So you think we should not be in Afghanistan

[Bobblehead]

Personally, I believed we should be there.

We were part of a unified effort to root out a regime that was harbouring and aiding individuals who were actively performing terrorist acts around the globe. And when pushed to prevent those individuals from performing those acts, that regime steadfastly refused.

The leading nations of the world then looked a the situation as it stood and decided it was untenable to leave it like that, and with a firm international agreement took action.

I support all that. I supported the Liberals for sending them, I support the CPC for keeping them there and giving them the financial and equipment support thay had been lacking.

My biggest issue in the ongoing effort was that the US removed and diverted troops to the Iraq conflict. So instead of rooting out the source of the 9/11 attacks, the Afghanistan war has turned into a long drawn out affair.

I still support us being there. I think to pull out too soon would leave a power vacuum that would be quickly filled by the exact people we went to remove. But I do wish there was more support. Perhaps a surge similar to what was done in Iraq would push the Taliban insurgents underground long enough to establish a credible Afghani force to stand up for themselves and allow for whatever progress the afghan people as a whole want, as opposed to what the rest of the world or some Taliban fundamentalists want.

[flip]

Originally Posted by driveway

CP is approaching 1.5 million total posts - so people have discussed (in the 1.5 million thread) that we should just start threads on every controversial topic we can think of, to push us over the mark.

Originally Posted by psicodude

I completely disagree with this post, and think it is stupid.

Was this supposed to be in green? The dude is just making a joke. Lets not get our panties in a knot just yet. It all stems from the epic original millionth post thread.

[FlamesAddiction]

I'm not going to say that we should not be there, but we should not be there forever... or even for too terribly long. I'm a big fan of time tables and without one, we could just be dooming ourselves for a long and drawn out affair that we cannot win. I believe that the "diminishing returns" principle applies in Afghanistan, and the longer foreign troops stay there, the more difficult it will be to pull out. Unless we set a clear time table with tangible benchmarks, then we're nothing more than body guards for the sketchy Afghan regime (whose power is contigent on having the Taliban to fight against).

[Magnum PEI]

Of course we shouldn't be in Afghanistan. The only reason we're there in the first place is because Osama bin Laden happened to call it home. Yeah NATO is doing all kinds of reconstruction, but there's plenty of other countries (who's citizens aren't growing barbituates) that could use that kind of money.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Personally, I believed we should be there.

We were part of a unified effort to root out a regime that was harbouring and aiding individuals who were actively performing terrorist acts around the globe. And when pushed to prevent those individuals from performing those acts, that regime steadfastly refused.

The leading nations of the world then looked a the situation as it stood and decided it was untenable to leave it like that, and with a firm international agreement took action.

I support all that. I supported the Liberals for sending them, I support the CPC for keeping them there and giving them the financial and equipment support thay had been lacking.

My biggest issue in the ongoing effort was that the US removed and diverted troops to the Iraq conflict. So instead of rooting out the source of the 9/11 attacks, the Afghanistan war has turned into a long drawn out affair.

I still support us being there. I think to pull out too soon would leave a power vacuum that would be quickly filled by the exact people we went to remove. But I do wish there was more support. Perhaps a surge similar to what was done in Iraq would push the Taliban insurgents underground long enough to establish a credible Afghani force to stand up for themselves and allow for whatever progress the afghan people as a whole want, as opposed to what the rest of the world or some Taliban fundamentalists want.

if the rest of our partner nations would actually lend some troops that actually get into the line of fire, that would help, too.

Perhaps some of our more militarily inclined members can comment, I recall something about the European nations all being stationed in the stable parts of the country, leaving the US and Canada to handle the tough parts.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by habernac

if the rest of our partner nations would actually lend some troops that actually get into the line of fire, that would help, too.

Perhaps some of our more militarily inclined members can comment, I recall something about the European nations all being stationed in the stable parts of the country, leaving the US and Canada to handle the tough parts.

You could add the Brits as well but i get your drift.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by habernac

if the rest of our partner nations would actually lend some troops that actually get into the line of fire, that would help, too.

Perhaps some of our more militarily inclined members can comment, I recall something about the European nations all being stationed in the stable parts of the country, leaving the US and Canada to handle the tough parts.

I think the Dutch are getting stuck in and taking a few hits also.

Not military inclined but I can say that you're talking about Germany, Spain, France and Italy who .......

"are currently the holders of so-called "red card" national caveats that allow them to keep their troops away from the most dangerous areas of operations in Afghanistan.
These "red cards" were initially negotiated into agreements at the beginning of the NATO operation by countries willing to aid security and reconstruction in Afghanistan. However, in exchange for their pledged support, the countries could opt out of certain operations whenever they chose to do so."

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...250071,00.html

In other words they'll go to war as long as they don't have to fight.

Defeats the purpose of NATO that they were even allowed to negotiate for the cards. I thought you were either in as an equal or you weren't.

Here's a map from 2006.



The Germans and Italians couldn't be any further away from the flashpoints.

[Svartsengi]

I am curious. How many members of Calgary Puck who believe we should be in Afghanistan will enlist in the Army of the Canadian Armed Forces?.

Here is a website that will help with the debate:

http://www.warisaracket.org/

I say we leave.

[Thor]

If history tells us anything, we should leave.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

Of course we shouldn't be in Afghanistan. The only reason we're there in the first place is because Osama bin Laden happened to call it home. Yeah NATO is doing all kinds of reconstruction, but there's plenty of other countries (who's citizens aren't growing barbituates) that could use that kind of money.

What the heck does that mean? So we chose one to help... we can't help everyone. Or do Afghans not deserve it because they were forced into growing opium?

What a ridiculous opinion, you have.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Svartsengi

I am curious. How many members of Calgary Puck who believe we should be in Afghanistan will enlist in the Army of the Canadian Armed Forces?.

At least two if memory serves me correct.

[octothorp]

It's sad that it happened, but it has nothing to do with the original motives for going over there - children in Afghanistan were always denied the right to education, and our western governments didn't seem to care until 9/11. Some countries still deny children that right, with children who go to school risking their safety every day. And even a truly liberated and free Afghanistan won't be enough to prevent this sort of attack for a generation or so until attitudes towards women and education change.

When there are countries in Africa with thousands of refugee children dying every day, I don't really see an attack like this as justification for being in Afghanistan.
I'd far rather that we had spent the last five years trying to make a difference in the Darfur conflict, but the sad reality is that it's not politically possible to get involved in that conflict; the US-lead coalition made it seem fairly safe to get involved in Afghanistan.

It's not that it's a bad war to be involved in; the motives for going over there were decent motives, and the deaths of our armed forces are emotionally a bit hard to swallow back home, but not unbearable for our military. It's just that we're not going to be able to create the sort of change in attitudes that some people seem to be hoping for. We aren't going to be able to turn it into a western society.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Svartsengi

I am curious. How many members of Calgary Puck who believe we should be in Afghanistan will enlist in the Army of the Canadian Armed Forces?.

Here is a website that will help with the debate:

http://www.warisaracket.org/

I say we leave.

Oh yes, the old arguement of "if you think we should be at war go enlist". Our military is completely voluntary, we are not talking about a draft here my friend.

[Robbob]

The frustrating thing I find with Afghanistan is that if the Americans spent what they did in Iraq in Afghanistan I think it would be light years ahead of where it is now with the possibility of being over. I supported the original cause for being there but I think it is getting to the point where we need to move on.

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by flip

Was this supposed to be in green? The dude is just making a joke. Lets not get our panties in a knot just yet. It all stems from the epic original millionth post thread.

Dude. Of course it was a joke about the 1.5 millionth post. I thought it was obvious enough to not even require the green text.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by psicodude

Dude. Of course it was a joke about the 1.5 millionth post. I thought it was obvious enough to not even require the green text.

Roger Ebert had a similar issue when he wrote about Creationism.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008...f_the_age.html

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by peter12

What the heck does that mean? So we chose one to help... we can't help everyone. Or do Afghans not deserve it because they were forced into growing opium?

What a ridiculous opinion, you have.

Are you surprised??

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by Svartsengi

I am curious. How many members of Calgary Puck who believe we should be in Afghanistan will enlist in the Army of the Canadian Armed Forces?.

Here is a website that will help with the debate:

http://www.warisaracket.org/

I say we leave.

Really, 1980 called they want their term back. Oh and BTW, when I was young I did join and I went on to a place where there were mean people.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Svartsengi

I am curious. How many members of Calgary Puck who believe we should be in Afghanistan will enlist in the Army of the Canadian Armed Forces?.

Here is a website that will help with the debate:

http://www.warisaracket.org/

I say we leave.

Thanks did my part for king and country, but if I was 20 again, in a heart beat.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Thanks did my part for king and country, but if I was 20 again, in a heart beat.

really, you are old.....