|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: Bomb kills three Canadian soldiers |
 |
|
This makes 104 dead now, I believe.
| Quote: |
Three Canadian soldiers were killed by an improvised explosive device on Saturday morning. They were killed in an area west of Kandahar City.
The soldiers, which will remain unidentified until their families have been notified, were responding to reports that someone in the area was planting a suspicious object.
A fourth soldier is injured and in fair condition.
The Canadian Forces will likely not report the identities of the soldiers until Sunday
The explosion bring the number of soldiers killed in Afghanistan since the mission began in 2002 to 103.
The deaths come as more than 1,000 people gathered in Peterborough, Ont., for the funeral of Cpl. Mark McLaren, one of three soldiers killed when their vehicle hit a roadside bomb near Kandahar City on Dec. 5.
Pte. Demetrios Diplaros, 25 and Warrant Officer Robert Wilson, 27, also died in that blast.
|
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1073338
3 more families suffering. And for what. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
for nothing but an idea and politics
are they helping build roads, schools, even establish law and order or a sense of security?
what they are doing is patroling, breaking into homes, searching and seizing property, nothing of any value to the Afghanis, and yet they expect the Afghanis to appreciate their years of military presence?
if there is a mission with clear objectives then complete the mission: but if the plan is to continue marching around the country keeping guns out of the hands of locals and playing daily cop then it's as dumb as the American president who began the mission in the first place.
if the idea is longterm occupation for strategic benefit then it'll fail as assuredly as the Soviet attempt had |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, if you do sue for peace you don't do it until you've gained ground or some sort of signal victory first.
In the meantime, just giving up and pulling out would be disrespectful to the men who have died.
But I think its premature to give up on Afghanistan. Right now there are too few troops, and that's a large part of the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
In the meantime, just giving up and pulling out would be disrespectful to the men who have died.
|
How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a lost cause? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The fact that this is probably a lost cause makes it an even greater tragedy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
supernick
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 3 more families suffering. And for what. |
Freeing up the free flow of softwood lumber would answer that question. I guess also because Canadians got tired of being called fence sitters.
Then there's Canada's commitment to NATO. It's not a popular war and it's not going to be an easy one. I am glad to hear that there will be 20.000 more U.S. troops being deployed and that should help, but if the objective is to oust the Taliban, the war will never end. Once their government can have control, it is time to leave and I think there has been progress in that area.
We will be reading of more deaths like this for the next year or so, and I do feel for their families. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TECO
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
6 killed in 8 days.
it is a lost cause. the british and the russians couldn't take over afghanistan. I was listening to Gwynne Dyer, a Canadina / British historian and reporter. He was saying Afghanistan isn't really even broken. It's not a "State" in the sense that Canada is. We can't install democracy. It's always going to be competing groups, drug and war lords slugging it out.
it's a lost cause from what I understand after reading and listening to people like dyer speak out about it. and there's no mission focus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sharkey
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| The fact that this is probably a lost cause makes it an even greater tragedy. |
yup, its time to negotiate with the taliban and their allies. No one has any support for these wars anymore and seeing 6 dead in 8 days is a complete travesty and makes me viciously angry about what theyre even doing in afghanistan and the fact we extended out mission until 2011, are you fn kidding me ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
In the meantime, just giving up and pulling out would be disrespectful to the men who have died.
|
How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a lost cause? |
Its not a lost cause. I don't know how you can be so certain that it is.
Just because the mighty objectives put in place may not be accomplished does not mean that lesser, necessary objectives cannot be met. This is not all or nothing. And a full, immediate withdrawal will likely mean a complete failure and the surrender of ALL of Afghanistan to the Taliban. Remember that the Pashtuns do not even make up 50% of the country, and the Taliban does not embrace all of the Pashtuns.
At any rate, I very much doubt this conflict will end soon. Obama will not want to even negotiate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Its not a lost cause. I don't know how you can be so certain that it is.
|
Well, how would you define a success there? Also, when does the cost of success outweigh the actual success?
| Quote: |
| At any rate, I very much doubt this conflict will end soon. Obama will not want to even negotiate. |
No, it won't end. Sometimes people/governments get caught up in lost causes. We see this in the bailouts, the war on drugs and others. The Canadian government will likely use 'our' military commitment in Afghanistan to procure concessions on otherwise unrelated bilateral causes. Which makes me even more frustrated, as Canadian blood is then being spilled to get softwood moving etc.
--------
This is going to get very messy. Pakistan apparently will have to pick between a civil war and a big war with India (which they would lose). That will expand quickly into Afganistan (or NATO's mission in Afganistan will expand --has expanded-- into Pakistan). This has the potential to become a regional disaster in every way. We can't afford this. We can't win this.
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/india/articles/20081210.aspx
| Quote: |
Civil War Or Nuclear War?
December 10, 2008: The capture of one of the ten Mumbai terrorists has been a disaster for Pakistan. The captured terrorist talked, and his information checked out, and made it clear that Pakistan was tolerating Islamic terrorist groups operating openly inside Pakistan. This is nothing new, but such dramatic proof is. The U.S., the UN and most other major countries put the pressure on Pakistan to do something about this, or risk being officially branded a pro-terrorist state. Pakistan responded to that pressure in the last week by arresting several senior terrorist leaders known to be operating in Pakistan. But Pakistan refused to allow India to take these terrorists. That's because if these guys began talking, they would confirm Pakistan's long term support of Islamic terrorist activities. These are admissions that Pakistan does not want to deal with. Nevertheless, Pakistan has long been known as a supporter of Islamic terrorists, even though some of these terrorist organizations are trying to kill Pakistani leaders. That is a rather recent development, which came about after September 11, 2001, when the Pakistani leadership were forced to decide between backing the war on terror, or siding with the terrorists. At that point, some Islamic terrorists began attacking Pakistani leaders. But others, like those responsible for the Mumbai attacks (Lashkar e Toiba) did not support the overthrow of the Pakistani government (at least not right away), and continued to be protected by the government.
But Lashkar e Toiba continued to plan attacks inside India, which India has warned could lead to nuclear war. But Pakistan did not want to enrage another bunch of Islamic terrorists. Now they have no choice, or do they? India and the United States are watching closely exactly what Pakistan does to the "Kashmir (dedicated to taking Kashmir from Indian control) terrorists" like Lashkar e Toiba. Pakistan has made a few arrests, and everyone is waiting to see if, or when, Pakistan will do some real damage to these groups. So far, Pakistan has not. Groups like Lashkar e Toiba are very popular in Pakistan, because getting control of Kashmir is very popular. The government fears that going after the Kashmir terrorists would cause a civil war inside Pakistan. That has always been a risk, which even India acknowledged. But now the Indian government has a population enraged about the activities (like Mumbai, and similar attacks earlier) of the Pakistani Kashmir terror groups, and wants something done. Pakistan is being forced into a corner, where the choices come down to civil war with their Islamic conservatives and radicals (about a third of the population), or war with India, which could escalate into a nuclear conflict that Pakistan would lose. The civil war would be messy, but the government would almost certainly win it. Pakistani politicians, being risk averse, are looking for some way out of this mess. There doesn't seem to be one.
Meanwhile, the battle against the Taliban continues on the Afghan border. The Taliban are now trying to threaten truck traffic into Afghanistan. As a landlocked country with no railroads, most imports travel into Afghanistan via truck, along only a few roads that cross the border. This trucking business is very lucrative for Pakistani transportation companies, and vital for the economy of Afghanistan. These attacks will force the Pakistanis to assign more troops and police to protecting the trucking operations. Not so much to protect U.S. and NATO supply lines, but to protect a major economic asset for political and economic big shots on both sides of the border. You do not want to be messing with the money in this part of the world. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TECO
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Just because the mighty objectives put in place may not be accomplished does not mean that lesser, necessary objectives cannot be met. This is not all or nothing. And a full, immediate withdrawal will likely mean a complete failure and the surrender of ALL of Afghanistan to the Taliban. Remember that the Pashtuns do not even make up 50% of the country, and the Taliban does not embrace all of the Pashtuns.
At any rate, I very much doubt this conflict will end soon. Obama will not want to even negotiate. |
WTF?
We're losing more soldiers - the violence is going up, not down! Were not doing any good there, although that's not what our politcal masters would want us to believe.
And anyways, what makes Canada an exception to the history? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TECO
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Pakistan apparently will have to pick between a civil war and a big war with India |
both countries have nuclear weapons.
how long would it take to go from conventional war to a an all out nuclear exchange between the two rivals? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Taliban are a political extension of the Pakistan ISI.
The front lines of this war may be in Afghanistan however the rear echelon is in Pakistan in the name of Hameed Gul.
His awkward attempt to open a new front in India has backfired.
Please pay attention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Its not a lost cause. I don't know how you can be so certain that it is. |
DING! DING! DING! ... WE HAVE A WINNER!
I kept checking back to this thread to see who'll be the first to say so and it is: Kuros |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hopefully we'll bring our troops back before the economy collapses in a few months. I don't want to see our troops stuck in Afghanistan and having to integrate and live with the Afghan populace if we're too broke to bring them back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
