[Zipperfish]

Tricks Tricks:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Wow, that's clever, Newfy. Did you come up wiht that all by yourself. You're quite the intellectual giant, aren't you?

Coming from the guy who said....

$1:

We are not in Afghanistan to defeat the Taiban. They have nothing to do with it. It has to with the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Oh wait... I mean, it's all about Saddam being a ruthless dictator. No, sorry...We're there to win the hearts of minds of the terrorists. Oh, nevermind. I forget. Well, the point is that we are there, so we can't cut and run.

That doesn't mean much.

yes. perhaps you've heard of satire. It's a device used in humour to.... Oh, nevermind.

[Zipperfish]

Tricks Tricks:

Tman1 Tman1:

Well, techincally we are occupying Afghanistan, along with other nations of NATO. We are a foreign military in a foreign land, what would you call that?

An occupation is when we are not wanted by the current government. We are there under the invitation of the current government. Or else sending our military to...help with the tsunami was an occupation. Which of course it wasn't.

nope.

[Tman1]

[SJ-24]

I got through the first four replies to your topic and realized that no matter what I said you wouldn't understand....well to be honest, I think you're simply to retarded to understand reason and reality, but I'll give it a shot for you as I like helping out the less able....

The truth is, we were never there to kill off the Taliban, we learned from the Soviet troops that's impossible as they are damn tough fighters and when you kill one, ten more show up to fight. What we are there for is to provide protection for the rebuiilding organizations, more commonly called NGOs, so they can do the work of proving that there is a better way of life. They have more experience and they have far better methods. Simply put, we know enough to know who can do the job better. The Taliban are going to lose, not because we will bomb them into submission, but rather because the will of the people will overcome their brutal rule. And before I forget, the leopard tanks have just been ordered into battle. Canada is sending in the armoured troops to provide some protection and heavy hitting power. About time. The Soviets had a lot of luck with those T-64 and T-72, but not so much with the BMPs. If I've lost you, just nod like you know what I'm talking about...You'll look less like a fool that way!

[Tman1]

SJ-24 SJ-24:

The truth is, we were never there to kill off the Taliban, we learned from the Soviet troops that's impossible as they are damn tough fighters and when you kill one, ten more show up to fight.

And where there because we realized that we couldn't kill the Taliban and our soldiers are killed daily because.....

By the way, the Soviets had little experience (along with their superior equipment) on desert warfare and lost because of it. Fanatics along with that....nah, they had nothing to do with it...

[CAGERATTLER]

So maybe you assholes who mouthed off about this topic would like to fucking explain WHY even a top ranking officer on the ground in Afghanistan IS ON A FUCKING DIFFERENT PAGE THAN General Hillier!!!!

SEEMS HE THINKS THE GOAL OF THE MISSION IS TO """GET THIS NOW YA FUCKING DUMMIES"" TO DEFEAT THE TALIBAN!!!!!!!!

HERE IS THE FUCKING PROOF::::::

Well folks here is yet more proof the troops on the ground have a different idea about what the goal of the mission is compared to General Hillier's view!

Hillier says we are ""not there"" to defeat the Taliban! Here is the proof he said that::::

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...72154&t=TS_Home

Reached by phone near Ottawa yesterday, Hillier told the Star he had no disagreement with his minister's statement out of Australia.

"Not at all," Hillier said. "That's never been the strategy — to defeat them militarily."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now this quote is from a high ranking officer NOTE he thinks he's there to (GET THIS NOW) defeat the Taliban!!!

Mixed messages? YOU BET!! When even the high ranking officers are not on the same page THERE IS A PROBLEM!!!

Yes we do need a debate about this mission!!!


http://www.canada.com/topics/techno...ec-a91f1042514a

"We're making good progress every day," said Canadian Brig.-Gen. David Fraser, head of NATO's southern Afghanistan operation. "There is severe pressure on the insurgents remaining in the area, which will continue until they are either ""defeated"" or choose reconciliation through surrender."
__________________


I'll accept all due apologies!!! If you have the fucking balls to admit I was right THAT IS!!!!!

[Tricks]

Tman1 Tman1:

That was a bad example if I do say so myself. The word "occupy" is a very straight forward and nominal word and it isn't a matter of semantics.

Yes it is. There is more then one definition of occupy. In the military terms, it is to control.

$1:

Occupying doesn't have to mean something is under our control, it means we are physically and presently in a certain area, we are effectively "occupying" an area.

Yes, but dictionary.com states...

$1:

4. to take possession and control of (a place), as by military invasion.

$1:

The Canadian military (as I've said before along with other NATO troops) is effectively occupying Afghanistan.

I respectfully disagree.

$1:

What rules specify that an area has to be under control to be (as you put it semantically) "occupied"?

Again, semantics. Some people will think differently then others.

$1:

You can consider it a non-occupying army if that is your prerogative but they are physically there and in effect, occupying the country.

But they don't have control. I think that when you are dealing with the military being in a country, they have to control the country in someways before it is considered an occupation.

$1:

Besides, they would have to be occupying the country since domestic troops are almost non-existant.

True, but our troops are not restricting things from happening. We are there by the invitation of the Government, and we aren't trying to take control of the country for ourselves.

[Tman1]

Well, is NATO not in control technically? Remember the boys with the toys are in control, perhaps not in name but they are. Besides didn't the U.S and other allies invade Afghanistan in the beginning and still there?

[Tricks]

Tman1 Tman1:

Well, is NATO not in control technically? Remember the boys with the toys are in control, perhaps not in name but they are. Besides didn't the U.S and other allies invade Afghanistan in the beginning and still there?

NATO initially occupied it when the Taliban was in control. But now the control has been given to the current government, and our people in uniform are there to help establish security within the country. We may techinically be controlling the country in terms of fighting, but we have no say in any bills or laws or anything like that. Nor are we trying to gain it.

[Scape]

It is the same set up as the Germans had with France under the Vichy government. Rest assured if they wanted to declare war on us (as absurd a proposition as that may be) it would not be allowed and the fact that they can not exercise that right defines that this is an occupation.

I think the point your trying to make tricks is framed incorrectly. No one wants terrorists running Afghanistan so having us there is much better than not. I embrace the occupation as a necessary evil but a temporary one. At some point we must make clear our departure so that the sovereign nation of Afghanistan can truly form and the sooner the better for all concerned.

[GunPlumber]

SJ-24 SJ-24:

The Taliban are going to lose, not because we will bomb them into submission, but rather because the will of the people will overcome their brutal rule.

We will lose because we have engaged an enemy without understanding who the enemy is, why the enemy exists, or how the enemy came into being. In short: we are fighting an enemy without even knowing why it is an enemy.

We mounted an invasion on the self-indulgent and hypocritical pretext that we did it "to spread freedom and democracy", without even attempting to understand how our version of "freedom and democracy" is perceived by the invaded, or whether they were even desirous of it.

Sun-Tzu would laugh at our folly.

[Calgary123]

GunPlumber GunPlumber:

SJ-24 SJ-24:

The Taliban are going to lose, not because we will bomb them into submission, but rather because the will of the people will overcome their brutal rule.

We will lose because we have engaged an enemy without understanding who the enemy is, why the enemy exists, or how the enemy came into being. In short: we are fighting an enemy without even knowing why it is an enemy.

We mounted an invasion on the self-indulgent and hypocritical pretext that we did it "to spread freedom and democracy", without even attempting to understand how our version of "freedom and democracy" is perceived by the invaded, or whether they were even desirous of it.

Sun-Tzu would laugh at our folly.

Well said GP... Unfortunately, few here will understand this.

[2Cdo]

GunPlumber GunPlumber:

SJ-24 SJ-24:

The Taliban are going to lose, not because we will bomb them into submission, but rather because the will of the people will overcome their brutal rule.

We will lose because we have engaged an enemy without understanding who the enemy is, why the enemy exists, or how the enemy came into being. In short: we are fighting an enemy without even knowing why it is an enemy.

We mounted an invasion on the self-indulgent and hypocritical pretext that we did it "to spread freedom and democracy", without even attempting to understand how our version of "freedom and democracy" is perceived by the invaded, or whether they were even desirous of it.

Sun-Tzu would laugh at our folly.

Just a couple of questions for you.

1. Are you still serving?
2. Have you been to Afghanistan?

With your wonderful defeatist attitude I am glad you aren't here in Kingston working on any of our weapons as I honestly wouldn't trust you to do your job properly!

If you are retired then I would have no problems with your comments as I would pass them off as the disgruntled rantings of a disillusioned ex-service member. If you are currently serving and voiced these opinions I would hope that your co-workers would "sort you out", because if you worked for me and spouted such bullshit you WOULD be "sorted out"!

[LABBATTS50]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

GunPlumber GunPlumber:

SJ-24 SJ-24:

The Taliban are going to lose, not because we will bomb them into submission, but rather because the will of the people will overcome their brutal rule.

We will lose because we have engaged an enemy without understanding who the enemy is, why the enemy exists, or how the enemy came into being. In short: we are fighting an enemy without even knowing why it is an enemy.

We mounted an invasion on the self-indulgent and hypocritical pretext that we did it "to spread freedom and democracy", without even attempting to understand how our version of "freedom and democracy" is perceived by the invaded, or whether they were even desirous of it.

Sun-Tzu would laugh at our folly.

Just a couple of questions for you.

1. Are you still serving?
2. Have you been to Afghanistan?

With your wonderful defeatist attitude I am glad you aren't here in Kingston working on any of our weapons as I honestly wouldn't trust you to do your job properly!

If you are retired then I would have no problems with your comments as I would pass them off as the disgruntled rantings of a disillusioned ex-service member. If you are currently serving and voiced these opinions I would hope that your co-workers would "sort you out", because if you worked for me and spouted such bullshit you WOULD be "sorted out"!

[CAGERATTLER]

So maybe you assholes who mouthed off about this topic would like to fucking explain WHY even a top ranking officer on the ground in Afghanistan IS ON A FUCKING DIFFERENT PAGE THAN General Hillier!!!!

SEEMS HE THINKS THE GOAL OF THE MISSION IS TO """GET THIS NOW YA FUCKING DUMMIES"" TO DEFEAT THE TALIBAN!!!!!!!!

HERE IS THE FUCKING PROOF::::::

Well folks here is yet more proof the troops on the ground have a different idea about what the goal of the mission is compared to General Hillier's view!

Hillier says we are ""not there"" to defeat the Taliban! Here is the proof he said that::::

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...72154&t=TS_Home

Reached by phone near Ottawa yesterday, Hillier told the Star he had no disagreement with his minister's statement out of Australia.

"Not at all," Hillier said. "That's never been the strategy — to defeat them militarily."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now this quote is from a high ranking officer NOTE he thinks he's there to (GET THIS NOW) defeat the Taliban!!!

Mixed messages? YOU BET!! When even the high ranking officers are not on the same page THERE IS A PROBLEM!!!

Yes we do need a debate about this mission!!!


http://www.canada.com/topics/techno...ec-a91f1042514a

"We're making good progress every day," said Canadian Brig.-Gen. David Fraser, head of NATO's southern Afghanistan operation. "There is severe pressure on the insurgents remaining in the area, which will continue until they are either ""defeated"" or choose reconciliation through surrender."
__________________


I'll accept all due apologies!!! If you have the fucking balls to admit I was right THAT IS!!!!!


_________________
False accusations,lies and a CON servative loving bias media are the weapons of mass deception of the CON servatives and a lot of their supporters!!
Its how they got elected in a nut shell!!!!