h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You need to wind your neck little miss.Just because I want things to work out well for our troops and the Afghans is no reason to be offensive.

But then over emotionalism seems to be your forte..

The above was for Effers.

I asked you to clarify your point Incog concerning soldiers needing to stay there so as not to cheapen earlier deaths, and not wanting them to come home with their tails between their legs. That seemed to me to be your argument.

You haven't really addressed that point.

If Afghanistan sinks back to being a focal point for Al Queda and the Taliban then the deaths(both British and Ahgans) that have occurred thus far will be WASTED ones.If we leave too soon,too fast without achieving any stability for the Afghans then the lives already lost will still be wasted.

How the hell you couldn't work that fact out for yourself makes me question your intelligence?

'the lives already lost will still be wasted.'


I rather think they've been wasted already.


Off to read the bit swl has asked me to read

As often happens, Effers, you seek conflict and long, protracted conversations (not discussions or debates) along lines that you agree with. When a question has, in fact, some very clear cut black and white answers, ie: Article 5, you get flouncy and decree that you will hear no more of it.

The "we" aspect has been met several ways, none of which you like. My aspect of the "we" in Afghanistan is personal. I served in the Canadian uniform for 21 years, and alongside them now as a civilian for more than another 12 years. I have not personally known any of the 150 uniformed dead that have come back to the Air Base that I work on (the last two somewhat more than an hour ago, medics both). I do know no less than 7 co-workers who have been at repatriations here, large and brave men, with tears on their faces for the families of their own personal friends that they see on the tarmac.

You strike me as the sort that is content to be mortally offended by any number of things that you watch on the televised news. Sitting comfy in your safe corner of the world. Arm-chair coaches are a dime a dozen, so your opions carry little weight. But your silly declaration that a declaration of war on the IRA? Going 'properly' to war? How does one properly go to war with their own countrymen?

I wish you luck with one day growing up, Ms RedPeck...

okay, swl:

'Is this just reactionary lefties or indicative of a more widespread Canadian mindset?'

Yes and no, to both parts.


If you are asking if the professors protesting are just reactionary lefties . . .

yes and no. They are likely left leaning but probably not terribly reactionary.


If you are asking if their actually quite nuanced position is indicative of a Canadian mindset . . .

yes and no. Canadians in general would rather see our Armed Forces as Peacekeepers and facilitators of humanitarian aid than as combat troops. But, I think many Canadians are well aware of and justifiably proud of our military's historical and current fighting abilities. We know that Canadian soldiers, sailors and fliers have a history of doing what is necessary with great alacrity.

But we also rather prefer that they come home in one piece if they have to leave.

It is true that our present PM is sort of wrapping himself in the military in a rather shameless way and it's true that his deepest desire seems to be to become an American. I don't think many Canadians would take kindly to such politicization of our Armed Forces.

This paragraph sums up a part of the Canadian attitude right now:

'Since 2001, polls have indicated that a majority of Canadians have supported Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan (though there have been some fluctuations), while favoring “nation-building” over military operations. Canadians have also remained committed to withdrawing sooner rather than later. No doubt aware of Canadians’ professed desire to leave Afghanistan, the Conservatives recently reiterated that they will end military operations in Afghanistan in 2011, despite calls made by the U.S. for Canada to stay.'

As for the scholarship fund, personally I think the professors are making a political error in opposing it, and I think most Canadians would feel the same way. But I also think that most Canadians would be uncomfortable if they thought Mr. Harper were using the orphans of soldiers to gain political points. As the article says 'many Canadians would agree that they are in fact attempting to preserve the most honorable merits of Canadian culture.' I expect many thinking Canadians will feel that the scholarship fund is a good thing that better not be used for political purposes and the professors are right to raise the warning so, let's keep an eye on it.


The discussion here about Afghanistan is all gray areas with little black and white. But, when all is said and done, whether we think that they all should come home tomorrow or that they should stay until there's a Tim Hortons in every Afghan village, we line up to welcome them home as each tour ends. Any anger about Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is directed toward the politicians, not the military.

As for military spending, which has increased under Mr. Harper, my impression is that when Canadians consider the question at all, they think the money should be spent on patrolling and defending our coasts. A month or two ago the Navy suggested that it was going to mothball half of our coastal patrol vessels. There was such an outcry that the decision was reversed the next day. Personally, I'd like to see our military come home on schedule, have a good rest, and then get to the important work of building one or preferably two Arctic deepwater ports and a few arctic air- and army bases. I've always felt that the threat of 'terrorism' is better dealt with as a police matter rather than a military matter. Our military would do more good for our country at home than stamping about in Kandahar. I have no problem with our army continuing to train Afghan soldiers and the RCMP continuing to train Afghan police -- which is what is planned after next summer -- but I don't see any use in continuing a combat mission: those boots are needed at home.

Hi, Patriot 1959

The morning after the first four Canadians were killed in Afghanistan in the friendly-fire incident, I made a point of going down to the nearby armory to shake the hand of a soldier -- any soldier. As I said then, I may not agree with why they're over there, but I have the greatest respect for them.

Any quarrels I have about military subjects are with politicians, not with soldiers.

, Patriot 1959.

>>Ms RedPeck...<<

There's a name I haven't heard in a long time. Must be at least 4 years since Effers was redpeck.

You must be a proper old-timer Patriot.

Thanks

I'm coming at this from the point of view that until the Afghan army is sufficiently trained, any weakening of resolve within NATO increases the likelihood that the politicians will go for the quick popularity shot and pull out. If NATO doesn't hold it's nerve, the slaughter in Afghanistan will be horrific and the country will regress to a barbarous theocracy.

'any weakening of resolve within NATO . . .'

Sure. But as I said, units rotate out of Afghanistan all the time and new units come in. And units from various nations change bases all the time. The PPCLI, the Royal Canadian Regiment, the Van Doos, the Royal Canadian Dragoons and the 2nd Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group will have been serving in rotation for ten years in 2011 in various parts of Afghanistan. There is no weakening of resolve if other NATO regiments are moved in to their place. The training will continue (with Canadian soldiers and police conducting lots of it), the patrols will continue (without Canadian soldiers) and, hopefully, the explosions will become less frequent.

Now, if NATO politicians don't have the resolve to send their troops to replace the Canadians, well, that's a political problem within NATO. It's not up to the Canadian military to fix that problem.

>You must be a proper old-timer Patriot.<

Yeah and for a 'patriot', who just signed up, he sends a proper nasty annonymous email, which I got a few months ago. Exactly the same sentence structure and use of language. Very brave he is, no streak of yellow running through him. At least I know for sure who it is now who sent it. And I'd had warnings from others about his stalking ways.

A bit incredible that he's still lurking here and stalking folk...well me anyway

Boo hoo. At least I'm safe here in my armchair in Blighty

Name names

>>HI why aren't you engaging with a lot of complex arguments that have been well thought out about the complexities of things, such as from zagrebo and anhaga and a bit myself, earlier in the thread.

You made a well thought out and complex argument? Was that in a different thread?

Previously known as "The Reverend Something or Other", and then "Rev Nick"

And just as annoyed as ever with some folks ... and their ways. Not just this one, but any number of others.

Iago>>I did contribute earlier, but when Zagreb shows up I'm usually surplus to requirements: he normally enunciates my position far more eloquently than I can.


And you've just enunciated my position on Zagreb.

And indeed, 'Effers', I'm sure that you have heard from some other delicate folks. With the ears of the Eds. This account will be dead shortly, posts stricken. But sometimes, one must speak against ill-formed blather.

Well Rev Nick this is meant to be a thread about a serious subject, and yes some of us don't always behave as well as we should. I hold my hand up to not always posting calmly. I can get heated about stuff.

But really if you're annoyed because I cancelled that email account and so you can no longer send me annonymous emails but only post in public towards me..could you do it somewhere else for me to ignore you from now on. I don't think its appropriate here.

I'm pulling out now guys, and going home

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z99iVXJ8OtA

What are we in Afghanistan for?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8771605.stm

Building better prisons for women, apparently