|
Defending Afghanistan (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| WTF, Canada!? CANADA! WTF do we need mooses and ing eskimos for?! Canada, ! Just b/c you have the biggest mall in the world don't mean BITCH. Hey Canada. America can whoop your asses motherF0COKERS! |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
If the US wanted to take Canadian oil it would do so. NATO is not the factor dissuading the US from doing so. It is just not in the interests of the US to take Canadian oil. In addition, NATO is not a factor as your suggest for the following reasons:
(i) NATO only protects its members from EXTERNAL threats (the US would be an internal threat).
(ii) Canada likely wouldn't be a party to NATO if not for the participation of the US (Canada and the US tend to move together on the international stage).
(iii) NATO likely wouldn't be a viable organization without the participation of the US. |
I completely agree with point iii; however, the other two are incorrect. re: i) internal threats mean those internal to the member nation (ie. civil war), an attack from one member nation on another would be an external threat to the attacked nation. re: ii) I'm sure that if a US withdraw would result in NATO being even more ineffectual then it already is then we would likely pull out on those grounds, not simply because our best friends left the party so we're going too. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I completely agree with point iii; however, the other two are incorrect. re: i) internal threats mean those internal to the member nation (ie. civil war), an attack from one member nation on another would be an external threat to the attacked nation. re: ii) I'm sure that if a US withdraw would result in NATO being even more ineffectual then it already is then we would likely pull out on those grounds, not simply because our best friends left the party so we're going too. |
As to (ii): i was referring to the initial membership in NATO, not a subsequent withdrawal. Canada would not be part of the organization if the US declined to join in the forties.
As to (i):
The NATO treaty isn't the most detailed document, but let's take a quick look:
| quote: |
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
|
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm
Article 5 of the treaty states: the attack on one country (Canada) by another country (the US) is considered an attack on every country (including the US). As a result, the US would be obligated to fend of an attack of Canada by the US. That really doesn't make sense because you can't defend a country from your own attacks.
The very nature of the organization didn't comtemplate an attack by an internal member. The purpose was to create a force to defend members from Russian attacks. I don't think article 5 obligates any country to come to the defense of a member when attacked by another member. In any event, the article is watered down by the qualification, "as it deems necessary." |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I wasn't saying it couldn't happen... just that it would not be considered a just war and therefore that bit about the world being on your side is likely incorrect.
Actually, I'd like to think the other NATO countries would giv'er a shot given our mutual defense treaty; however, I'm not confident about that (I mean really, like you can trust the in' Germans or Dutch). Of course this entire discussion is moot since such a thing is less probable then the tin-foil hat brigade convincing PKC that 9/11 was an inside job.
Dude... I think you've misdirected this comment. I'm very happy that Canada and the US are the closest allies and trading partners that have ever been. I, like most Canadians, value my countries relationship with yours very highly and with the exception of the crazies you have living in Jesusland and those that do their bidding in Washington we generally like our cousins to the south (and yes I realize that excludes Alaska... but can you blame us for not liking Alaskans?). |
Zild doesnt know his history. He is forgetting that Canada made significant contributions in World War I and World War 2. Who liberated Netherlands? Who participated in liberating considerable portions of Italy and France?
Without Canada, it would not have been the same. Tens of thousands of Canadians gave up their lives in those wars. Yes, we did and do support our allies.
Canada has a strong but small military, and came to the defense of our allies when NEEDED. But today its becoming clear that Afghanistan is unneccessary. Few years ago there was something to fight for there, and now after the fog cleared up, its obvious that Canadian troops are merely protecting (crappy and corrupt) Afghan leadership and patrolling the heroin fields. And besides, the only country that has to the date invaded us was ... our closest neighbour. We don't worry about other countries invading Canada. Just like Norway doesn't worry. Anything else is merely political intimidation.
We don't on anyone's lawn, and enjoy having a good image in the world. No offense, but United States isn't exactly a very popular and widely loved country (compared to Canada), and we definitely dont have the guns to back up our "tough" stance, so we try not to invade countries or stick our noses into other countries' business - thouggh occassionally we come to the rescue of our allies even if our public doesnt support the stance. And now in Afghanistan, we see that Afghan politicians are spitting on the graves of the Canadian soldiers with ill-conceived and ignorant laws that once again allow women to be controlled and raped systematically.
Smart thing to do for Canada now is to threaten to the Afghan government that we are pulling out. I am sure that would be enough for them to cancel the law. Zild might think that Canadian military is weak, but 1,000 Canadian troops are strong enough to control the Kandahar province.
EDIT: He is also conveniently ignoring the articles I posted on Afghanistan. At least I use evidence and rational thinking to base my conclusions on, and not harsh language. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
I really really do think it is time for the Canadian forces to leave that country. Clearly the leadership there is a joke and our troops are dying for nothing. Lets leave to Obama since he thinks having more forces there will solve the problem.
GET OUR TROOPS OUT NOOOOW. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| No reason for anyone to be in Afghanistan. That corrupt POS country will never be a democracy but for some reason our leaders are lying to us about how "noble" being there is. Afghanistan. Strategically, Osama is a genius. Here we are stuck in a quagmire in a worthless country. What more could the guy ask for? His goal is foment Islamic revolution where ever he can, almost like an Islamic version of Che Guevara. He's done exactly that in Afghanistan. WTF? |
|
|
| Zild |
I think we need a major shift in policy if we are to win afghanistan. We need more SF and Civil Affairs to help get the infrastructure of the country put back together. Right now they will follow whoever puts the money up and helps them get on the right track to a sustainable non violent future.
That policy shift is going on right now. |
|
|
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Zild doesnt know his history. He is forgetting that Canada made significant contributions in World War I and World War 2. Who liberated Netherlands? Who participated in liberating considerable portions of Italy and France?
Without Canada, it would not have been the same. Tens of thousands of Canadians gave up their lives in those wars. Yes, we did and do support our allies.
Canada has a strong but small military, and came to the defense of our allies when NEEDED. But today its becoming clear that Afghanistan is unneccessary. Few years ago there was something to fight for there, and now after the fog cleared up, its obvious that Canadian troops are merely protecting (crappy and corrupt) Afghan leadership and patrolling the heroin fields. And besides, the only country that has to the date invaded us was ... our closest neighbour. We don't worry about other countries invading Canada. Just like Norway doesn't worry. Anything else is merely political intimidation.
We don't on anyone's lawn, and enjoy having a good image in the world. No offense, but United States isn't exactly a very popular and widely loved country (compared to Canada), and we definitely dont have the guns to back up our "tough" stance, so we try not to invade countries or stick our noses into other countries' business - thouggh occassionally we come to the rescue of our allies even if our public doesnt support the stance. And now in Afghanistan, we see that Afghan politicians are spitting on the graves of the Canadian soldiers with ill-conceived and ignorant laws that once again allow women to be controlled and raped systematically.
Smart thing to do for Canada now is to threaten to the Afghan government that we are pulling out. I am sure that would be enough for them to cancel the law. Zild might think that Canadian military is weak, but 1,000 Canadian troops are strong enough to control the Kandahar province.
EDIT: He is also conveniently ignoring the articles I posted on Afghanistan. At least I use evidence and rational thinking to base my conclusions on, and not harsh language. |
it puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again! |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
I think we need a major shift in policy if we are to win afghanistan. We need more SF and Civil Affairs to help get the infrastructure of the country put back together. Right now they will follow whoever puts the money up and helps them get on the right track to a sustainable non violent future.
That policy shift is going on right now. |
Afghanistan is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Why should we throw our precious resources into the toilet for such a worthless country? |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
No reason for anyone to be in Afghanistan. That corrupt POS country will never be a democracy but for some reason our leaders are lying to us about how "noble" being there is. Afghanistan. Strategically, Osama is a genius. Here we are stuck in a quagmire in a worthless country. What more could the guy ask for? His goal is foment Islamic revolution where ever he can, almost like an Islamic version of Che Guevara. He's done exactly that in Afghanistan. WTF? |
I wouldn't go that far. The man has nutty views and even nuttier followers. He went to a hole country that was ruled by even worse people to hide and train his nutjob followers. Now, he's hiding in caves to avoid detection and capture. It doesn't take much to avert detection in a place where people share the same crazy ideological views. I think people give him too much credit. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
I wouldn't go that far. The man has nutty views and even nuttier followers. He went to a hole country that was ruled by even worse people to hide and train his nutjob followers. Now, he's hiding in caves to avoid detection and capture. It doesn't take much to avert detection in a place where people share the same crazy ideological views. I think people give him too much credit. |
It's so easy to call Osama simply a nut job. Unfortunately, millions of people agree with his views. 9/11 was an ingenious fomenter of Islamic revolution, at least in Afghanistan, and in Iraq. The man is smart. And America falls for his far too easily. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
It's so easy to call Osama simply a nut job. Unfortunately, millions of people agree with his views. 9/11 was an ingenious fomenter of Islamic revolution, at least in Afghanistan, and in Iraq. The man is smart. And America falls for his far too easily. |
i never said he was a nut job. I wouldn't call him a genius, but he is smart enough to convince other people to kill themselves for his cause. That makes him a cult leader in my view. No smarter than any other cult leader, e.g., Warren Jeffs (mormon polygymist sect leader). I would say he is more manipulative than smart. He has the advantage of having millions of actual 'nutjobs' believe in his ideology. Your so called 'islamic revolution' in afghanistan occurred prior to him locating there. The taliban already imposed their ultra conservative ways on the people prior to him moving his operations to that country. In fact, I believe that was part of the reason he moved his operations to afghanistan.
As for america falling for his , i'm not sure what that means. I do know, however, that american politicians have a political obligation to persue him until his death. Regardless of the truth, it would be political suicide for an american politician to say, "forget osama, he is irrelevant." His connection to one of the most horrific individual acts on a civilian populuation since WWII (japan being nuked being far worse) will always be engrained in the psyche of amercians. I'm a pretty logical dude (in my own mind), and I realize that an unending chase for osama is terrible idea based on a pure cost/benefit analysis. Nevertheless, I support a continued search for the man based purely on my emotional connection to 9/11. Whether it's a good or bad thing, sometimes human nature dictates that a good decisions doesn't always have to be made using a computer. Sometimes satisfying your emotional needs is benefit enough to support a poor financial decision. |
|
|
|
|
