[Newsbot]

Title: Afghans need to know coalition there to stay: NATO
Category: World
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2009-07-30 00:44:20
Canadian

[rockindel1]

why? why are we there to stay? to help American interests? lets bring our men and women home and let them fight it out themselves.
Our brave young soldiers have suffered enough out there

[Praxius]

Afghans don't need to know the Coalition is there to stay, they need to know their own country is in their control and know that their afghan army and police are capable of holding their own security so that they no longer need to be occupied by forign forces.

[Praxius]

From the Report:

$1:

Nearly eight years after the Taliban were toppled from power, the security situation has worsened and the U.S. decision to more than double its troops in the central Asian nation appears to some to be a last stand. The U.S. secretary of state has said there is only about a year to show visible signs of progress before the American public decides the war in unwinnable.

Well you got a year to make it happen.... I see no point keeping troops in a country with no end goal other then to occupy and fight forever.

If the majority of global ally public feels this is a pointless and unwinnable war, then perhaps the public's representatives should start to clue in and listen to the people who elected them.

Just to stay to fight and fight simply because you don't want to face a failure is more stupid then accepting the reality that you made a mistake and it's time to start correcting that mistake.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

If the majority of global ally public feels this is a pointless and unwinnable war, then perhaps the public's representatives should start to clue in and listen to the people who elected them.

Just to stay to fight and fight simply because you don't want to face a failure is more stupid then accepting the reality that you made a mistake and it's time to start correcting that mistake.

It's not that simple. NATO can leave but we'll all be back inside of 10 years with a fresh round of shock and awe which will hurt the innocent the most. Not to mention all the progress to date will be lost. The point of the story is that your average Afghan(south eastern Pushtan expecially) when determining their allegiance must ask themselves, with the well-being of their family in mind, who will be in control in 10 years: a unified Afghanistan, or the Taliban. If it remains unconvincing that a unified Afghanistan (or NATO security presence) is no longer around but the Taliban are then their loyalties will swing.

[ridenrain]

Does this mean the Libs don't love Afghanistan again?

This is the hearts and minds part that we must win to shift Afghanistan back onto it's own feet. To drop out now would be stupid.

[bootlegga]

No, what the Afghans need are to have the other nations in NATO (Germany, France and Italy I'm looking at you), step up to the plate when the Dutch and our troops leave.

They also need to be able to stand on their own two feet someday soon.

[Praxius]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

It's not that simple.

It can be.

$1:

NATO can leave but we'll all be back inside of 10 years with a fresh round of shock and awe which will hurt the innocent the most.

Why would we be back? What interests would we have to go back just to push out yet another government of a soverign nation we don't like, which we have no right in doing in the first place?

Let's train the Afghans, get their forces up to snuff, do what we can and by 2011, get the hell out of there. Let chance and fate run it's course.... it's their country, not ours.... unless somebody wants to re-name the place Canada, we never had any business there in the first place, let alone now.

I applaude our forces' actions and contributions there, but other then that, do what we can to fix our mistakes and leave.

$1:

Not to mention all the progress to date will be lost. The point of the story is that your average Afghan(south eastern Pushtan expecially) when determining their allegiance must ask themselves, with the well-being of their family in mind, who will be in control in 10 years: a unified Afghanistan, or the Taliban. If it remains unconvincing that a unified Afghanistan (or NATO security presence) is no longer around but the Taliban are then their loyalties will swing.

That should never have been our concern in the first place. We are not supposed to be going around policing the world and telling countries how they should be running themselves by force.

This whole invasion began with Bush and the US wanting to make examples and seek revenge for being attacked. They wanted Osama and if they really wanted him, why didn't they just snipe his ass from the start and be done with it?

At the begining the Taliban claimed no responsibility for the attacks and records showed, if anything, that Osama pulled this off without their approval.... yet at the same time didn't see enough grounds/evidence to simply hand one of their own to the West to be lynched.... so Bush decided to call an all out war on terrorism and make an example out of the Taliban and dragged all our asses along with them into war.

Don't forget "You're either with us or against us" "Holy Crusade against Evil Doers" etc. etc.

The US went on the rampage, completely devistated Afghanistan, and here we are with NATO afterwards, not only trying to clean up the mess they created and reconstruct many of the things they destroyed in the process.... but we're also fighting their damn war with no end in sight.

So how much longer should this farce go on?

How many more of our troops have to die for this US mistake based on revenge and emotions?

The US started this, they can sure as hell finish it.

I'm personally sick and tired of having our troops and our country having to come in after the US to clean up the mess they couldn't finish.

I support our troops to the fullest. I have cousins, a brother, my father, friends and many more in my family who served or still serve the forces.

One can support our troops and not support the war at the same time.

A very good way to support our troops is to get out and apply pressure to those in our government so that our troops arn't sent on crap-ass missions like this ever again and are only used for clearly justified missions that have a strategic begining and end game plan that best represents Canada's best interests.... not some ally's emotionally and ignorantly charged desire for revenge.

Our troops' lives are worth more then that.... they disserve more then that.

[DerbyX]

Praxius Praxius:

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

It's not that simple.

It can be.

$1:

NATO can leave but we'll all be back inside of 10 years with a fresh round of shock and awe which will hurt the innocent the most.

Why would we be back? What interests would we have to go back just to push out yet another government of a soverign nation we don't like, which we have no right in doing in the first place?

Let's train the Afghans, get their forces up to snuff, do what we can and by 2011, get the hell out of there. Let chance and fate run it's course.... it's their country, not ours.... unless somebody wants to re-name the place Canada, we never had any business there in the first place, let alone now.

I applaude our forces' actions and contributions there, but other then that, do what we can to fix our mistakes and leave.

$1:

Not to mention all the progress to date will be lost. The point of the story is that your average Afghan(south eastern Pushtan expecially) when determining their allegiance must ask themselves, with the well-being of their family in mind, who will be in control in 10 years: a unified Afghanistan, or the Taliban. If it remains unconvincing that a unified Afghanistan (or NATO security presence) is no longer around but the Taliban are then their loyalties will swing.

That should never have been our concern in the first place. We are not supposed to be going around policing the world and telling countries how they should be running themselves by force.

This whole invasion began with Bush and the US wanting to make examples and seek revenge for being attacked. They wanted Osama and if they really wanted him, why didn't they just snipe his ass from the start and be done with it?

At the begining the Taliban claimed no responsibility for the attacks and records showed, if anything, that Osama pulled this off without their approval.... yet at the same time didn't see enough grounds/evidence to simply hand one of their own to the West to be lynched.... so Bush decided to call an all out war on terrorism and make an example out of the Taliban and dragged all our asses along with them into war.

Don't forget "You're either with us or against us" "Holy Crusade against Evil Doers" etc. etc.

The US went on the rampage, completely devistated Afghanistan, and here we are with NATO afterwards, not only trying to clean up the mess they created and reconstruct many of the things they destroyed in the process.... but we're also fighting their damn war with no end in sight.

So how much longer should this farce go on?

How many more of our troops have to die for this US mistake based on revenge and emotions?

The US started this, they can sure as hell finish it.

I'm personally sick and tired of having our troops and our country having to come in after the US to clean up the mess they couldn't finish.

I support our troops to the fullest. I have cousins, a brother, my father, friends and many more in my family who served or still serve the forces.

One can support our troops and not support the war at the same time.

A very good way to support our troops is to get out and apply pressure to those in our government so that our troops arn't sent on crap-ass missions like this ever again and are only used for clearly justified missions that have a strategic begining and end game plan that best represents Canada's best interests.... not some ally's emotionally and ignorantly charged desire for revenge.

Our troops' lives are worth more then that.... they disserve more then that.

Well Said (except the US part. We really haven't been asked to clean up their mess that I can think of.)

[Praxius]

Added:

And if Afghans want to support the coalition or if they want to support the Taliban.... well that's their right to choose isn't it? Afterall, we gave them democracy by force.... thus shouldn't they have the democratic right to reject democracy and go back to the way things were that they're acustomed to?

What sort of example of democracy are we showing them and the rest of the un-democratic world when we force Democracy at gun point and force them to adopt our way of life?

[Praxius]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Well Said (except the US part. We really haven't been asked to clean up their mess that I can think of.)

Nope... we wern't asked... we were ordered to by the UN, because of our contract with NATO. (A force that should have been disbanded at the end of the Cold War)

Canada didn't really have a say in the matter, and because of the UN's observations of what the US was doing in Afghanistan and the amount of suffering of the people, we were sent in along with every other NATO country to clean up.... which doesn't seem to be working very well.

Then once we got there.... Bush figured that will do and then directed all his troops to head to Iraq for an illegal invasion based on lies and false information with no factual evidence to back it up.... cutting troop levels and support in Afghanistan and focusing on a second bothced war, leaving us with our d*cks flapping in the breeze.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

Why would we be back? What interests would we have to go back just to push out yet another government of a soverign nation we don't like, which we have no right in doing in the first place?

Because the Taliban cult has no allies only converts and enemies. In fact it desperately needs enemies to survive as a group. It's my belief they will not stop at Afghan borders.

The rest of your post I don't disagree enough with to argue.

$1:

What sort of example of democracy are we showing them and the rest of the un-democratic world when we force Democracy at gun point and force them to adopt our way of life?

That is a tired talking point. Please excuse me for saying so. Looks good on a placard but doesn't really make any sense or apply. No one has been forced at gunpoint to vote, no one. They vote of their own accord. So no one is forcing democracy at gun point. The Taliban on the other hand do threaten voters with death and they have guns. You mistake the fact that the democracy can be taken away at gunpoint, which leads to guns to defend it.


Added:

$1:

cutting troop levels and support in Afghanistan and focusing on a second bothced war, leaving us with our d*cks flapping in the breeze.

Yep.

[ridenrain]

It's the same mission it was back in 2002 when Chretien put us in there so I don't know what the waffling is about. By vote of parliament, combat operations end in 2011 and we move to a support role rebuild and.
I'd love to see the other NATO members cowboy up and do some of the dirty work but what they do has only partial effect on what we do. We're getting out and if Obama and NATO can't get their shit together and solve this, Canada can't do it alone.

[rockindel1]

I am wondering if maybe I was not clear what I was trying to say.
What would we do if another country invaded Canada, to instill their "modern civilized democracy" or version of it. Would we just sit there ? or would we fight with our soldiers , police and militia beside them till the invaders left?
now pause and think about it for a second, and think what do the Afgans think?
Most Afgans dont know there is a difference between an American soldier and a Canadian or Nato one.
I know if anyone invaded our country I would be out doing exactly what the afgan "insurgents" are doing
If the russians couldnt do this why do we think we can?
not trying to politicize this its just human nature the way I see it

[ridenrain]

You couldn't draw that comparison. Afghanistan has been fighting since they started and the last 20 have been really bad.
I'm sure though if Canada did ever have such a harsh struggle on their hands, we'd find better things to fight about than communion wafers.