will present a threat to our civilization on par with WW2. This is my opinion of course. I'm saying this with the full realization that WW2 was a grave threat to western standards of human rights and democacy. Of course if this does unfold it will be over a much greater period of time than WW2.

I hope I kept the 'rhetoric' out of it for you this time.
I'm still wondering if you want to debate or are trolling.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by White Doors

If a significant proportion of the world's populaiton is willing to kill civilians of the west, then that will present a threat to our civilization on par with WW2.

What exactly do you mean by significant?

These WWII comparisons have always kind of baffled me. I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure the original "Axis of Evil" actually had a chance of winning the war. You don't really believe that these ######s have a chance of taking over the world and converting us all to Islam, do you?

I don't know anyone has been drafted, I don't know anyone who is hoarding their sugar or rationing eggs and last I heard a major world capital (such as Berlin, Rome, Paris) wasn't under the direct control of the fascists you've mentioned.

To equal the death toll of WWII, an event like 9/11 (the worst day by far of the current "war") would have to happen every single day for the next 60 years.

[Shazam]

I for one welcome our new fascist islam overlords. Oh, wait...

[Flames in 07]

"Significant" is a big word dude.

I've never been there, but from what I get, it doesn't sounds like everyone lines up behind their leaders ... not unlike the US. The simplistic let's just fight and fight and fight has more of a blue collar demongraphic to it out there ... same as support for Republicans I guess.