Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 9:11 am    Post subject: I do not understand the "withdrawal timetable" peo Reply with quote

It seems to me that in a war, it is not over until it is over; nothing is decided until that final surrender agreement is signed by both sides. The victor is not decided until the end. In WW2, it was not clear that the allied forces would win until very late in the conflict. Setting a timetable for the end of your involvement in a conflict simply does not make logical sense. You enemy would then simply have to wait you out; they would have a date and time, known in advance, on which they could declare victory.

Imagine if the US had said that their involvement in the war would end on December 1, 1944. Imagine if they had just stopped after a few dozen casualties.

If we want to win in Afghanistan, if the Americans want to win in Iraq, then they have to gut it out till the end. It is just that simple. If they want to lose, and have a date set for that loss, then and only then does a timetable make sense.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
nothing is decided until that final surrender agreement is signed by both sides.

Who is going to sign a surrender document?
We are not fighting governments. We are not fighting conventional wars. I do not see how these wars can ever be "over" unless we use tactics which for a variety of reasons the west will not (ie forceable relocating several hundred thousand people)
I do agree with you about having withdrawl dates for the mission though, but having withdrawl dates for our deployments (6 months) makes a lot of sense.
The world war was different, you can not establish bridgeheads, you can not advance.
Totally diff kind of war.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think it is that different. War is war, a very bad prospect. People die on both sides. The technology has changed, and some of the tactics, but it is the same goal as when the Romans fought the Gauls. These modern wars can be won, all it takes is time and the will. The IRA was defeated, they agreed to lay down their arms. Granted they were marginally less brutal and less suicidal than the nutters in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, and elsewhere. It took what, 3, 4 decades for the IRA to realize that they could not get what they wanted through fighting? It will take at least that long in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are only about 4 countries willing to do any heavy lifting in Afghanistan, if one of them sets a time table for withdrawal, what kind of message does that send?

Vietnam was winnable, up until public pressure forced an American withdrawal. There was not one battle that the US lost in the whole Vietnamese war, save the propaganda battle. I seems though that modern wars are fought and won on the media front more than anywhere else.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A thought just occurred to me. Propaganda is one of the primary tools of the dictator. All these tyrants and dictators we are fighting these days, that used to be aligned with the old Soviet block; could it be that the Soviets advanced the art and tools of propaganda several decades beyond what we have in the West? If that is true, and this knowledge was passed on to their old allies in Iran and elsewhere, is that why they so effectively win every media and PR battle?
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another point, all the reasoning I hear from the withdrawal side seems circular.

"We are not currently winning, therefor it is not winnable."
"They never had an exit strategy, so we should withdraw."

Stuff along those lines. I note that in WW2, the exit strategy was to win.
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Me neither. All I understand is that they are in alliance with the jihadists
triple M





Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Reputation: 54.2

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree kwlafayette you also make some interesting points on propaganda. If we leave Afghan before it is secure it will bring trouble straight to our front door I believe. We have to deal with these Radical Islamist sooner or later, and I donít believe we can afford to wait and deal with them 5-10 years from now.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well for parts of WW2 the plan for the British and the Russians was not to lose..... but I do agree with your point.
We have a much more open society, it is hard for our propaganda (which we call education because we like it) to convience the entire population. Our news is free, it is a major problem with fighting this war, you can not brainwash people like you used to be able to. Also our society has never been as unified as it was during ww2 since 1945.
The will to fight in ww1 for example was based on a lot of lies because all the major powers censored their news.
Vietnam was lost in the familyrooms of America, when people sat down to watch tv and saw stuff like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se7lljRDNjk
Now information is even more free flowing. We know so much information about each soldier who dies.
For them to win they just have to not lose.

What really pisses me off is these same people against the A-Stan mission are the ones saying "go into Sudan" which will be great until we lose 10 people then they willw ant us to come home.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some bang on points. Once the casualties start, how would Sudan be any different is exactly right. We may be at the end of the current chapter of "Canadian peace keeping" in the world. What will follow is likely a chapter of isolationism, that will fail to achieve the desired result. We will pull back from all conflicts, after this do you think any PM will be interested in committing troops to anything anywhere? Don't know what will happen after that.

Peace keeping was a myth from the beginning anyway; peace must be made.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I dont so much oppose peace keeping as I oppose onlypeace keeping. Canadians can be peacekeepers as long as thats not all we are. It is a myth if you look at where our manpower was deployed. Our military obligations were always tilted towards Europe during the cold war for obvious reasons.
The problem is peace keeping only works when both sides want peace and more and more peace keepers are being deployed to war zones where they do not have the proper training/equipment/manpower to deal with the job they are asked to do.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, in places like Bosnia, the Darfur, Rwanda, both sides do not want peace because one side is clearly winning. When people talk about peace keeping, what they really are talking about is protecting the losing side from, in the cases I mentioned above, genocide.

In Lebanon the situation is different again. Peace keepers protect one side while it is arming and not fully prepared to fight. Is protecting someone who clearly has the intention to fight later on really peace keeping though?
Duck Tory





Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 826
Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3
votes: 4

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is now clear that this whole Timetable withdrawl is nothing more then saying "We give up here is a place of land do what you want, but don't bother us" To me what is important is this War is preventing a Empire from begin created and a Terrorist group from becoming a Gov't hellbent on destroying America to the last city or town and Wiping out Israel. What concerns me is that we have a public nearly 50 to 70% in USA and Canada that is too selfish,Greedy,Ignorance and downright in Self-Denial of a group of people that hates them for what they are. They refuse to give people freedom cause people in both countries think that avoiding Terrorism would lead to peace, Well they are wrong and it seems social fads are more important on their minds.

God help if we see our nations abondan these people in Iraq,Afganistan and Israel for the sake of Social Welfare.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"... in every generation the idea of liberty must be reasserted by those with the vision to see through the fog, and rediscovered by the young and courageous." -- Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free." -- Sir Edward Gibbon

"Personal responsibility is the price of liberty." -- Michael Cloud

"A free society cannot work unless people take charge of their lives and assume responsibility for their actions." -- Jim Powell

http://freedomkeys.com/vigil.htm
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the
socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, six-time
Socialist Party presidential candidate and one of the founders of the ACLU.

I think it has already happened.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The MID is pure socialism.....
:P
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
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
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


I do not understand the "withdrawal timetable" peo

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB