Topic: Implications for Canadians in Afghanistan if Iraqi Insurgents Win

[Synthos]

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]

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to start a thread to learn any of those things,..........I have never been deployed and I got out in 1988 so I am way out of date.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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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). 

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

Geography again.

[Kirkhill]

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]

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

[Carcharodon Carcharias]

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]

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]

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."

[Thucydides]

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]

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.

[Cataract Kid]

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]

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.

[Tango2Bravo]

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. 

[E.R. Campbell]

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]

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.
At least one person is dead!

The official Iranian Fars News reported that two bombs went off yesterday in southeast Iran!

Hardliner Islamists brawled with reformists on the streets of Tehran.

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]

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.

[Thucydides]

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]

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

[Carcharodon Carcharias]

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]

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? 

[Carcharodon Carcharias]

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]

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]

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