Military Power

I don't know what to make of this as I'm so pissed off.

PM Harper, in a callous and crass bid for votes from the softylefty brigades has announced that Canada will quit Afghanistan in 2011.. No more boots on the ground, just a few ' advisers' and some ' humanitarian aid' stuff..

With the Taliban regrouping, doing more nasty sh!t and NATO shuffling its feet and stuffing its hands in its pocket, this is the worst that could happen.. They'll just sit back, build up stocks and make a big run at taking over again as soon as the Canadian lads pull out.. You can bet your boots that the British/Dutch and USA boys won't have enough to pick up the slack and the rest of the NATO allies are so afraid of getting their boots dirty and so hampered by their political masters with ROE that would keep a boy scout from scraping his knee that victory for the fundamentalist jihadis will be a foregone conclusion..

oh, I'm so into rant mode..

Source

I'm kinda hoping this is ploy by Stevie to kick the NATO ' allies' into pulling up their socks and putting their money where their mouth is and boost numbers to fix things over there properly.. but, I'm sure that's just wishful thinking and a fantasy

Looks like Afghanistan is the new Iraq.

Correct me if I am wrong but…..

As far as I know Afghanistan is not (nor ever has been) a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance. Isn’t it rather up to the individual democratically elected governments of the member states to decide for themselves if they are going to contribute their armed forces to an ‘out of area’ conflict?

Perhaps the Americans have become so used to snapping their fingers and having everybody else come running to lick their boots that they have probably forgotten that democracy does not automatically end on the eastern seaboard.

No, I think you are exactly right about members of NATO deciding about their contribution to "out of area" conflicts. That isn't in question.

What I find interesting, and somewhat disturbing, is that the "Western Nations" (Canada, the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Spain, ect) will never again win a war outside their own borders.

"CANADA SURRENDERS TO THE TALIBAN"

this title in it self is just making me shake in anger. When a democratically elected goverment announce's that they are giving a "deadline" to their involvment in a "war" (it is a war against insurgents...Pakistani, Indian's other extremist's "muslim" peoples) in which other NATO goverments(non US, British) are scared "politically" to devot the same "boot's on the ground" expertise ...their withdrawl is sugested or accused as being a sign of surrender....shame on you, unwrap youreself from the flag you surround youre self in and reflect on youre country's "surrender " to the Vietnamise".....this is a war in which we(Canadian's) saw that needed the involment of our forces to train the Afgan"s force's to look after themselves,....we have placed our forces in harm's way for long enough, they (Afgan's) have to realise that we cannot "babysit" their country for an unspecified time frame..the time line that has been stated as a" pullout date"is not written in "stone". Forces (Afgan) are now in the minds of the CAF able to take the battle to the Taliban on their own land ...to thier own enemy......Why is this viewed as a "surrender"????????

george babony wrote:this title in it self is just making me shake in anger.

Well, the title was taken from the news article I originally found (you could only read the first 3 sentences without a subscription, so I found the one I linked to).

Luther Sloan wrote:What I find interesting, and somewhat disturbing, is that the "Western Nations" (Canada, the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Spain, ect) will never again win a war outside their own borders.

that is what I was trying to say with the comment...

Maximus the Destroyer wrote:Looks like Afghanistan is the new Iraq.

george babony wrote:shame on you, unwrap youreself from the flag you surround youre self in and reflect on youre country's "surrender " to the Vietnamise"

I don't deny our loss there (Or Korea for that matter). It just goes to prove the point (Luther made), that no "Western Nation" will ever win another war again.

Just a question, has any Western Nation won a major war since WWII?

I bellieve that only a"coalition" of Forces from "western minded" nations can , have and will win wars on foriegn soil. The problem is simple, ...the people's of said nation will have to have been brutilized by an invading force"country" for them to be able to accept said "coalition" aid in the fourm of foriegn troops temporarily occupying their land.

The first gulf war was won,....Sadam's forces were pushed out of Kuwait.

Western nations "won" the cold war.Allthough it was "won" in the sence that the Soviet Union went broke trying to keep up with the hudge amounts of money spent on the arms race.

The war in Afganistan is one of the types of war that cannot be "won". The people are poor, under educated, and very much a tribal people that have centuries of traditonal rooted belief that any people interfering in their business(country) are invader's (infidel's), and are not to be trusted to act in their interests. The poppy drug trade is thier top income source, hopefully now with a change in the Governer of Kandahar ( he is an Afgan Canadian) more trust from the people will change the current situation.

george babony wrote:The first gulf war was won

I have to disagree. Aside from supporting the sovereignty of Kuwait and to defend Saudi Arabia, other justifications used for foreign involvement included Iraq’s history of human rights abuses under Saddam Hussein. Iraq was also known to possess biological weapons and chemical weapons, which Hussein had used against Iranian troops during the Iran–Iraq War and against his own county's Kurdish population in the Al-Anfal Campaign. Iraq was known to have a nuclear weapons program as well. None of those were really settled (hence the continuation of that war in 2003). Even if you do want to consider it a "win" it doesn't qualify under the definition of a "major war" under the question Max asked, since the entire conflict lasted just over 1 month.

george babony wrote:Western nations "won" the cold war.

I have to disagree on this one too. The "Cold War" was a state of conflict not a war. The Wars that made up the "Cold War" (such as Vietnam and Korea) would have to be considered "losses", and the only reason I can see that the western countries "won" was, as you said, the Soviet Union bankrupted itself.

george babony wrote:The war in Afganistan is one of the types of war that cannot be "won".

Well, what do you suggest then? Ignore terrorism and let terrorist acts continue? I'd have to say that the War in Afghanistan is doing what it was intended to do. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a major terrorist attack since the invasion, other than the July 7, 2005 London bombings, at least none done by Al Queda (who is who we are fighting).

Goliath wrote: To my knowledge, there hasn't been a major terrorist attack since the invasion, other than the July 7, 2005 London bombings, at least none done by Al Queda (who is who we are fighting).

30th June 2007- Attack on Glasgow Airport by Dr.Bilal Abdullah (arrested) and Kafeel Ahmed (killed). This cell had previously failed to detonate a car-bomb in Central London.

PS. Shouldn't that be "Who is Whom"?

was the Glasgow Airport attack done by Al Queda? I thought it had more to do with the recently elected (at the time) Prime Minister. While I don't discount that as a terrorist attack (I might be afraid to go to the airport after that too) the only casualty was one of the attackers.

As for the "who" which one are you referring to? I personally think it should be "Which is who", but not being a grammarian, don't hold me to that.

Spazz Maticus wrote: ...recently elected (at the time) Prime Minister.

Oh Dear! When was that General Election?-I seem to have missed it (Grin). The Government must have kept the Election very quiet indeed, otherwise we would be rid of G.B. and his motley crew by now.

"Who is Whom" or "Which is who"....Lets compromise and have "Which is whom". Sounds about right to me.

Hobilar wrote:

Spazz Maticus wrote: ...recently elected (at the time) Prime Minister.

Oh Dear! When was that General Election?-I seem to have missed it (Grin). The Government must have kept the Election very quiet indeed, otherwise we would be rid of G.B. and his motley crew by now.

Gordon Brown is the one I'm referring to. Didn't he become PM on June 27? 3 days before the 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack.

A Fox Network "New's" program had this view on Canada's withdrawl in 2011. I do not think that the majority of American's have this view on their nearest and closets friends to the north.An apology was issued as I submit this for youre views and comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcJn5XlbSFk

george babony wrote:A Fox Network "New's" program had this view on Canada's withdrawl in 2011.

to be accurate, Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld is a talk show, not a news program. That is like taking the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson or the Daily Show with John Stewart (both on the opposite end of the political spectrum as Red Eye, though oddly enough, no one complains when they poke fun of people). I'll reply more in the actual topic on this.