RE: Canada in Afghanistan...pointelss??

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Canada in Afghanistan...pointelss??

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Canada in Afghanistan...pointelss??

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Canada in Afghanistan...pointelss?? - 12/21/2009 7:33:53 AM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

To be honest, I don't think we've even defined what a victory or a loss would look like.

If Congress had any balls, they would demand a realistic outcome and a plan to get there or halt all war funding until it's provided.

I agree, Steven. But I doubt Congress has the balls. Can't you hear the cries, "Support the troops!" Oh wait, we have heard them and seen them on bumper stickers aplenty. It is part of a spending bill. It will pass easily I think.

Vincent

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: Canada in Afghanistan...pointelss?? - 12/21/2009 7:39:40 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

There is only one realistic solution in Afghanistan - the same one we used against the Boers in South Africa.

But we dont have the balls for it as a civilisation, let alone as Senators, Representatives, MPs or whatever.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to vincentML)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: Canada in Afghanistan...pointelss?? - 12/21/2009 7:39:45 AM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

I think Vietnam turned out well after the Americans left

The mind boggles. Read some history. 1.5-3 million dead after we left is really "turning out well".

(in reply to Brain)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: Canada in Afghanistan...pointelss?? - 12/21/2009 7:56:42 AM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

There is only one realistic solution in Afghanistan - the same one we used against the Boers in South Africa.

But we dont have the balls for it as a civilisation, let alone as Senators, Representatives, MPs or whatever.

E

If you are serious E, which solution do you prefer? Creating a colony of Afghanistan or rounding up everyone and placing them in concentration camps. I hope you were tongue in cheek.

from the Wiki article:

Main article: Second Anglo-Boer War
The Second Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902), by contrast, was a lengthy war - involving large numbers of troops from many British possessions - which ended with the conversion of the Boer republics into British colonies (with a promise of limited self-government). These colonies later formed part of the Union of South Africa. The Boer War lasted three years and was very bloody. The British fought directly against the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. The bloodshed that was seen during the war was alarming and many of the British soldiers faced unfit conditions.[citation needed]
[edit] Controversy and significance

During the Second Boer War, Britain pursued the policy of rounding up and isolating the Boer civilian population into concentration camps. The wives and children of Boer guerrillas were sent to these camps with poor hygiene and little food, although this was remedied to some extent as time went on. The death and suffering of the civilians, according to many scholars, is what broke the guerrillas' will. The "pacification" theory has been repeated many times in warfare since.[citation needed]

The Second Boer War was a major turning point in British history, due to world reaction over the anti-insurgency tactics the British army used in the region. This led to a change in approach to foreign policy from Britain who now set about looking for more allies. To this end, the 1902 treaty with Japan in particular was a sign that Britain feared attack on its Far Eastern empire and saw this alliance as an opportunity to strengthen its stance in the Far East. This war led to a change from "splendid isolation" policy to a policy that involved looking for allies and improving world relations. Later treaties with France ("Entente cordiale") and Russia, caused partially by the controversy surrounding the Boer War, were major factors in dictating how the battle lines were drawn during World War One

Wiki article here

The US tried pacification of villages in Vietnam. It did not seem to work.

Vincent

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 44

RE: Canada in Afghanistan...pointelss?? - 12/21/2009 8:07:00 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

Emptying the population out of the countryside and the towns into concentration camps, whilst destroying the means of support for those left outside is the only way. There is no need for the concentration camps to be anything like those seen in earlier history as the name might imply.

Anyone not in the camps is the enemy and can now be utterly destroyed. Those in the camps can be sorted through, foreign fighters and other undesirables filtered out. The whole process, over one autumn through spring should greatly assist in "winning" this otherwise unwinnable conflict by providing a clear opportunity to deal with those we wish to deal with whilst leaving civilians out of it.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to vincentML)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: Canada in Afghanistan...pointelss?? - 12/21/2009 11:39:47 AM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Emptying the population out of the countryside and the towns into concentration camps, whilst destroying the means of support for those left outside is the only way. There is no need for the concentration camps to be anything like those seen in earlier history as the name might imply.

Anyone not in the camps is the enemy and can now be utterly destroyed. Those in the camps can be sorted through, foreign fighters and other undesirables filtered out. The whole process, over one autumn through spring should greatly assist in "winning" this otherwise unwinnable conflict by providing a clear opportunity to deal with those we wish to deal with whilst leaving civilians out of it.

E

Seems pretty heartless and arrogant to go in and move innocent people around at our whim.

Pacification has a checkered history going back to our forcing Native Americans onto Reservations. It was successful in imposing our will on the Philippines in the early 20th Century and in Malaya by the British. Filled with corruption and failed promises in Vietnam. And to some extent, much less extreme than yours, is it not the current plan to increase NATO troop levels to "protect the people" and win their "hearts and minds?" Pacification by another name.

Reminds me of how we pacified Japanese-American citizens during World War II.

This about the Pashtun people from this source:

"Pashtun are a people who live in southeastern Afghanistan and the northwestern province of Pakistan. They are one of the largest ethnic groups in Afghanistan. There is no true written history of the Pashtun in their own land. Pashtun are traditionally pastoral nomads (herders who move frequently to find grazing land) with a strong tribal organization. Each tribe is divided into clans, subclans, and patriarchal families."

Nomads who live on both sides of the border. Would you go into Pakistan as well? Do you have any idea what the financial cost would be to us? Did the tribes invite us in? Or are we seen as occupiers?

What is the justification for NATO to go in uninvited and fuck up a well established social order? To what end? That last is the main question. To what end? How will that satisfy the loss we took on 9/11? And does our loss justify disrupting and dislocating innocent people?

Vincent

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 46

RE: Canada in Afghanistan...pointelss?? - 12/21/2009 1:06:35 PM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

Whats the justification? Since when did we need justification for anything we did that fucked others about and annoyed them if it got us what we wanted?

"harbouring terrorists"
"giving aid to the enemy"

I'm sure something else can be devised if those dont suit.

But I wouldnt let it trouble you, we dont have the balls to do it, just like we dont have the conviction to treat it as the conflict its vaunted as either.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to vincentML)

Profile

Post #: 47

RE: Canada in Afghanistan...pointelss?? - 12/21/2009 5:19:43 PM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Whats the justification? Since when did we need justification for anything we did that fucked others about and annoyed them if it got us what we wanted?

"harbouring terrorists"
"giving aid to the enemy"

I'm sure something else can be devised if those dont suit.

But I wouldnt let it trouble you, we dont have the balls to do it, just like we dont have the conviction to treat it as the conflict its vaunted as either.

E

Clever answer, LE. But our history US/UK shows that we stumble into wars, balls or no. The Executive always seems to find justification. The Legislative Branch hardly ever provides a check to balance the war power. We fight for slogans. 54.40 or fight, Remember the Maine, Make the world safe for democracy (although the fight was between empires) Remember Pearl Harbor (that impossible to ignore) We have to keep the dominoes from falling (Vietnam) and now "harboring terrorists." Slogans and justifications, as you say, are easy to come by.

The part that is debatable is "getting what we want" or knowing what we want or is what we want the right thing to want. That seems to have been reduced to a slogan, i.e. "so the terrorists will not have a safe place from which to operate" That's what we want, I hear. The question follows are we pursuing a proper strategy in this digital world?

We are massing troops against guerrillas who communicate with computers and throw away cell phones and who can thus congregate from multiple points in the world by satellite. Our generals think they can "win" that battle with an old fashioned land strategy while the terrain has changed and is now wired. Hate to see kids die for a miscalculation.

Oh wait, we saw that rather recently, didn't we? Nevermind. Ignore the coffins draped with flags.

Vincent

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 48