# Implications for Canadians in Afghanistan if Iraqi Insurgents Win



## Griffin (14 Nov 2006)

Considering the way things are going in Iraq, with the apparent loss of public support in the US/Britain for the Iraq mission, what do you believe will be the implications if the insurgents win in Iraq, regarding:

1.  Cdn. troops in Afghanistan?
2.  The impact on the region?
3.  More global concerns?


----------



## McG (14 Nov 2006)

Griffin,
What are your thoughts?


----------



## Synthos (14 Nov 2006)

The insurgents that are in Iraq now would wage for control, land, property etc... They won't just high five and hike it out of there if the US backs out.

There would be much less incentive for new recruits from foreign countries to go to Iraq, unless they wanted in on the brawl fest that would likely take place there.

1. There might be an increase to the flow of foreign fighters into Afghanistan because the insurgents would view Iraq as a "victory against America and the Western World". Emboldening them to their cause. Some, however, might be happy enough with just them out of Iraq.

2. Iran/Syria might make a play to envelope Iraq (this is my guess, not based in fact)... Although this would likely cause a lot of Sunni deaths because AFAIK Iran/Syria aren't too buddy buddy with Sunnis. Iran supposedly backed Shiite candidates in the Iraq elections.

3. Globally it will be the nail in the coffin of US foreign policy. It didn't work in Vietnam, and it hasn't worked in Iraq.


----------



## Griffin (15 Nov 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> Griffin,
> What are your thoughts?



I have a few thoughts, however would be interested in hearing others comments first, hence the question rather than an outright statement.  Not playing games, just interested in other perpsectives.  Not to worry, I will probably weigh in.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2006)

We could be on the receiving end of this:

http://www.therant.us/staff/kraft/10242006.htm



> *December 7, 2008 *
> Terrorism Raymond S. Kraft
> October 24, 2006
> 
> ...



Obviously the worst case scenario, but we must always base our plans on enemy capabilities, not intentions. Today both capabilities and intentions are quite clear.


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Nov 2006)

Griffin said:
			
		

> Considering the way things are going in Iraq, with the apparent loss of public support in the US/Britain for the Iraq mission, what do you believe will be the implications if the insurgents win in Iraq, regarding:
> 
> 1.  Cdn. troops in Afghanistan?
> 2.  The impact on the region?
> 3.  More global concerns?



Welcome to the website Griffin. Perhaps enlighten us all by filling out your profile to actually who you are.

As for insurgents winning, well that will not happen. Although from my prospective I see and hear alot with what goes on here, the size of this operation in Baghdad alone, well its almost unimaginable.

We are right smack in the middle of it, which includes the good and the bad. More good here happens than the bad (the mdeia don't tell you that), and slowly the ISF are stepping up to the plate, although corruption, graft and inflitration into the IP and Army are a concern.

Don't believe everything you hear from the media, for they are a bigger problem than the enemy, that is a fact! Things are going not as bad as the media goes off about, so wherever you get your info from, well think again.   

Failure by the Coalition, however is not an option. We WILL win.

In my opinion, for those know-it-all students and 'armchair' generals who think they have figured out the US foreign policy in Iraq, well put it this way, look at the whole thing like sex, you can read about it, hear stories, see the graphs and movies, perhaps maybe even fantasise about it, but unless you are here, taste it, smell it  and experience it well then, STFU!

From Baghdad,

Wes

EDITed for spelling and clarity


----------



## GAP (15 Nov 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> We could be on the receiving end of this:
> 
> http://www.therant.us/staff/kraft/10242006.htm
> 
> Obviously the worst case scenario, but we must always base our plans on enemy capabilities, not intentions. Today both capabilities and intentions are quite clear.



What the Democrates have never learned, and Republicans have to keep cleaning up after a Democrat tenure, is that what Canadians & Americans consider *getting along*, is perceived by most of the world as weakness. 

Every Democratic President has put the US into a less stable situation, compromised it's security, and generally come across as weak kneed wimps. This is eventually going to bite the US big time, and that's taking into account 9/11. 

This scenario, one similar, is not that unrealistic.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Nov 2006)

While avoiding the actual question asked, I would comment on one point within Kraft's scenario:


> *The level of violence across Iraq immediately subsided, as the Americans began preparations to redeploy back to the States*.


Not going to happen. With an impending withdrawal, you'd get all of the fence-sitters, out-of-towners, and pseudo-allies jumping into the fray with both feet...to prove to the inevitable "jihadi loyalty inquisition" that they had been faithfully fighting the infidels.


----------



## GAP (15 Nov 2006)

Well Griffin....I think it's time you stepped up to the plate. Interesting subject, thoughtfull articles, and this thread should generate some good discussion, unless it was initiated by a troll. 

So step up, fill out the profile to give yourself credence, and state your views. If not then I don't think we should feed the fishies


----------



## dglad (15 Nov 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> We could be on the receiving end of this:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the worst case scenario, but we must always base our plans on enemy capabilities, not intentions. Today both capabilities and intentions are quite clear.



Cool and all too plausible story.  The only flaw is the lack of the inevitable spasm of US nuclear retaliation.  Given such a scale of attacks, I rather doubt that the US would be inclined to hold back from incinerating Pyongyang, Tehran, and probably points inside Russia and China, since this goes well beyond terrorism and into a strategic attack on the US--a scenario for which the US strategic nuclear forces were specifically designed.  None of which is comforting, of course, because the continuation of THAT story is far uglier than what the writer offers in this one.


----------



## Griffin (16 Nov 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> Griffin,
> What are your thoughts?



Here you go; just a few comments.

1.  Cdn. troops in Afghanistan?

If Iraq falls to Al-Qaeda, it will be a natural launching point into Afghanistan, hence problems for our troops.  As the zealots that are now in Iraq will be looking for more of the same, and the close proximity to Afghanistan, plus the fact that many Islamic states either look the other way or support the terrorists in one form or another, the pressure on NATO would logically increase.  Our 'air bridges' for supplies, re-enforcements, etc. may become more difficult and hazardous as a conseqence.  Facing this mess, the USA is even talking now about having something less than a western style democracy, as long as the Iraqui government stops the current state of things.

2.  The impact on the region?

If they can destabilize not only Iraq, then all the 'Stan countries could follow, along with increased confidence for them to set their sites on Arab states that are friendly to the west.  What many commentators are worried about is a coallessing of these elements, that with a nuclear weaponized Iran could be extremely dangerous.  Consider also the near manic attitude Turkey has exhibited towards there being a Kurdish state south of their borders.  This has included some rather draconian statements in the past that the government would invade norther Iraq to stop such an eventuallity.  When one looks at the local, regional, and global aspects of this mess, one can't help but think back to the Balkans and what led up to WWI, except for the fact this is on a much larger scale.

3.  More global concerns?

Spill over affects could be in Pakistan, which could setoff new concerns regarding the Kashmir dispute.  The President of Pakistan has already survived a couple of assassination attempts, and it wouldn't be out of the question that if they are successful, and if the elements in the Pakistan Intell that supported the Taliban government get back into power, this could not only mean serious border problems with Afghanistan, but also with India.  Having all these countries with nukes, and having crazed passions driving them on, makes this all the more worrisome.  Of course you can add in the fact that Al-Qaeda has had a presence in Somalia, Kenya, and other parts of Africa, and consider that the largest moslem population is in Indonesia that has already seen its share of problems, the problems with Islamic terrorists in Thailand, and I'm sure all of you could add more countries, this is looking considerably more of security concern for the west than what it has had to contend with for decades.

I hope the federal government listens to the 3 reports the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence have written with special attention to urgently increasing manpower, budgets, equipment, and other assets.  The current and forecasted increases just won't do the job in this increasingly dangerous global situation.  That's even before one considers the appalling lack of resources for the home front.


----------



## Griffin (16 Nov 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Well Griffin....I think it's time you stepped up to the plate. Interesting subject, thoughtfull articles, and this thread should generate some good discussion, unless it was initiated by a troll.



While I understand why some would be wary of trolls, I would hope that new members to this forum, such as myself, would be given at least a fair opportunity to get acquainted with a new venue and be judged on their posts over a reasonable period of time.  Jumping on the newbies isn't a good way to encourage new membership, and over the years I've seen this turn off people.  It is also a disincentive for the 'read only' types to get involved.  Some may outright leave what they view as a hostile environment, which means a loss to the forum concerned, and even more likely they will warn people off.  Enough said on that.

You may even find my comments today on this Subject worthy of reading and maybe even debating.


----------



## Michael OLeary (16 Nov 2006)

Griffin said:
			
		

> Jumping on the newbies isn't a good way to encourage new membership, and *over the years* I've seen this turn off people.



So, how long have you been observing activities here and gathering data?


----------



## GAP (16 Nov 2006)

I still appreciate having a sense of whom I am talking to, and right now you are closer to filling the definition of a troll, than that of a interested participant who just happens to start controversail threads and sits back and watchs the comments roll in.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Nov 2006)

Griffin said:
			
		

> While I understand why some would be wary of trolls, I would hope that new members to this forum, such as myself, would be given at least a fair opportunity to get acquainted with a new venue and be judged on their posts over a reasonable period of time.  Jumping on the newbies isn't a good way to encourage new membership, and over the years I've seen this turn off people.  It is also a disincentive for the 'read only' types to get involved.



Griffin

If you were at a Social Gathering would you just walk up to a group and blurt out some comment and expect them to accept you whole-heartedly into whatever conversation they were having, even if what you blurted out had nothing to do with the conversation?  Talk about an 'ice breaker'.  More like a good way to earn several 'icy' stares.

By the way......Welcome to our little 'conversational group'.


----------



## Griffin (16 Nov 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, how long have you been observing activities here and gathering data?



Good question. I only became active with this forum in the last month.  No prior involvement, although I have been involved in other forums, including military ones for years.  For those so interested in profiles, I will add that I served with the GGHG for about 3-years, a member of the GGHG Association even though I now reside in BC, and am a member of the Legion and CCS21.  I have been asked to join the RCMI, which I expect I may do in the next year, as I make business trips to ON that let me visit my old regiment, and meet other former CF members.  Upon moving west and I spent 25 years either in a part time or full time capacity as a first responder, and at my present job I am involved in Emergency Response Planning and Training.   I come from a family that has members in the military on both sides and in all of the services.  Have a life long interest in things military and see the CF as an incredible but unrealized asset by too many politicians, including when needed during a domestic emergency.

I hope that is enough, because I sure don't have any decoder ring.


----------



## Michael OLeary (16 Nov 2006)

Griffin said:
			
		

> Good question. *I only became active with this forum in the last month.*



Actually, you didn't answer the question.  Nice wordsmithing though, can I get some more smoke with that mirror.


----------



## Griffin (16 Nov 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Actually, you didn't answer the question.  Nice wordsmithing though, can I get some more smoke with that mirror.



Well since your title seems to indicate staff, you should or your boss here should have access to the exact date I joined here.  I note you ignored all the other data so I guess I've got you pegged too!


----------



## Michael OLeary (16 Nov 2006)

Griffin said:
			
		

> Well since your title seems to indicate staff, you should or your boss here should have access to the exact date I joined here.  I note you ignored all the other data so I guess I've got you pegged too!



I can tell you the time and date you *registered*, but that wasn't the question, was it?


----------



## 54/102 CEF (16 Nov 2006)

I think that regionally its in everyone`s best interests to cool things down. 

Recommended book "Understanding Terror Networks" by Marc Sageman - formerly with CIA in Pakistan during Afghan - Russian Touranment. 

Also you could get "The Far Enemy - Why Jihad Went Global" by Fawaz Gerges. Same story - the Islamic World was taken by surprise over 9/11 and did not fall into line behind the raggedy headed bunch out at Cave 17.

Both are at Chapters / Amazon

Sageman states

Pakistan is not a source of the Global Sh-t Head Alliance - I read between the lines it is a source of soldiers for the Poppy Wars.

There are still bags of foreigners who he says the Afghans can't abide - aka Egyptians and Saudis and all the trouble makers have medium to advanced education, so much for knuckle dragging tribesmen. 

Overall its a policing job vs a military job and he states the appropriate national forces are being dragged into compliance with world standards of civil duty.

He quotes polling data by the Pew Global people on attitudes in the Muslim world about destablising behaviour and it points against Al Quaeda and ilk. People want stablity no matter who they are.

All in all - Al Quaeda gets no respect from inside the the camel back world. Local leaders yes. But remember that Al Quaeda cuts into their action - so when asked for payoffs - I bet they are real slim.

As for our Senate Committee Reports - I say they aint worth the paper they`re printed on. All this money coming into play 5 plus years after the fact - minus 4 years lost with Gene the Stealin Machine`s crew  - will take some time to spend.

Just my 2 cents. 

And PS - 20 years from now you`ll be drinking Tea in Tehran and watching the Leafs (I mean Oilers) on Sports Net.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Nov 2006)

Short answer is there are minimal implications for Canadian forces in Afghanistan should the Iraqi insurgents win [remote chance]. The odds are better for a shia civil war between pro-Iranian milita vs the non-sectarian types with the Kurds and Sunni's joining the non-sectarian side.


----------



## Dodger1967 (16 Nov 2006)

Ok Guys:

First comment is, if you're with the Taliban, or Al Qeada, then by all means go ahead and attack my fellow former G.G.H.G. Member, I'll be waiting in the wings to take you on.
Second is if you're CF, or former CF then you're all on the same side, why go looking to pick a fight over here, save the fighting for the Muslim Extremist.

Third if you're not up on your intel why open your mounth in the first place.

Fourth it doesn't matter about Iraq, or Afganistan, what matters is this...

Islamic Extremist goals are the complete and utter rule of the entire world. Did anyone what that special report on CNN Last Night? I did !

These Religous Zealouts teach hatered of the Jewish People and westerners in their public school and high school cirriculim, their movement is growing. It has spread all over the world and is being taught in Muslim Schools Worldwide. The term used by a Lebanese American, who went to school in Lebanon and went through those teachings called it Islamo - Fascism. And compared it to the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany.

So Gentlemen, what it will eventually boil down to is this. We'll be fighting for our very survival and I for one would rather die than live under Islamic Law and have the Muslim Religion shoved down my throat.

For anyone who didn't see CNN, I copied the Transcript, email me for a copy

dodger_1967@yahoo.ca

Cheers


----------



## GAP (16 Nov 2006)

Edited to add what I was responding to:


> The odds are better for a shia civil war between pro-Iranian milita vs the non-sectarian types with the Kurds and Sunni's joining the non-sectarian side



Case in point being that there were some serious errors made with creation of the borders for Iran, Iraq, et al. The Kurds stretch across south east Turkey, northern Iran, and Iraq, and Eastern Syria. All the governments of these countries have actively worked to defeat any creation of a total Kurdish country. The Turks have been especially vicious in this process, because they stood to lose large areas of their land.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (17 Nov 2006)

Dodger,

I can't tell if you are serious or not.  Do you think that the folks writing here are Taliban or Al-Queda?  Do you think that everyone in the military agrees on everything?  I missed the CNN report because I was watching the Sens break out of their slump.  What are you saying or asking exactly?

Cheers,

Red Five standing by


----------



## paracowboy (17 Nov 2006)

Dodger1967 said:
			
		

> First comment is, if you're with the Taliban, or Al Qeada, then by all means go ahead and attack my fellow former G.G.H.G. Member, I'll be waiting in the wings to take you on.
> Second is if you're CF, or former CF then you're all on the same side, why go looking to pick a fight over here, save the fighting for the Muslim Extremist.
> 
> Third if you're not up on your intel why open your mounth in the first place.
> ...


Are you on narcotics? I'm just asking because it will have an impact on my answers.

You're talking to SERVING Members who are either just back, or preparing to go. Moderate your silliness crrespondingly.

BOTH of you. Griff, you're starting to annoy me. Start answering some questions honestly and directly or get shown the door.


----------



## Synthos (17 Nov 2006)

My opinions and views are probably misinformed. I have never been deployed, and I don't know what Iraq, Afghanistan, or the entire Middle East *are really like*. However, maybe, just maybe, I would start a thread to see what other peoples views are - people who *have* been deployed and have seen it themselves - before voicing my own opinion.

Is that so wrong? That someone would want to start a conversation with people who *know what they're talking about* and chime in later after listening to some banter from the experienced and drawing his/her own opinions/views/conclusions.

And is it wrong to do it anonymously? Should I write an autobiography and put it in my profile so you can say I'm a "student" or an "arm-chair general" and dismiss what I've said without informing me of my mistakes? I understand the desire to know who you're talking to, but we're on an *internet* forum where anonymity is one of the highest privileges


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Nov 2006)

Synthos,

I don't need to start a thread to learn any of those things,..........I have never been deployed and I got out in 1988 so I am way out of date. I, however, read first before I jump in asking what others think.
What, like we don't have enough information here to keep someone busy for weeks?


----------



## paracowboy (17 Nov 2006)

Synthos said:
			
		

> My opinions and views are probably misinformed. I have never been deployed, and I don't know what Iraq, Afghanistan, or the entire Middle East *are really like*. However, maybe, just maybe, I would start a thread to see what other peoples views are - people who *have* been deployed and have seen it themselves - before voicing my own opinion.
> 
> Is that so wrong? That someone would want to start a conversation with people who *know what they're talking about* and chime in later after listening to some banter from the experienced and drawing his/her own opinions/views/conclusions.
> 
> And is it wrong to do it anonymously? Should I write an autobiography and put it in my profile so you can say I'm a "student" or an "arm-chair general" and dismiss what I've said without informing me of my mistakes? I understand the desire to know who you're talking to, but we're on an *internet* forum where anonymity is one of the highest privileges


when the mods start sniffing around someone, there is a reason. Shake your head.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (17 Nov 2006)

Dodger1967 said:
			
		

> So Gentlemen, what it will eventually boil down to is this. We'll be fighting for our very survival and I for one would rather die than live under Islamic Law and have the Muslim Religion shoved down my throat.
> 
> For anyone who didn't see CNN, I copied the Transcript, email me for a copy



Unless there's Al Quaeda U Boats off shore or CAP - I don`t think so.

Get Sageman's book - read it then pass it on. The recipient will think you are a genius.


----------



## McG (17 Nov 2006)

Griffin said:
			
		

> If Iraq falls to Al-Qaeda, it will be a natural launching point into Afghanistan, hence problems for our troops.


1.  Iraq is not going to fall to Al Qaeda.  While I have no doubt there is Al Qaeda involvement, the problems in that country have more to do with ethnic tensions.  If insurgents chase the international community out, Iraq may be more like Yugoslavia at the start of the 90’s.

2.  There is a bit of geography that makes Iraq an improbable launching point for an attack into Afghanistan.



			
				Griffin said:
			
		

> If they can destabilize not only Iraq, then all the 'Stan countries could follow, along with increased confidence for them to set their sites on Arab states that are friendly to the west.


Again, geography is working against your hypothesis.



			
				Griffin said:
			
		

> Consider also the near manic attitude Turkey has exhibited towards there being a Kurdish state south of their borders.  This has included some rather draconian statements in the past that the government would invade norther Iraq to stop such an eventuallity.  When one looks at the local, regional, and global aspects of this mess, one can't help but think back to the Balkans and what led up to WWI, except for the fact this is on a much larger scale.


Your analogy does not consider the role of the great powers in creating the First World War.  Your Balkan comparison is more fitting with the nineties (and there too were concerns about the conflict spreading to all the neighbouring countries).  



			
				Griffin said:
			
		

> Spill over affects could be in Pakistan, which could setoff new concerns regarding the Kashmir dispute.


Geography again.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Nov 2006)

Interesting article in today's National Post about Pelosi and Murtha.  They lost big time.  That together with the number of conservative Democrats elected this time, and the fact that the guy that got the job Murtha was after (Steny Hoyer) has supported Bush and the war in Iraq, may mean that the pullout is not as imminent as Pelosi and Michael Moore would like to think.


----------



## Dodger1967 (17 Nov 2006)

Ok Guys:

Many humble apologies !

You're right, I could have and should have been more sensitive to those who are serving in Afganistan.


Which I see as an honourable and nobel cause. If I could go over and help I would.

The whole point I was trying to make is this, we should give people here the time to explain themselves without jumping to conclusions. My fellow former Horse Guards member is only trying to get YOUR point of view on the Afganistan Conflict. Before he states his point of view, which I presume is an effort on his part to be informed by you guys, rather than taking the word of the press and the Govt. on the state of affairs in Afganistan, which is correct, I feel on his part. Give the man a chance.

God Bless You All BTW.

Cheers


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Nov 2006)

Griffin said:
			
		

> While I understand why some would be wary of trolls, I would hope that new members to this forum, such as myself, would be given at least a fair opportunity to get acquainted with a new venue and be judged on their posts over a reasonable period of time.  Jumping on the newbies isn't a good way to encourage new membership, and over the years I've seen this turn off people.  It is also a disincentive for the 'read only' types to get involved.  Some may outright leave what they view as a hostile environment, which means a loss to the forum concerned, and even more likely they will warn people off.  Enough said on that.



Quite frankly Griffin, I DID find it bad manners to jump in the deep end without perhaps an introduction, and FILLING out your profile. So, its a two way street in the courtesy department.

Enough said on that, right?

Wes


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (20 Nov 2006)

Okay,   I know I’m a little late to this thread but I want to comment on the “News article from the future” http://www.therant.us/staff/kraft/10242006.htm 

I just want to thank a_majoor for posting this.  I am not lying when I say that it made me laugh so hard to woke my roommate up.  I’m surprised my neighbor didn’t bank on the wall. I didn’t know how much I needed a good laugh until I got one, thank you.

I love this fictional future.  Democrats are responsible for millions of deaths in Iraq because they pull out, gay marriage will be forced into law,  decent hard working people put out of work because of Democratic spite and of course large scale nuclear attacks are timed to demoralize Christmas shopping. Oh and yes, just like “Back to the future” for some inexplicable reason everything all clicks with one certain date. I find this a rather obtuse ploy to revitalize the Republican base. The only thing missing from this is women being forced to have abortions because they are middle class Christians by the democrats who then harvest the stem cells to genetically engineer gay super soldiers, who then raise Taxes.

Now if America pulls out of Iraq,  I think it quite logical to conclude that the same thing that happened to Somalia would happen to Iraq.  Obviously with the resources Iraq has it wouldn’t be long before Iran, Syria, Kuwait and other neighbors all start to create “Security buffer zones” on their borders. (read as take large areas of land and kick out the Iraqis from it to use the oil)  I see Kurdistan declaring itself an independent  nation (preceded by a rather throughout campaign of ethnic cleansing)  This new nation would then see a massive wave of immigration from Turkey and other countries where Kurds are an oppressed minority and for a time,  Kurdistan would bide its time until it could get back the rest of its land.

I think that with the war in Iraq over those who finance the insurgency would then focus on Afghanistan.  If Iraq falls into total civil war,  then they might be to distracted to give Afghanistan their full attention though.

All I do know is that I want Canada to succeed in helping to free Afghanistan from the Taliban and to build a stable infrastructure there.  I know that if we fail,  both the people of Afghanistan and ourselves will pay the price for generations.


----------



## cplcaldwell (29 Nov 2006)

_I'll put this in here, as it seems to be a logical place for it. Mods please move as fit.

Seems the Saudis are 'testing the waters' on this issue of Iraq, _ 

From Reuters, as seen on yahoo news

Shared under the Fair Dealings Provisions of the Copyright Act RSC.


*Saudi will intervene in Iraq if U.S. withdraws: aide* 
*Wed Nov 29, 6:24 AM*

*WASHINGTON (Reuters)* - Using money, weapons or its oil power, Saudi Arabia will intervene to prevent Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias from massacring Iraqi Sunni Muslims once the United States begins pulling out of Iraq, a security adviser to the Saudi government said on Wednesday.

Nawaf Obaid, writing in The Washington Post, said the Saudi leadership was preparing to revise its Iraq policy to deal with the aftermath of a possible U.S. pullout, and is considering options including flooding the oil market to crash prices and thus limit Iran's ability to finance Shi'ite militias in Iraq.


"To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks -- it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse," Obaid said.

The article said the opinions expressed were Obaid's own and not those of the Saudi government.

"To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia's credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran's militarist actions in the region," he said.

President Bush will meet Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Jordan on Wednesday to discuss a surge in Sunni-Shi'ite violence in Iraq.

Bush has said he does not support calls for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, but he is expected soon to receive proposals for possible changes in U.S. policy in Iraq from a bipartisan panel.

Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil producer and exporter and a close U.S. ally, fears Shi'ite Iran has been gaining influence since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussein's government.

Vice President Dick Cheney held talks with Saudi King Abdullah in Riyadh on Saturday. Details were not disclosed.

Obaid said Cheney's visit "underlines the pre-eminence of Saudi Arabia in the region and its importance to U.S. strategy in Iraq."

He said if the United States begins withdrawing from Iraq, "one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis."

Obaid listed three options being considered by the Saudi government:


 providing "Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance," including funding and arms.

 establishing new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias;

 or the Saudi king "may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half ... it would be devastating to Iran ... The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shi'ite militias in Iraq and elsewhere."


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2006)

If King Abdullah wants to shut out or limit the influences of the Iranians (which he surely does, as they are apostates and Persians in his eyes), he had probably stick to economic warfare, since Iran is far better equipped to fight a conventional war. Depressing the price of oil will have a short term boost on the global economy, ease pressures on the US balance sheet and deprive Iran of the economic muscle needed for their dreams of regional hegemony.

There will be negative effects as well; high cost oil producers like the tar sands will become uneconomical in the short term (with negative effects on Albeta's economy), and boondoggles like Ethanol will require even higher levels of subsidies to remain in production. Iraq will probably stabilize with one of the prime instigators out of the picture, but depressed oil prices will also affect Iraqi reconstruction. Saudi Arabia, or at least the Wahhabi's are not friendly towards the west, and they will benefit from the extra revenues Saudi Arabia will generate from using the oil weapon, and China will benefit from the drop in oil prices as well.

How this will affect Pakistan is hard to predict, if the economic boost provides some prosperity in Pakistan, then their ability or willingness to support the Taliban might be reduced, but if it is eaten away by corruption, then support for the Taliban might remain the same or increase.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Nov 2006)

The biggest problem for all the Gulf states are their large Shia minorities which could be used as a fifth column to topple the leaders of the Gulf States, in favor of alliance or merger with Iran. Imagine the impact on oil prices if these regimes collapse.


----------



## Blakey (30 Nov 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> We could be on the receiving end of this:
> 
> http://www.therant.us/staff/kraft/10242006.htm
> 
> Obviously the worst case scenario, but we must always base our plans on enemy capabilities, not intentions. Today both capabilities and intentions are quite clear.



Or is it realy that far off the mark....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs9QRQ7Q35s&mode=related&search=


----------



## KaptKain (18 Dec 2006)

Have not read all previous replies here, but this topic is on the discussion I had at the shop this morning with fellow techies <yes, some of us are still not on Xmas block leave yet....bah Navy!>
With the news down south about the big man having to come up with ideas for Iraq exit strategy for US Forces, one point I havent heard others debate yet is this...
With the current Middle East tempo, Iraq is the worst case scenario happening now. Most Insurgents/Terrorists are targeting coalition troops currently in Iraq. When the US does pull out I believe the Afghanistan mission will be 10 times more active and dangerous. Reason being is when the coalition pulls out of Iraq I believe the Insurg./terrorists will then carry over to Afghanistan and start really bringing the casualties in on us then.

Anybody else think ahead and see this terrible predicament? please post any thoughts on the matter as well.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (18 Dec 2006)

Time will tell, but its not as simple as the situation in WW1 when the Russians made a separate peace after the Revolution and German forces were thus freed to try one last big offensive against the western allies in France.  The enemy we face today is not necessarily a monolithic block, and while there are linkages and somewhat common backdrop, Iraq and Afghanistan are separate conflicts.

You may indeed get some "jihadists" making the journey to Afghanistan from Iraq to carry on the jihad against foreigners, but getting there is not necessarily a simple matter.  In addition, much of the violence in Iraq is sectarian, so I don't think you'll suddenly find a surplus of unemployed fighters/terrorists in Iraq looking for something to do since the sectarian strife will most likely continue and indeed intensify.  A US withdrawal from Iraq could lead to open civil war (perhaps civil war is already happening).  Further to that, Shia fighters in Iraq do not have much in common with the Taliban, while the Sunnis will have their hands full at home.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Dec 2006)

Agreed, Red-Five but let’s not forget that somewhere down in the tangled roots of all this is Osama bin Laden who expressed what I think is a fairly widespread desire to make _Arabia for the Arabs_ or, more properly and accurately: the _umma_* for the _faithful_.  While certainly not the only _driver_ for al Qaeda _et al_ is was an important motivator for many Muslims who fought against the Russians in Afghanistan and then joined the fighting in the Balkans.  I think it is only realistic to expect that some Muslims will _”march to the sound of the guns”_ and end up in/around Kandahar – especially a young, restless, dissatisfied group of young men who have discovered that they (given their culture and education) are ill suited to the real, 21st century, interconnected world.

I think that for many Muslims the problem is not what we are doing in Afghanistan; it is that we are, simply, *IN* Afghanistan and our mere presence _pollutes_ the purity of the _umma_.


----------
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah and http://i-cias.com/cgi-bin/eo-direct.pl?umma.htm


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Dec 2006)

The Jihadists may soon have other opportunities to qualify for their 72 virgins.......



> ....The Islamic Republic itself is expected to send 200,000 pilgrims, representing almost 10 percent of the total. Saudi officials claim that some 5 percent of the Iranian pilgrims have always been identified as members of the Islamic Revolutionary Corps and the Islamic Republic's various intelligence services. This year, however, the profiles of Iranian applicants for pilgrimage visas indicate that more than 20 percent may belong to the military or security services.
> 
> To these must be added professional street-fighters from the various branches of the pan-Islamic Hezbollah movement, which Iran created in the 1980s as a way to "export" Khomeinism to other Muslim countries. The movement's best-known branch, the Lebanese Hezbollah, has announced it will sending over 3,000 pilgrims this year - all paid for by Iran.
> 
> With so many men with military and security backgrounds in Mecca, the mullahs leading the Iranian pilgrims would be in a position to seize control of the space around the black stone of the Ka'aba (The Cube) and use it as a venue for political demonstrations. ...



Amir Taheri, New York Post. http://www.nypost.com/seven/12172006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/imperialist_iran_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm?page=1




> TEHRAN, Iran Dec 18, 2006 (AP)— Opponents of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took an early lead in key races in Iran's local elections, according to partial results announced Monday, with moderate conservatives winning control of councils across Iran.
> 
> If the final results hold especially in the bellwether capital, Tehran it will be an embarrassment to Ahmadinejad, whose anti-Israeli rhetoric and unyielding position on Iran's nuclear program have provoked condemnation in the West and moves toward sanctions at the U.N. Security Council....



http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2733722



> Friday, December 15, 2006
> Bomb Blast! Violence Mars Iranian Election- One Dead
> 
> Update: At least two bomb blasts went off in Iran in the last 24 hours. One of the blasts was outside of the governate building in southeast Iran.
> ...



http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/12/bomb-blast-violence-mars-iranian.html

Trouble at home? What to do? Find someone else to blame....

Ahmadinejad must really believe his own rhetoric.  Why else would he want to pick a fight with the Sunnis (Saudis AND Jihadists) unless he really believes this: 



> Speaking to voters at a polling station in Tehran on Friday, Ahmadinejad claimed that the United States was already defeated in the Middle East. "They are like rubble, and we are like the flood," he said.
> 
> "That kind of talk can only lead to war," says Sami Faraj, an expert in regional security. "Ahmadinejad feels that, with the United States wavering in Iraq, nothing can stop him. The region may have to pay a high price to prove him wrong."



 http://www.nypost.com/seven/12172006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/imperialist_iran_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm?page=3

Presumably he feels he has the Great Satan and the Zionists on the ropes and can open a second front.....or else he feels that he is on the ropes and must open a second front.  Perhaps this is his Operation Barbarossa moment?

Either way it is a little premature to be saying that the US is leaving Iraq and that the Sunni Jihadists will automatically spill over into Afghanistan.  They may well have to go through Shiite Jihadists to get there.


----------



## GAP (18 Dec 2006)

I think this is the result of the Democrate's rhetoric and the MSM streaming the "Get out of Iraq" idea to one and all. The US has defeated itself.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Dec 2006)

Much of the situation in Iraq is driven by Iran and to a lesser extent the Syrians, while the Taliban were the creation of Pakistan's ISI. 

As Edward said, there are some tangled linkages, and there is currently an alliance of convenience (or maybe an understanding is a better word) between the Theocracy in Iran, the secular Ba'athists and the Wahhabi's fro Saudi Arabia against the West (as the only overarching power which can frustrate all of their aims), but they certainly have no love for each other and based on the fighting in Iraq and hints like the profile of the "pilgrims" heading for Mecca they may not even wait for the Western Alliance forces to leave if they feel they can achieve their goals now or that the West is too weak and decadent to sustain any efforts in SW Asia (much less Central Asia, East Africa or subsidiary theaters like Indonesia and the Philippines).

Dealing with Iraq is actually the key to defusing Iraq and probably will unhinge a lot of the activity in SW Asia and East Africa. Dealing with Pakistan in a way which does not destabilize the country further is the key to Afghanistan, but how that can be done is beyond me.


----------



## KaptKain (19 Dec 2006)

> In addition, much of the violence in Iraq is sectarian,



Good point there. But I am not even thinking of them. Betcha bout half the sectarian "fighters" havent even left their own village/town/part of city. Its all the ones that flood from jordan/Chechnia<sp?>/africa/asia/and the rest of the middle east. The ones who as pointed out above have no place in a peaceful world..or for that matter changes since the dark ages.
I believe there will be lots of insurgents that will flood back to Afghanistan. The part of that I dont like is if Coalition actually pulls out of Iraq without cleaning the mess (it will happen with baby no balls bush in charge), the threat will be this.....
The insurgents will look at Afghanistan being the starting door (Russian invasion of afghanistan) and they will want it to bethe closing door of western "intrusion" in the middle east...at least i could see Irans top man saying words along those lines. Not much propaganda needed there from Iran or other strong voiced anti-westerners to achieve that task then.



> Either way it is a little premature to be saying that the US is leaving Iraq and that the Sunni Jihadists will automatically spill over into Afghanistan.  They may well have to go through Shiite Jihadists to get there.



True, I hope it doesnt happen. But the possibility is there. By that part I believe it wont matter whether they are sunnis, shiite, kurds, whatever..one common goal they will all have to is clear the  M. East of western intrusion


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Dec 2006)

KaptKain said:
			
		

> Most Insurgents/Terrorists are targeting coalition troops currently in Iraq. When the US does pull out I believe the Afghanistan mission will be 10 times more active and dangerous. Reason being is when the coalition pulls out of Iraq I believe the Insurg./terrorists will then carry over to Afghanistan and start really bringing the casualties in on us then.



US KIAs are usually about 90 per month, sometimes more, sometimes less, and one is to many, we all know that. One can add on a few more Coalition to that list monthly.

Local National body count, in Baghdad usually about 90 per day, and its tit for tat retaliation. Sunni vs Shiite, and in my view a civil war. Recently it was over 600 killed in one week in Baghdad alone. Over 100,000 LNs leave Iraq each month. You can't blame them, can ya. So, its murder at random, execution, and bombs of all shapes and sizes, and the tgts are primarily the locals in their respective neighbourhoods.

Sure attacks are up against coalition, but thats a monthly thing, and it just depends. Up, down etc.

The US will not be leaving in the short term, you just got to see the huge scope of this Operation, and you'll understand. If the US did leave prematurely, there would be no escape to A-stan by our enemies, but a dirty power vacuum here, with countless thousands sllaughtered, and an ultra extreme state being formed, pro shiite, and this would indeed anger the KSA, and equally anger Iran, so what one could have is a strange ballance of power, in stalemate, or a huge regional war with disasterous results.

To leave prematurely, would endanger the lives of future westerners for the long term, and I meaqn long term, plus creat so much more instability. IP and ISF are rife with graft and corruption, and its a shocker, let me tell yo!!! They simply cannot be trusted, and when areas are turned over to them (in my opinion), those areas seem to quickly degrade, and become much more open to IEDs and snipers all of a suddne, and all that hard work, gone, and good young Allied lives wasted for nothing.

The ISF and IP in my opinion need to have their senior management and middle management culled NOW. Sadly thats not the politically correct thing to do, although it may be the right one, as right now, money talks, and old party loyalities are hard habits to break.

My run-ins with the ISF and IP have always been rather brief, as we are always on the move, but I can sum uo by saying I trust them not even as far as I spit, however  I am polite, but I am ready for anything.  

Sadly, I hear it and see the carnage created all the time, like the huge blast I witnessed while on top of a building at exactly 1122h today. I wonder how many people had interchangeable parts after that.

Me thinks it will never end.


Cheers from another cold night in Baghdad,

Wes


----------



## xenobard (31 Jan 2007)

I've been trying to decide where I stand on the Iraq withdrawal issue; trying to fathom the implications - not just for Canadian and NATO troops in Afghanistan, but for Iraqis and Afghans, the USA, the human race as a whole.  Like, if I were an American citizen and if the issue were put to a binding referendum, how would I vote.  When I asked myself this, I was struck with the magnitude of it.  The decision would impact so many people, perhaps - if you consider worst case scenario - even the survival of the human race as a whole.  Most people who clamor for troops to be pulled out now have the luxury of not having to think about that.  They know that their conviction on this matter doesn't have a binding effect.  So they can shout and holler whatever they like, be it 'bring the troops home' or 'stay the course', and don't have to bare personally responsibility for the consequences of their decision.  

I'm one who doesn't have an opinion one way or the other.  So what does that say about me?


----------



## 1feral1 (31 Jan 2007)

Here they don't care about the human race, or yet alone themselves for that matter.

Its like living in a world full of rabid people, yet alone rabid dogs. The behaviour by all sides here is beyond disgusting.  All of them are hellbent on the mutual death and destruction of each other and the west, again all influenced by Iran (shiite), and Jordan, Syria, and the KSA (sunni). There is no balance whatsoever. I've been here since August, and in all that time, I have not seen one thing positive, but a gradual spiral down hill, with no light at the end of the tunnel.

That leaves you in the middle whether you like it or not, because the fuel of this mess also includes the growing cult of radical islam which you can find in many western cities, including in Canada, and just look whats happened in England with the recent arrests of 9. Don't think Canada is immune to this danger either.  

Iraq is only one piece in a complicated puzzle, so I would not blow it off by hiding your head in the sand pretending it will all be okay by lunchtime tomorrow.

In reality for the average Canuck, there is really nothing one can do, aside from being vigilant, perhaps realistic and realising what is going on around you in the big picture and at home, remembering that all of this can have implications within Canada. In many ways it already has. Things have changed already, and the good ole days we all once had not so long ago are gone for good. Canada's innocence and trust has been taken advantage of by many who bat for the otherside.

Whether we like it our not, we're here in this festering boil on the arsehole of the world. Staying here, it will be bad, and leaving it will be worse. With the infrastructure I've seen, the US are here for the long haul, regardless if the Dems get elected in the next US election or not. Whoever is in the presidental seat is always going to be criticised. Many say this is the new Viet Nam, and remember, it was JFK and his Democrats who started that one, not the Republicans, and over 60,000 lives lost over the US involvment in that war cannot be forgotten, nor can the growing list of KIAs in this mess either. Overall, the picture as I see it is grim, and I don't know how it can be solved. It  may take decades, and may never be solved.

Enjoy your freedoms many take for granted,

From Baghdad,


Wes


----------



## DocBacon (1 Feb 2007)

The UN bears the responsibility for much of this imbroglio: the authorising directives of the Security Council were quite clear on actions and consequences regarding pre-invasion Iraq, but the UN was typically mushy when it came to anything more than strongly worded diplomatic notes and stern glances across the Assembly hall.

Since the greatest source of smoke and noise at the UN came from the EU countries that were most involved in the Oil-For-Food Scandal, plus China and Russia, and since those countries are the ones facing the most pressing threat from the Islamists, I have these moments where I start to think like the Dem's in America: pull out the troops, let's not waste another Brit, US, or Canadian in the defence of Eurabia.  If the EU states think everything will be nice and quiet if the Americans would just pull out, then let's just do that.

However, after the Islamists sort out their internal differences (a few million dead later) they'll resume the march to take over the world, Insh'allah.  And where will they start?  How about France, with over 6 million disaffected Muslims already within their borders.  I wonder how the French will handle that threat to their precious national heritage?  In the absence of the New World to ride to the rescue, they'll learn to bow towards Mecca five times a day or lose their heads after the first Gallic shrug.

In the meantime, I muse, we'll keep our powder dry and wait here while those spineless EU bureaucrats get "converted" to Islam.  The TV news video of that played every night at dinnertime might even be enough  to get the American Dems up on their hind legs.  Who knows, maybe even Jack Layton would get a spine if he saw his Comintern buddies bowing to the black flag.

But I doubt it.


----------



## T.R.Hayward (14 Mar 2007)

Hello All,

I read this topic thread with interest, and just so there is no confusion I am entirely civilian with no military background.

One of the members named Wes posted the following:

"In reality for the average Canuck, there is really nothing one can do, aside from being vigilant, perhaps realistic and realising what is going on around you in the big picture and at home, remembering that all of this can have implications within Canada. In many ways it already has. Things have changed already, and the good ole days we all once had not so long ago are gone for good. Canada's innocence and trust has been taken advantage of by many who bat for the otherside."

I would like to say that there is something else that the average Canuck can do. Choose. Choose to support that which you believe in, and take action. I pray that every Canadian chooses to support the people who serve Canada's citizenry, and to show that support whole-heartedly.

"All that is necessary for evil to win is for good men to do nothing."

Another quote, I can't remember by whom.

Wes, I consider myself vigilant and realistic. I am humbled that there are Canadians like yourself that are defending our way of life at this very moment. Thank you for doing your part to protect Canada, and God Bless all who serve.

Thank you for your time and attention....

Best Wishes,

-Rick


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Mar 2007)

Thanks Rick, and although I am Canadian, I am in Iraq as an Australian, and a member of the Australian Army, not represting Canada, shy of my accent and numerous Canadian flag stickers I have stuck on absolutely everything, ha!

Overall though, its the big picture of standing one's ground against a large truly EVIL force, and it will be a long long time even before the tide turns. Its still an up hill battle not only here, but everywhere this true evil is, and that is right in your own country. Right now extremism is being fuled in private schools and mosques, influencing young minds, and thats wrong! It should be illegal, but the liberal left says otherwise. 

Also too many men (and women) in political circles are truly doing little or nothing in Canada (and elsewhere too), and sadly, it might take a serious bloody nose to set them straight. These so called political figures, they don't wish to offend and loose votes of the minorities. Pretty sad putting their political futures ahead of the overall safety of mainstream Canadian citizens.

Now have we made a difference? No. Have we achieved anything, well, we survived. Personally, I think we know this region will always be volitile, and powder caig waiting for a fuse. Now with certain countries wanting nuclear power in the region, well, thats another issue, and its a very dangerous one.

Regards from Baghdad,

Wes


----------



## Flip (14 Mar 2007)

Wow!
Not an easy thread to read!

I'll preface this with; I'm a civilian.
As an employer I had the dubious fortune to employ someone with an "Islamist"
point of view. He was quite candid, because he thought because, my wife is
from German parentage, she would agree with respect to Israel, Jews and white people in general.  This was before 9/11 . He's been deported since.
Before Gulf War 1, I met a "new Canadian" who thought Saddam would wipe the floor 
with the US forces.

The Larger threat is something Canadians cannot comprehend.
"Canada has no enemies" is a very popular myth.
This is what makes the threat so very dangerous.
Liberals in all liberal democracies are naive.
When I heard Nancy Pelosi ( the speaker of the house ) refer to the "Arab nation" 
I shuddered.  Why legitimise the enemy?

Anti-Americans fail to consider what the world would be like if others were to take their place.  Imagine the Chinese or the EU as any more benevolent as leader?
If Islamists were to become a global power block there would be tyranny.
Examples; the Taliban, the Islamist government of Sudan, rebels in asia and so on.

The central question; I think a few bad guys, money and some influence would move into
Afghanistan. A fly in the beer.

The big problem could be how the middle east shakes out after.  Afghanistan
is the centre of our attention now, but could quicky become a side show.

Saladin's empire reclaimed would be a disaster for all life on the planet.
My cat could feel the effects.

I don't think George W. was wrong. Poor on the follow through, but not wrong.
Saddam was the Arab world's tough guy, he fought the law............
France Germany and the Russians were starting to rearm him.
If (and I do mean If) Saddam didn't have WMD, he soon would have.
George didn't "want to become the 21st centuries Nevill Chamberlain"

That being said, I think the US needed to get out before now ( I don't know how)
At this point I think they need to stay. From what I understand, the problem is
Baghdad, most of Iraq is a success.  

The real enemy is us. Liberal democracies are their own worst enemy in terms of security.
Case in point: the two creeps I met in my own neighbourhood.


----------



## armyvern (14 Mar 2007)

MODERATOR WARNING!!!

I have sorted through this thread and removed inappropriate post and responses to that post. Please keep this thread running smoothly and post IAW Army.ca  conduct Guidelines located here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

The Librarian
The Army.ca Staff


----------



## T.R.Hayward (23 Mar 2007)

Wesley (in Kuwait) said:
			
		

> Now have we made a difference? No.
> 
> Wes



Hello Wes,

You have made a difference, you and every other Canadian soldier. You are giving concerned citizens hope....

Thank you,

-Rick


----------



## SiG_22_Qc (27 Apr 2007)

My solution? Divide the country in three.. There we go


----------



## GAP (27 Apr 2007)

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> My solution? Divide the country in three.. There we go



The Kurds in the North would love that, except Turkey would almost immediately invade to stop their own Kurd territory aligning themselves with the new "Kurdistan", The Sunni areas would degernerate to an insurgent dominated region, don't know who would be in charge, and the south and the major Basra oil fields would be annexed by Iran.


----------



## xenobard (25 May 2007)

Implications for Canadians in Afghanistan if Iraqi Insurgents Win

You know, when I was in 4th grade, we were all supposed to present a speech to the class.  It was around the time of the Air India Bombings, and so 'terrorism' seemed like a pretty good topic.  I had a lot to say about the issue even though I was only 9 years old.  One of my main points was about how we should never negotiate with terrorists.  If you negotiate with them and give them money in exchange for hostages, they will just buy guns with that money and use those guns for more terrorist activities.  If you release prisoners in exchange for a truce, other terrorists groups will escalate violence in other areas in order to force us to negotiate a truce all in order to get their buddies freed.  As long as terrorists think they can extract concessions from us they will continue in their terrorist activities.  We simply cannot negotiate with them.  

This was my speech in a nutshell.  Pretty tough topic for a 9 year old, eh?  Well Mom and Dad helped a bit.  I did, however, understand and agree with everything I said.  They didn't write it for me.  In fact, I expressed my points with so much zeal that I was chosen as a finalist to give the speech in front of the whole school.  The day came and I found myself up on stage in front of pretty much everybody.  I went through and began presenting it.  I had practiced it a lot and knew it by heart and so it was going well.   However, I soon noticed all the lights and all the shadows of all the faces in the crowd behind the lights.  I noticed the heat of the spot-lights on me and a bead of sweat dripping from my forehead.  I went silent when I was to give one of my main points.  I was frozen; I forgot everything.  Suffice it to say it was Ashley who won the competition with her rendition on why cats made better pets than dogs.  

Now, I have been thinking about that day, recently, because I believe I have come to the conclusion that although it might have been right not to negotiate with terrorists in those days before 911, before nuclear weapon proliferation in the middle east, before the extent of quagmire in the region became known, it might not be the correct position to take at this current time.  Perhaps, just perhaps, there is a time when negotiating and even offering concessions with terrorists may actually be the right thing to do.

So, considering this, perhaps a re-phrasing of the original question is necessary: "What are the implications for Canadians, Americans, Brits, and Aussies and all freedom-loving peoples of the world if we negotiate a peace with the Islamic extremists?  Is this such an absurd notion to consider?  Could no middle ground be reached?  Is there no other solution but a military solution?  If we could negotiate what is it to which they realistically concede?  Is there a way in which concessions could be exchanged and a peace reached without inviting other terrorist groups to use violence as a ploy to extract concessions in the future?  And, lastly, would brokering a peace with these terrorists necessarily be admitting defeat / allowing the terrorists to win?


----------



## Greymatters (25 May 2007)

Interesting read so far....


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jul 2007)

From Celestial Junk:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/07/doctrine-of-unilateral-pre-emption.



> 27 July 2007
> The Doctrine of Unilateral Pre-emption
> 
> Robert Tracinski looks at what a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would mean for Americans; and by extension, us. He offers a compelling argument which suggests that failure in Iraq, or worse yet, legislated defeat, could spell the neutering of America’s ability to defend herself:
> ...


----------



## edgar (28 Oct 2007)

A Majoor, your link gets me a 404 error and I couldn't find the article with google, do you have another way to get that article?

Xenobard, if the Irish can bury their hatchets, anything is possible. What we need is some kind of Taliban Gerry Adams. Is there someone who is (plausibly deniably) arms length from the terrorists, who can speak on behalf of whatever constituency the terrorists claim to represent? I think terrorists must be hunted to extinction like malarial mosquitoes. Draining the proverbial swamps will require us to hold our noses and cooperate with some disgusting people, and an opener for the negotiations will be "there are certain people on your side we need to hang", but to keep fighting means inevitably that more Islamic little kids get caught up in the shooting.


----------



## gordjenkins (30 Dec 2007)

First off we we are not dealing with Irish!

Secondly we HAD to deal with North Vietnamese to finish and get out of Vietnam

We also had to deal with North Koreans to get out of Korea conflict.So what is different in Afghanistan.  Otherwise we will be in _Poppy Land _for what..20 .30 years?? more??

There should always be "time to talk'"


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Dec 2007)

gordjenkins said:
			
		

> First off we we are not dealing with Irish!
> 
> Secondly we HAD to deal with North Vietnamese to finish and get out of Vietnam
> 
> ...



I disagree.

North Viet Nam and North Korea are countries, where they have a recognised military force, not a bunch of world wide 'free range' terrorists who thrive in a cult mentality of an extreme belief of a religion, wanting the death of the West, which includes you.

Dealing or negociating with an enemy government is one thing, but dealing with cowardly murderers, who have no real country, borders, or government for that matter, live in a cut-throat tribal mentality, really have little or no knowledge outside their local area, and who live in the hills like some retchid rabid beast, well this is an entirely different issue.

Phuck them, they must be met with controlled violence to sort them out. HE and napalm. They are a cancer, and must be destroyed. They are unretrievable.

If you have the mentality to want to negociate with OBL and his ilk, you are part of the problem, not the solution. Time to talk in this crisis only buys the enemy time, he rests, trains, and plans Ops against us while you want to talk with terrorists. EDIT: Add - he kills our soldiers as you want to talk of tea and biscuts. Not a chance Gord. Sorry, not a chance.

No way.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Flip (31 Dec 2007)

Sadly, I have to agree.



> If you have the mentality to want to negociate with OBL and his ilk, you are part of the problem, not the solution.



There is no central authority that can be relied on to honor any terms.
Many in this camp understand only their blood oath to destroy society and
make civilization as WE in the west understand it disappear.

What could we possibly gain in any negotiation?
We could sell them the bullet for the gun pointed at our collective heads?
Perhaps we already have.... 

With some people you talk - with some you don't.


----------



## tdr_aust (19 Jan 2008)

Interesting thread..

I can across the following in our local paper.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23075709-12377,00.html



> Afghanistan war is just beginning: report
> 
> From correspondents in Kabul | January 19, 2008
> 
> ...



As I see it, if the Taliban do manage to get back in some arranged way into Afghanistan, and even if it is only in a few of the southern provinces it will be the start of a big down fall of the central government. As it is the Taliban and Al Qaeda have managed some form of agreement in the Pakistan border regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. This alliance will complicate any attempt for negotiations and would probably fail in the short term.
Now again if the Taliban do get a formal foothold in the south then it will strengthen their standing. This will help them with Al Qaeda and other equivalents with destabilising Pakistan further. I assume it will not stabilise well unless there is another military coup in that country and a huge clamp down on freedoms. 
Add to this there is a level of Islamic problems in the Western provinces of China. This area borders on to Afghanistan. Little is ever heard of this small dissent but it is sufficient to concern the Chinese government. This area in China has a wealth of oil. 
So if you end up with a formal Taliban in the south there are chances it will set off unrest in the China Afghanistan border areas. In comes China to the equation.

With the Iraq issue a failing there may end up with a country split into 3. The southern areas may be swallowed via either military or political/religious events to Iran, (not a nice thought), the north will be partly swallowed by an annexing by Turkey using a “regional stability” and the Kurd issue as an excuse. I suspect they will call it a protectorate. This will prevent Iran doing the same thing in the north with its Kurd problems. The Kurds are in an area covering part of Turkey, Iran and Iraq. So it’s a “probable” for eventual instability.

Anyway my rambling thoughts from down under...


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jan 2008)

I believe that the difference between Afghanistan and Vietnam or Korea is one of jurisdiction.

In Vietnam and Korea the international community recognized the North and South as separate governments of separate states. Consequently intervention was amongst 3 equal partners: the North, the South and the "Brokers".  The Brokers being a third autonomous state (or a group of such states).  The Brokers recognized both the governments and the need for separate borders.

In Afghanistan the Brokers (the UN, NATO, Canada et al) DON'T recognize the Anti-Government Forces as having a Government or Borders of their own.  Internationally they are seen as either subject to Kabul law or subject to Islamabad law. Consequently the Brokers are assisting the recognized governments in their efforts to impose their separate laws.

Unfortunately the AGFs don't really see themselves as subject to any law but their own and don't recognize any borders at all.

One possible solution is to recognize a separate state (or states) in the hills.  After all if Monaco with a population of 32,000 can be recognized as a state then why not the states of Quetta, Helmand and Qandahar?

Let's see:    33,000 goes into 1,000,000,000 30,000 times.  Therefore the UN could conceivably add an additional 30,000 Indian states, 30,000 Chinese states as well as some 4000 Pakistani states as well as an equivalent number of Russian states.  (And 1000 Canadian states).


----------



## edgar (19 Jan 2008)

gordjenkins said:
			
		

> First off we we are not dealing with Irish!


Huh? Here's a coupla clues for you: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_solving#Some_problem-solving_techniques

Other than that strange brainfart, I think you did get my point. The North Koreans are way worse than the Taliban, if you measure things in terms of tiny graves, as I do. Yet we had to talk to them.

Saying all the Taliban supporters are murderous lunatics is like saying that all the Northern Irish are like the Shankill Butchers. Some Taliban supporters are merely farmers who don't trust the central government, for example. Tell me you can't find common ground with a guy like that, I'll say good thing you don't live in Saskatchewan.

There is a group of hillbillies or whatever in Afghanistan being led by a bunch of murderous lunatics called the Taliban. It's good if we can kill all the murderous lunatics but then who fills the leadership vacuum? Let's find those replacement leaders right away and undermine the lunatics. It can only make it easier to bring the terrorists to justice.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jan 2008)

edgar - it isn't up to us to talk to upset Afghan hillbillies (by the way my farming in-laws in Saskatchewan may have a thing or two to say about being compared to the Taliban).  That job is the job of the Afghan government, whom we are supporting as President Karzai requests.  He is setting the ground rules for who gets talked to, under what conditions and with what concessions.  That isn't our job.  It isn't the United Nations job.  It is his job.  And he has been doing that for the past 5 years.


----------



## edgar (22 Jan 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And he has been doing that for the past 5 years.


So why are we having this argument? Clearly, Karzai agrees with me.
Pay attention when you read. The post said Taliban _supporters_. The distinction is important because it is between terrorists (Taliban) and the sea of peasants they swim in (Taliban supporters). Ask your in-laws how they love and trust Ottawa.


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Jan 2008)

edgar said:
			
		

> Huh? Here's a coupla clues for you:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_solving#Some_problem-solving_techniques
> 
> ...



Taliban and there supporters hold hands. Some supporters might not be firing the weapons, but they are in their cause.

Don't give us your crap!

Yes I am from Saskatchewan, and farmers there (like my family) have nothing in common with a group of people who support a terrorist fighting forces, and their methodology and overall thought.

Ever been to Saskatchewan, shy of flying over it or driving through it? I lived ther for the first 35 yrs of my life!


----------



## edgar (2 Feb 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Taliban and there supporters hold hands. Some supporters might not be firing the weapons, but they are in their cause.
> 
> Don't give us your crap!
> 
> ...


Here is some more crap for you. (Pokes Wesley's chest)
Good place to be _from_, right? I remain in Saskatchewan. My Dad lost his farm in 1990. That's why I joined the army. There are farmers in Afghanistan who don't know where their loyalty lies, with Kabul, or with the people who come around (with rifles) and claim to be working in there interest. There are people in Northern Ireland who always have disliked British rule, yet weren't members of the PIRA. There are farmers in Saskatchewan who would be happy to transfer their loyalty west. http://www.westcan.org/ is the organized example. I let my membership expire when I got tired of hearing the Jewish conspiracy theories.
Are the farmers in Sask better human beings than ones in Afghanistan? I've heard threats of shooting over six round bales along an unfenced property line. Civilization is a thin fucking veneer friend. What keeps the farmers in line here is trust in Democracy (with a lot of bitching to be sure), and trust that the RCMP will clamp down hard on personal gunfights. That's why the lunatics get no traction here. That's what is lacking in the hills of Afghanistan and that's why we are over there.


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Feb 2008)

edgar said:
			
		

> Here is some more crap for you. (Pokes Wesley's chest)
> Good place to be _from_, right? I remain in Saskatchewan. My Dad lost his farm in 1990. That's why I joined the army. There are farmers in Afghanistan who don't know where their loyalty lies, with Kabul, or with the people who come around (with rifles) and claim to be working in there interest. There are people in Northern Ireland who always have disliked British rule, yet weren't members of the PIRA. There are farmers in Saskatchewan who would be happy to transfer their loyalty west. http://www.westcan.org/ is the organized example. I let my membership expire when I got tired of hearing the Jewish conspiracy theories.
> Are the farmers in Sask better human beings than ones in Afghanistan? I've heard threats of shooting over six round bales along an unfenced property line. Civilization is a thin fucking veneer friend. What keeps the farmers in line here is trust in Democracy (with a lot of bitching to be sure), and trust that the RCMP will clamp down hard on personal gunfights. That's why the lunatics get no traction here. That's what is lacking in the hills of Afghanistan and that's why we are over there.



Poke away my friend, but I disagree.

My family left Ontario for Saskatchewan in 1910. Settled in the Quill Lakes area, and almost 100 yrs later, they still farm. Sure there has been hard times, but they still carry on, buying new equipment every so often, and help neighbours out when asked. 'Them's the laaaaw of the hills', where I come from.

Gun fights over bales? Sounds like a personal problem to me, and not rife throughout the community. To say that the only thing holding Sakatchewan farmers back from outright mayhem and rebellion is democracy and the RCMP is crap. There is nutcases in every crowd sure, but not finatical extremism in large numbers.

Yes, I remember the Western Canada Concept Party, and some at that time had a gutful of eastern politics dictating western lifestyle. The current federal government is a vast improvemnt over the poisioning of the nation which the Liberals did for decades.

I think comparing the civilised law abiding general population of a Canadian province to a bunch of illiterate tribal murdering savages living in the dark ages, and hell bent on some extreme fight is a disgrace.

Sorry Edgar, but I totally disagree where you are coming from.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Feb 2008)

Brilliantly said Wes.

Cheers


----------



## Jed (4 Feb 2008)

Hey this is cool! A couple of ex Saskatchewan farm boys having a little discussion, lol. 

Has anyone started a thread wrt the new U.S. counter-insurgency approach learned in Iraq and how it should be applied in Afghanistan ?

Jed, (An ex-Saskatchewan Farmboy)


----------



## edgar (7 Feb 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I think comparing the civilised law abiding general population of a Canadian province to a bunch of illiterate tribal murdering savages living in the dark ages, and hell bent on some extreme fight is a disgrace.
> 
> Sorry Edgar, but I totally disagree where you are coming from.


OK fuck Saskatchewan. Where I said Saskatchewan, say Quebec. Where I said farmers, say cafe revolutionaries. Shall we kill all the university students in Quebec because the FLQ killed whatsisname? Actual terrorists, in Canada. I'm not making this up. How did Pee air handle it? ( you remember dogsbody right? Western Producer? Never mind). He rounded them up, but he undermined their support by making deals with Quebecois.
Your determination to defend your homeland does you credit, but it is causing you to miss the fucking point.


----------



## edgar (7 Feb 2008)

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=0ef96e4d-dd9f-4c0b-b775-920e174a5c92
This ain't what I'm on about. I'm not talking about peace talks with the Taliban. I want them hunted to extinction. Who's gonna pop up to replace them, as leaders of the people who currently tolerate the Taliban because they see no better option? Let's find those ****ers and find out what it takes to convince them to join our side.

And how, exactly, do the cowshitkickers in Saskatchewan and the goatshitkickers in Afghanistan differ?


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Feb 2008)

What are you doing in Saskatchewan?

Running your own grow -op? Because you sound like you are on drugs with your twisted spin.

Your last post I am not even going to reply to, but again comparing us to them is like apples and oranges. It's actually disgusting, and if you are up for goading myself or others into a pissing contest, perhaps its time for a break on here for you.

We have heard you, and I can make no sense of it, so before this thread gets locked, we should get back on track.


----------



## edgar (7 Feb 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> What are you doing in Saskatchewan?
> 
> Running your own grow -op? Because you sound like you are on drugs with your twisted spin.
> 
> ...


Actually, I'm drinking malt liquor, thanks for asking.
You are driving this issue, so answer the fucking question, how exactly are the Saskatchewanites superior human beings to the Afghanis?


----------



## edgar (7 Feb 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> "I can't make sense of it", is actually kind of a piss poor argument.
> What you are saying is here is another thing you can't understand.


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Feb 2008)

Mate you making ass out of yourself, call it a night, get off the swill, and quit while your ahead.

Remember its your integrity on here not ours.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Jul 2008)

Poop stirring types never put anything in their profile, perhaps because there is little put in?


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Jul 2008)

Well, since this thread has sunk to school-yard name-calling, it's locked.  If someone has something useful to add, ask a Moderator after 24 hours for the lock to be lifted.  Don't be surprised if a Moderator removes posts to try and clean it up.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------

