That being said, the European and Canadian commitment to helping the Americans fight the Taliban and al qaeda in Afghanistan has not been sufficient.
I could be mistaken, but I'm not sure terrorism was a consideration when the NATO treaty was written. What it does provide for is a military attack by a nation -- the specific political entity of a nation -- against a member nation. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but their treaty obligation doesn't legally require them to intervene in an act committed by a terrorist group that has an association or allegience to a religion, but not to any nation or political entity.
Currently our forces are engaging the enemy in several provinces of Afghanistan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not think they differentiate between al qaeda and the Taliban. Leading up to 9/11, the Taliban provided al qaeda a sancutuary in their country. Immediately after 9/11, President Bush ordered the leadership of the Taliban to hand over the leadership of al qaeda. They refused. In my opinion, this refusal makes the Taliban complicit in the attack on the US. It would be difficult to convince me that the 9/11 attack should not be considered state sponsered terrorism.
Posts: 2272 | Location: WI | Registered: November 16, 2007
Subchop-Sorry to hijack your thread. I guess when talk of war is started, it inevitably ends up in a discussion about Aphganistan/Iraq.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." Ronald Reagan
Originally posted by Jack White: What it does provide for is a military attack by a nation -- the specific political entity of a nation -- against a member nation.
I'm chuckling because I'm thinking of the Greeks, the Turks and Cyprus.
QM Quality does not occur by chance. It is the result of intelligent activities.
Posts: 8025 | Location: Cigar land | Registered: March 10, 2003
Leading up to 9/11, the Taliban provided al qaeda a sancutuary in their country.
I'm not disagreeing in principle. But Al Qaeda has been given sanctuary by a number of Islamic countries besides Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, including the Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Chechnya and possibly Uzbekistan, Kyrgyztan and Tajikistan.
quote:
...President Bush ordered the leadership of the Taliban to hand over the leadership of al qaeda. They refused. In my opinion, this refusal makes the Taliban complicit in the attack on the US.
That's too much of a leap, in my view, unless by 'complicit', you're making an "accessory after the fact" argument. While they may well have been delighted by it, there's no evidence or suggestion that Afghanistan -- or any national entity -- was involved in the 9/11 attack. Refusing to obey 'an order' from the U.S. president isn't tantamount to complicity.
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 4047 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
Notwithstanding the gratitude we should all bestow the US for it's (rather late, I might say) involvement in WWII (which would probably never have happened without Pearl Harbor),
To get back on topic ...
I don't think you're correct in that assessment. While public opinion in the U.S. in the 1930's was decidedly isolationist, it had begun to shift under Roosevelt, who championed coming to Europe's rescue. Lend-Lease by itself would probably have eventually led to a declaration of war against us by the Axis.
And even if there had been no Pearl Harbor attack, it's unlikely the U.S. would have stood by watching Japan and their ally Germany dividing Russia.
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 4047 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
Originally posted by Presley: Subchop-Sorry to hijack your thread. I guess when talk of war is started, it inevitably ends up in a discussion about Aphganistan/Iraq.
You're right. My bad. I always seem to get caught up in these political/historical debates. Although enjoyable and thought provoking, not very good for my blood pressure.
Jack White, although it is apparent we are completely different ends of the spectrum, I am appreciative of an honest rational debate. I'm sure we will butt heads again. Until then, take care.
Posts: 2272 | Location: WI | Registered: November 16, 2007
It's my perception that the civility of the discourse in these parts has improved a lot over the past few months. With occasional exceptions.
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 4047 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
The US oil embargo against Japan was put in place to try to stop/modify Japan's agression in China. It was an action short of war to stop an agressor. It did not work, as Japan in turn decided it needed Malaysian and Indonesian oil, so attacked Pearl Harbor to keep the US Navy from interfering. The "tough sanctions" policy actually percipitated a war. Something to keep in mind when talking about sanctions against Iran, N Korea, etc. Not having the sanctions would have been tantamount to approving of Japan's occupation of China. All this nonsense about how Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked is complete rubbish.
Germnay declared war on the US two days later. No one is really sure if US would've entered the war in Europe on its own. US was helping Britain just short of war, and a US destroyer was sunk by a U-Boat in the summer of '41, so I think we would've eventually gotten into it, but it may have been too late.
The USSR is the country that really beat Germany. 90% of Allied casualties were Russian, but the critical balance of supplies were from the US. Most of the Wehrmacht was on the Eastern Front. The US/UK bombing campaign was important, as of course was the Western Front after D-Day. The Battle of the Bulge, which was a close thing, was the only time the US expereienced a full frontal German offensive.
Without the US, Germany wins WWI, WWII, and USSR wins the Cold War. Europe would have been much, much different.
The risk of kicking butt is you get some crap on your shoe
I can only imagine the outcome had the media been as aggressive during WWII as they are today.
The media seemed to actually be on the side of the military during that time, albeit more censored. Vietnam and today's war is a completely different story when media coverage is concerned.
Concerning WWII though, it also seems like there was less of a rift with the american pubic as far as their opinion on what was right or wrong.
"Quickly, Bring me a beaker of wine, so that I may wet my brain and say something clever!"
--Aristophanes
Posts: 949 | Location: El Paso, TX | Registered: April 08, 2006
Originally posted by KKL: 1.) This is true. Canada's 3rd Infantry Division was assigned to secure Juno Beach on D-Day. However, in respect to lives lost & treasure spent on the war, the Candadian contribution pales in comparison to that of the United States. But that is not a point worth arguing IMO, I respect the contribution of all Allied service members.
This is not quite exact when you look at percentages. Just to take the example of Canada, with a population at the time of WWII of 11,267,000, that lost 45,300 soldiers for an equivalent of 0.40% of it's population.
The US, with 131,028,000 people lost 416,800 soldiers or 0.32% of the population.
The record is the USSR, which lost almost 15% of it's population.
quote:
That being said, the European and Canadian commitment to helping the Americans fight the Taliban and al qaeda in Afghanistan has not been sufficient.
BS (I mean this in a polite way). It is not the Americans who are in Afghanistan, it is an alliance of 32 UN countries, each with it's area of responsability. I believe we are doing our job there above and beyond our military means and, in the process, straying away from the strictly humanitarian function of our armed forces initiated in the 50s with the creation of the "Blue helmets".
________________________ "Tobacco is my favorite vegetable." --FZ
"Government is the Entertainment Division of the military-industrial complex." --FZ too
All this nonsense about how Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked is complete rubbish.
I'll differ with you here about the 'complete rubbish' part, O Man.
I'm not claiming Roosevelt (or Churchill, as often claimed) personally knew an attack would come precisely when it did -- they didn't -- nor do reasonable people believe the attack was a conspiracy, deliberately allowed so as to facilitate our entry into the war. That is rubbish.
But that being said, there was indeed decrypted intelligence well before December pointing to the likelihood of an attack (we had broken MAGIC, the Japanese diplomatic code). Some evaluations predicted Pearl Harbor as the target, others the Philippines. Read the report of the Roberts Commission.
Following the war, the Navy Department, at the recommendation of the Roberts Commission, found both the Army and Navy commanding officers at Pearl Harbor guilty of dereliction of duty for not responding properly to the advance warnings of an attack, and blamed this lack of response for the effectiveness of the Japanese attack.
You can make the point that Kimmel and Short were scapegoated, and I won't argue. But still, the attack shouldn't have been a surprise. And it's safe to assume, I think, that such intelligence would have made its way to the Oval Office.
quote:
The USSR is the country that really beat Germany. 90% of Allied casualties were Russian, but the critical balance of supplies were from the US.
Interesting hypothesis. Is it your opinion that if the U.S. had continued to provide supplies but not engaged in Europe militarily, Germany would still have been defeated? Or am I misunderstanding your point?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jack White,
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 4047 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
[/QUOTE]BS (I mean this in a polite way). It is not the Americans who are in Afghanistan, it is an alliance of 32 UN countries, each with it's area of responsability. I believe we are doing our job there above and beyond our military means and, in the process, straying away from the strictly humanitarian function of our armed forces initiated in the 50s with the creation of the "Blue helmets".[/QUOTE]
Do you actually believe this? It is the Americans who are doing the brunt of the fighting in Afghanistan. The troop levels aren't even close!
Posts: 2272 | Location: WI | Registered: November 16, 2007
BS (I mean this in a polite way). It is not the Americans who are in Afghanistan, it is an alliance of 32 UN countries, each with it's area of responsability. I believe we are doing our job there above and beyond our military means and, in the process, straying away from the strictly humanitarian function of our armed forces initiated in the 50s with the creation of the "Blue helmets".[/QUOTE]
Do you actually believe this? It is the Americans who are doing the brunt of the fighting in Afghanistan. The troop levels aren't even close! More than 12X that of Canada.[/QUOTE]
Posts: 2272 | Location: WI | Registered: November 16, 2007
Originally posted by KKL: Do you actually believe this? It is the Americans who are doing the brunt of the fighting in Afghanistan. The troop levels aren't even close! More than 12X that of Canada.
Actually, it's more like 6X more US Troops than Canadian (something like : United States, 12,000 Britain, 5,200 Germany, 2,750 Netherlands, 2,100 Canada, 1,800 Italy, 1,800 France, 1,000 Romania, 750 Spain, 625 Turkey, 475 Norway, 350 Denmark, 325 Belgium,...)
Of course, in absolute numbers, you are somewhat right. However, again, in correlation to our respective populations (12 to 1) we are actually participating two times more than the US.
________________________ "Tobacco is my favorite vegetable." --FZ
"Government is the Entertainment Division of the military-industrial complex." --FZ too
Jack...I think you and I are mainly on point...those that say FDR wanted an attack on PH and knew it was coming, yet did nothing, are full of shyte. The intel reports only show the attack was obvious AFTER the fact...like you said, it could've been the Philippines. The US commanders in Hawaii were derelict (planes parked wing tip to wing tip, etc). Incompetence doesn't translate to conspiracy though. Very much like 9-11, IMHO.
As to Russia, the simple fact is Russia inflicted more battlfield casaulties on the Germans than any other military (something like 6 of 7). US/UK killed lots of civilians in bombing and hurt German war production, but in the trenches, it was the Red Army that did most of the fighting. That was my main point. I do not think UK/USSR prevail without American supplies, though. Maybe they both keep fighting, but it was US arms, supplies, and logistics that kept them both in the war, UK before Dec '41 and Russia after. Maybe it ends up in German victory short of absolute.
Interesting side thought...US sent lots of supplies to Russia across the Pacific...Japan was terrified of bringing Russians into Pacific war, so didn't try to sink the ships (Japan used its subs very poorly, anyway). Germany begged the Japanese to sink the ships. Japan and Germany really didn't coordinate grand strategy or anything. They both essentially fought separate wars. US/UK/USSR did cooridinate strategy, the US/UK most effectively. In the end, Russia came into the fight against Japan anyways.
The risk of kicking butt is you get some crap on your shoe
Originally posted by KKL: Do you actually believe this? It is the Americans who are doing the brunt of the fighting in Afghanistan. The troop levels aren't even close! More than 12X that of Canada.
Actually, it's more like 6X more US Troops than Canadian (something like : United States, 12,000 Britain, 5,200 Germany, 2,750 Netherlands, 2,100 Canada, 1,800 Italy, 1,800 France, 1,000 Romania, 750 Spain, 625 Turkey, 475 Norway, 350 Denmark, 325 Belgium,...)
Of course, in absolute numbers, you are somewhat right. However, again, in correlation to our respective populations (12 to 1) we are actually participating two times more than the US.
Are the Canadian troops seeing combat? Read recently it was really only the US, UK, Aussies and Dutch doing any real fighting. All the other guys are doing more traditional "peace keeping" as opposed to "peace making" operations. Could just be the press, but that is what the FT (no pro-Bush paper) was saying.
The risk of kicking butt is you get some crap on your shoe
Originally posted by O Man: Are the Canadian troops seeing combat? Read recently it was really only the US, UK, Aussies and Dutch doing any real fighting. All the other guys are doing more traditional "peace keeping" as opposed to "peace making" operations. Could just be the press, but that is what the FT (no pro-Bush paper) was saying.
Here is, in detail and chronologically, the scope of Canadian military operations in Afghanistan (from the CBC):
Canada's military mission to Afghanistan began soon after the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. A naval task force was deployed to the Persian Gulf in October of that year.
In February 2002, a battle group from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry was sent to Kandahar for six months and assisted the United States and other forces in Operation Enduring Freedom in their offensive against elements of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the rugged southern regions.
From August 2003 to December 2005, Canada's military commitment was largely Operation Athena, based in the capital, Kabul, as part of the International Assistance Force, which had the aim of providing intelligence and security to allow "rebuilding the democratic process," something which eventually saw elections in the fall of 2005.
On July 31, 2006, NATO troops assumed command of all military operations in southern Afghanistan. The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) already had troops elsewhere in Afghanistan, including the capital Kabul, and in the north and the west of the country.
Lt.-Gen. David Richards, a British general, was put in charge of the NATO forces in southern Afghanistan. He announced the deployment of 8,000 NATO soldiers - including 2,200 Canadians - and Afghan units to six southern provinces by mid-September 2006. That deployment was increased to 2,500 in early September.
Other Canadian missions in Afghanistan included:
Heavy weapons cantonment: Helping the Afghan government collect, store and decommission 10,000 heavy weapons left over from decades of war, including artillery, tanks and rocket launchers.
Demining: Foreign Affairs says Canada has helped clear about one third of the estimated 10 million to 15 million mines in Afghanistan.
Microloans: Money from Canada has been used to provide microloans to more than 140,000 people in Afghanistan, 89 per cent of the clients are women.
Training: Canada also has a role in training the Afghan police and army. A group of Canadian Forces instructors were in Kabul to train members of the Afghan National Army. That unit remained in Kabul while the rest of the Canadian contingent moved south to Kandahar. Canadian troops are also training Afghan soldiers in Kandahar and the RCMP has a commitment to train Afghan police officers.
The Department of National Defence has also admitted that Canada's secret special forces, Joint Task Force Two, has been operating alongside the American and other special forces units in Afghanistan but no details have ever been released.
Also, Canada has allocated a total of $616.5 millions to Afghanistan, covering 2001 to 2009.
________________________ "Tobacco is my favorite vegetable." --FZ
"Government is the Entertainment Division of the military-industrial complex." --FZ too
Originally posted by KKL: Do you actually believe this? It is the Americans who are doing the brunt of the fighting in Afghanistan. The troop levels aren't even close! More than 12X that of Canada.
Actually, it's more like 6X more US Troops than Canadian (something like : United States, 12,000 Britain, 5,200 Germany, 2,750 Netherlands, 2,100 Canada, 1,800 Italy, 1,800 France, 1,000 Romania, 750 Spain, 625 Turkey, 475 Norway, 350 Denmark, 325 Belgium,...)
