# Sad report: 6 Canadian soldiers killed



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

TheStar.com - News - Six Canadian soldiers killed



> Apr 08, 2007 01:57 PM
> Canadian Press
> ARRAS, France — Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed Sunday six Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

under Paul Martin, feb 2007 would have had our soldiers out of, and not dying in, Afghanistan

best way to support our troops is to only put them in harms way when Cdn. security is thretened
a live soldier lives to fight another day and not just die so the U.S. can send more of their troops to that other quagmire in Iraq


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> under Paul Martin, feb 2007 would have had our soldiers out of, and not dying in, Afghanistan
> 
> best way to support our troops is to only put them in harms way when Cdn. security is thretened
> a live soldier lives to fight another day and not just die so the U.S. can send more of their troops to that other quagmire in Iraq


Don't you dare. Don't you dare. It's because of Paul Martin's dithering that Canada ended up with Kanadahar. Fact. 

Now, when the Tories were elected they honoured Canada's NATO commitment. You remember NATO don't you? The organization that helped keep Soviet aggresion in check for 40 years? The organization we depend on for our collective security. 

Everyone is entitled to their opinon on the war. But don't you dare say the Canadians would have been better of it Martin had been reelected. You have no idea if Martin would have extended the mission as well (and the short answer is, he likely would have). 

Martin put the soldiers there, in the riskest mission, knowning full well previous Canadian governments (liberal and tory) had decimated the Canadian military. 

As for the soldiers, don't sully their memory by saying pulling out our forces out of Afghanistan, which was the country that housed terrorists who killed three dozen Canadians on 9/11, is somehow honourable.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> As for the soldiers, don't sully their memory by saying pulling out our forces out of Afghanistan, which was the country that housed terrorists who killed three dozen Canadians on 9/11, is somehow honourable.


don't i dare?
wilkommen ein Kanada

our soldiers are being put into harms way so that u.s. forces can be put into iraq
i find it disgraceful that arm chair chickenhawks are ok sending young, bright canadians into a stupid war

don't you dare to lecture me on the validity of this stupid war
we shouldn't be there as usama (not osama) bin laden is an amerikan invention
poppy prouction is higher than at Taliban levels

dead canadians are dead canadians whether it be the horror of 9/11 or the "new mission" (sorta like "new cdn. gov't) in afghanistan

i respect our brave fighting men and women by ONLY putting them in harms way for the sake of our sovreignty and security
NOT
to put them there as an extension of pax amerikana as detailed by the PNAC document

shame on you for believeing that dying for someone else's cause is somehow a good reason to die
shame on you for sending someone else's children to die

pulling our forces out of afghanistan is the farthest thing from "sullying" their memory
it is the most honourable and respectful thing we can do

war should be a last resort

shame on you for war mongering on the weekend honouring the sacrifice made by canadians at Vimy

Martin didn't put the soldiers into the "riskiest" mission
the "mission" changed after our "new gov't" came into power

the very, very least you could do to honour the soldiers is to respect history and not to distort the truth or out and out, lie

shame on you


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Very sad news on this Easter weekend.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> don't i dare?
> wilkommen ein Kanada
> 
> our soldiers are being put into harms way so that u.s. forces can be put into iraq
> ...


so why is it that the Soldiers themselves aren't crying to come home? because they believe in thier roles as canadians to help with world matters. I honor and salute them doing thier jobs and doing it proudly. Why join the forces if you don't want to ever get put in this type of situation? Good grief no one wants to die but thier serving thier country of Canada and they believe in what thier doing is for good cause...My hats off to them..

I am saddened at the loss of life....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

imactheknife said:


> so why is it that the Soldiers themselves aren't crying to come home? because they believe in thier roles as canadians to help with world matters. I honor and salute them doing thier jobs and doing it proudly. Why join the forces if you don't want to ever get put in this type of situation? Good grief no one wants to die but thier serving thier country of Canada and they believe in what thier doing is for good cause...My hats off to them..
> 
> I am saddened at the loss of life....


:clap: :clap: 

MS continues to "dither" like those he admires. It takes guts and courage to be a Canadian soldier and believe in your mission. It takes only a coward to quit and run.

The loss is tragic. To abandon them, pathetic.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> It takes guts and courage to be a Canadian soldier and believe in your mission. It takes only a coward to quit and run.
> 
> The loss is tragic. To abandon them, pathetic.


Abandon whom? How is getting Canadian Soldiers out of harms way in a country which is rife with civil disorder abandoning them? I for one think more of the lives of Canadian soldiers than the cowards who foolishly send them and keep them in a situation where there is no winning.

Pathetic is continuing to think that places like Afghanistan will change in our lifetime.

I've said it once I'll say it again... Canada should offer any woman and any child under 16 the opportunity to leave Afghanistan. Once these innocents are rescued everyone should pull out and let them have it.

Bring our troops home...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

NBiBooker said:


> Don't you dare. Don't you dare. It's because of Paul Martin's dithering that Canada ended up with Kanadahar. Fact.


And your boy Harper had a hardon to get into Iraq.....


I feel for the soldiers and their families but I have no sympathy for the mission. Change the nature of the mission or bring them home....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Abandon whom? How is getting Canadian Soldiers out of harms way in a country which is rife with civil disorder abandoning them? I for one think more of the lives of Canadian soldiers than the cowards who foolishly send them and keep them in a situation where there is no winning.
> 
> Pathetic is continuing to think that places like Afghanistan will change in our lifetime.


Try talking to soldiers who have been there and are eager to return. They believe they can accomplish the mission. For you to discredit them is unpatriotic, not to mention just plain disrespectful of their combined efforts. Not supporting them is cowardice personified.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Afghanistan is a b******t war, undertaken to appease the U.S. government.

The Taliban originally came to power because they were willing and able to stand up to the thugs and warlords raping their own country. When the allied forces got rid of the Taliban, they handed it right back to the thugs and warlords to do what they please. Needless to say those people haven't changed, they're still driving people to support the Taliban, the apparent lesser of two evils.

Bottom line, our guys over there are fighting and dying for the guys that make the Taliban look good.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Try talking to soldiers who have been there and are eager to return. They believe they can accomplish the mission. For you to discredit them is unpatriotic, not to mention just plain disrespectful of their combined efforts. Not supporting them is cowardice personified.


Our troops go because they are told to, that is their job.  They go to support each other which is what it means to be a soldier.

Asking our troops to lay down their lives for something which is unattainable is disgraceful. Those who ask our troops to do this knowing that they will never pick up a rifle, never puts themselves in harms way are the one who are unpatriotic... they are the ones who are cowards. 

Bring our troops home.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> And your boy Harper had a hardon to get into Iran.....
> 
> 
> I feel for the soldiers and their families but I have no sympathy for the mission. Change the nature of the mission or bring them home....


Your a sick putz...are you sure it was Iran?

What makes you think the NBiBooker is a Harper supporter because he believes in the War...making a big ASS-umption aren't ya AS nothing new here...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Our troops go because they are told to, that is their job. They go to support each other which is what it means to be a soldier.
> 
> Asking our troops to lay down their lives for something which is unattainable is disgraceful. Those who ask our troops to do this knowing that they will never pick up a rifle, never puts themselves in harms way are the one who are unpatriotic... they are the ones who are cowards.
> 
> Bring our troops home.


Ever talked to a real veteran of Afghanistan? I have. He lost both legs as well. He's no coward and continues to support our position. It's a NATO commitment and I am so glad people like you have not been able to sway those who stay the course.

And I might remind you that you have the right to make those statements only because people like today's soldiers, and those of two generations back, including my ancestors, fought and died on your behalf.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Asking our troops to lay down their lives for something which is unattainable is disgraceful. Those who ask our troops to do this knowing that they will never pick up a rifle, never puts themselves in harms way are the one who are unpatriotic... they are the ones who are cowards.


First off, you don't know if the goals are unattainable until you try. In this case, if you don't try then there is absolutely no way that any sort of goals will be attained.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Brainstrained said:


> Afghanistan is a b******t war, undertaken to appease the U.S. government.
> 
> The Taliban originally came to power because they were willing and able to stand up to the thugs and warlords raping their own country. When the allied forces got rid of the Taliban, they handed it right back to the thugs and warlords to do what they please. Needless to say those people haven't changed, they're still driving people to support the Taliban, the apparent lesser of two evils.
> 
> Bottom line, our guys over there are fighting and dying for the guys that make the Taliban look good.


The Afghan commitment was not done to appease the US government. Canada is fulfilling its commitment to NATO and not to the US.

Second, there is no one in Afghanistan who could be said to have a clean hand. At least, the people in charge now have a bit of "oversight" by the West rather than a bunch of Muslim extremists.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> I feel for the soldiers and their families but I have no sympathy for the mission. Change the nature of the mission or bring them home....


It would be great to spend all of the time building roads, bridges and schools but the other side seems to have a liking for destroying things. Reconstruction and combat are mixed up in this scenario.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> I've said it once I'll say it again... Canada should offer any woman and any child under 16 the opportunity to leave Afghanistan. Once these innocents are rescued everyone should pull out and let them have it.


Speaking of foolish; so, where should the Afghans go in this diaspora? There are over 30 million Afghan nationals...are you suggesting that Canada should take in approximately 12-20 million people?

Are you saying that the West should allow a safe haven for groups who believe in religious fundamentalism?

Are you saying that Iran and Pakistan could march in and take their share of Afghanistan?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

imactheknife said:


> Your a sick putz...are you sure it was Iran?
> 
> What makes you think the NBiBooker is a Harper supporter because he believes in the War...making a big ASS-umption aren't ya AS nothing new here...


imac, I've corrected it to Iraq.

Not making an assumption - this is old news with NBiBooker. 
You know, instead of using the juvenile ASS why not just call me a f-ucker?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> It would be great to spend all of the time building roads, bridges and schools but the other side seems to have a liking for destroying things. Reconstruction and combat are mixed up in this scenario.


The nature of our role has changed under the Cons. 
There is a puppet regime that is corrupt and this will be a quagmire. Everything from how we handle POWs to the distribution of aid is messed up. 
It's not getting any better for the population. 
It's time for a rethink.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Ever talked to a real veteran of Afghanistan? I have. He lost both legs as well. He's no coward and continues to support our position. It's a NATO commitment and I am so glad people like you have not been able to sway those who stay the course.
> 
> And I might remind you that you have the right to make those statements only because people like today's soldiers, and those of two generations back, including my ancestors, fought and died on your behalf.


Tell us Sinc what did those 6 soldiers who died today die for? How is protecting "development" programs in Afghanistan affecting your personal freedoms? 

The soldiers do what they are told, that is their job... how about we tell them the right thing to do? How about we tell them to come home safe and sound to their families?

Bring our troops home.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

IronMac said:


> First off, you don't know if the goals are unattainable until you try. In this case, if you don't try then there is absolutely no way that any sort of goals will be attained.


Think about it... the only way to defeat fundamentalism in Afghanistan is to either wipe the majority of the population or be prepared to be in there for 30 to 30 years.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> :clap: :clap:
> 
> MS continues to "dither" like those he admires. It takes guts and courage to be a Canadian soldier and believe in your mission. It takes only a coward to quit and run.
> 
> The loss is tragic. To abandon them, pathetic.



it's "pathetic" to sit at home, safe a and sound, far away from the death and destruction

keeping our soldiers in a stupid war, extending their mission, then increasing the risk of their mission, is "pathetic"

harper is playing politics with the lives of husbands, wives, children of canadians all to appease george bush, so the riskiest missions are now conducted by canadians so that u.s. forces can be re-deployed from afghanistan into iraq

it's "pathetic" that anyone would actually want our kids in harms way by wrapping themselves in self annointed patriotism

soldiers are soldiers and they bravely serve their mission which is why they don't complain

i'm not "waffling" at all
bring 'em home NOW


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

IronMac said:


> Are you saying that the West should allow a safe haven for groups who believe in religious fundamentalism?


You ever been to the Southern US? he he he. Seriously, pretty easy to make that statement when The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia remains the US's strongest ally in the region. I'm going to guess you didn't think about that very hard, eh?



IronMac said:


> Are you saying that Iran and Pakistan could march in and take their share of Afghanistan?


That is actually a very good idea. Split the country in two or three (maybe more) and give control to Iran, Pakistan and some combination of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

Clearly those countries are in a MUCH better logistical situation to support rebuilding within Afghanistan as well as being much better able to deal with the cultural sensitivity required in that region.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Tell us Sinc what did those 6 soldiers who died today die for? How is protecting "development" programs in Afghanistan affecting your personal freedoms?
> 
> The soldiers do what they are told, that is their job... how about we tell them the right thing to do? How about we tell them to come home safe and sound to their families?
> 
> Bring our troops home.


That's the trouble with your kind of thinking, You want to "tell them what to do" when you no nothing of their daily activities. Those who willingly serve and experience the good they are accomplishing need not be "told" anything.

There are plenty of volunteers who go willingly, not "told to go" as they know that is the reality when they enlist.

Respect them for their courage and conviction is the honourable thing to do. Running away is cowardly and accomplishes nothing. Our troops did not run away in Vimy, nor D-Day and this is no different. It is a commitment to our allies and a NATO operation. And there are 10 times the number of US troops there along with dozens of our other allies. Many more of them should have the conviction to step up to the front with us, but they don't. Thank God we do.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> That's the trouble with your kind of thinking, You want to "tell them what to do" when you no nothing of their daily activities. Those who willingly serve and experience the good they are accomplishing need not be "told" anything.
> 
> There are plenty of volunteers who go willingly, not "told to go" as they know that is the reality when they enlist.
> 
> Respect them for their courage and conviction is the honourable thing to do. Running away is cowardly and accomplishes nothing. Our troops did not run away in Vimy, nor D-Day and this is no different. It is a commitment to our allies and a NATO operation. And there are 10 times the number of US troops there along with dozens of our other allies. Many more of them should have the conviction to step up to the front with us, but they don't. Thank God we do.


Sinc, care to revisit this or do you not have any idea how the military works? Soldiers do not decide, they are told what to do. Instructions are provided through the chain of command from the Civilian Government (typically from direction through the PMO). You can't honestly think that that the Chief of Defence Staff operates autonomously without direction?

You keep stating that running away is a cowardly act... So when the Americans pulled out of Vietnam, that was a cowardly act? When the UN retreated in Korea that was a cowardly act? When the British Expeditionary Forces left Europe at the beginning of WWII that was a cowardly act?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

> Soldiers do not decide, they are told what to do.


I'm pretty sure SINC is referring to the soldiers own will to join the military in the first place, not their choice (or lack thereof) once enlisted. Soldiers know what they're geting themselves into when they enlist, and no one (as of yet) is forcing any Canadian to enlist in the military.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

IronMac said:


> The Afghan commitment was not done to appease the US government. Canada is fulfilling its commitment to NATO and not to the US.
> 
> Second, there is no one in Afghanistan who could be said to have a clean hand. At least, the people in charge now have a bit of "oversight" by the West rather than a bunch of Muslim extremists.


The U.S. sneezes and everyone at NATO pulls out hankies.

If there was any sort of oversight the people wouldn't be turning back to the Taliban. 

We're not backing good people. We're backing the guys in black hats, and when you do that it will come back at you.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Lars said:


> I'm pretty sure SINC is referring to the soldiers own will to join the military in the first place, not their choice (or lack thereof) once enlisted. Soldiers know what they're geting themselves into when they enlist, and no one (as of yet) is forcing any Canadian to enlist in the military.


But Lars you and he are missing the point. I'm not talking about a choice to join the armed forces. I'm talking about they do what they are told when they are soldiers.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I can't help but see the parallels between many who post here and the United States in the first couple years of WWII. Most Americans didn't see how the war affected them and didn't want to be involved. It took Pearl Harbour for them to realize they didn't live in a bubble and that world events have an effect at home.

The parallel with Canada is that we are the only western nation mentioned by bin Laden that hasn't been attacked by terrorists. I think it is very naive for people to think we are not a target and to ignore the threat posed to our security by failed states and terrorism.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Only VD would try to equate WW2 with the phoney "war on terror"....

You sure love your boogeymen....


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Thank-YOU, ArtistSeries... for bringing some perspective to this! :clap: 

Oh... BTW... this situation has no comparison to Vimy Ridge either!

Respect and honour today's soldiers, they deserve it... however it's time to call it quits in Afghanistan. The US abandoned it pretty much and went to play in Iraq... and I don't see anyone near catching bin Laden. Meanwhile our people die and I'm not sure for what. Not NATO... nuh-uh.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Dreambird said:


> The US abandoned it pretty much and went to play in Iraq... and I don't see anyone near catching bin Laden. Meanwhile our people die and I'm not sure for what. Not NATO... nuh-uh.


Yes, the US did abandon Afghanistan in order to fight in Iraq but just earlier this year they have decided to increase their troop levels. They will have up to 27,000 military personnel there which is probably close to what they had back in 2001.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Brainstrained said:


> The U.S. sneezes and everyone at NATO pulls out hankies.
> 
> If there was any sort of oversight the people wouldn't be turning back to the Taliban.
> 
> We're not backing good people. We're backing the guys in black hats, and when you do that it will come back at you.


First off, how many people are actually turning to the Taliban? There are conflicting reports on this.

Second, which group do you want to back? 

Third, the only people in the black hats are the Taliban.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> That is actually a very good idea. Split the country in two or three (maybe more) and give control to Iran, Pakistan and some combination of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
> 
> Clearly those countries are in a MUCH better logistical situation to support rebuilding within Afghanistan as well as being much better able to deal with the cultural sensitivity required in that region.


So, because of a few deaths and the expense of maintaining a mission halfway around the world, the rich Western democracies should be complicit in the breakup of a sovereign nation?

I can see other parallels here such as with the Ottoman and Chinese empires. Bravo..nice to see that sort of 19th-century thinkinjg is still alive and strong.

BTW, you never said anything about whether or not Canada should welcome up to 20 million Afghan refugees. Of course, you'd have to wonder how many of those people will resent you for helping to break up their country.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> The nature of our role has changed under the Cons.
> There is a puppet regime that is corrupt and this will be a quagmire. Everything from how we handle POWs to the distribution of aid is messed up.
> It's not getting any better for the population.
> It's time for a rethink.


You ever agree to a job offer and the duties that you were asked to perform were not exactly what you had been told? Do you quit and walk out?

If everyone did that where would we be?


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> The nature of our role has changed under the Cons.
> There is a puppet regime that is corrupt and this will be a quagmire. Everything from how we handle POWs to the distribution of aid is messed up.
> It's not getting any better for the population.
> It's time for a rethink.


That's the biggest crock of ..... what did you think Martin sent them over for? Martin, who waited until the last minute to decide, ended up with the toughest assignment, Kanadahar province. The Libs knew damn well what they were sending the soldiers into. 

To say anything else is a blatant lie. 

I love too how the anti-Afghan mission crowd conveniently forget the 30-some Canadians killed on 9/11 by terrorists harboured and trained in Afghanistan. 

Doesn't fit with their view that Afghanistan is just another American adventure. 

Afghanistan is not Iraq. We can have the Iraq debate elsewhere. But ignore Canada's terrorism victims is beyond the pale. If it was one of your loved ones who was killed on 9/11, you'd want to make sure no one else went through the pain you did.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

IronMac said:


> First off, how many people are actually turning to the Taliban? There are conflicting reports on this.
> 
> Second, which group do you want to back?
> 
> Third, the only people in the black hats are the Taliban.


First, go take a poll of you want numbers.

Second, in light of the situation I don't want to back anyone. I want Canada out of Afghanistan.

Third, it must be great to live in such a black and white world. If, however, you want to see a little more of the greys, try reading Kathy Gannon's I is for Infidels.

The Canadian-born and raised reporter worked there for about 20 years and covered the Russian occupation, the civil war, the rise of the Taliban and the U.S.-led invasion.

You might start with her speech in Toronto last month:



> "What they have failed to do is make allies of Afghans. Instead they have made enemies of ordinary Afghans,"


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Lars said:


> I'm pretty sure SINC is referring to the soldiers own will to join the military in the first place, not their choice (or lack thereof) once enlisted. Soldiers know what they're geting themselves into when they enlist, and no one (as of yet) is forcing any Canadian to enlist in the military.


That is exactly my point Lars. Thanks for being bright enough to pick it up.

One of the six killed was a volunteer from halifax who went to the US to train with the Marines to prepare for his time in Afghanistan. He died where he wanted to be, doing what he wanted to do.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> But Lars you and he are missing the point. I'm not talking about a choice to join the armed forces. I'm talking about they do what they are told when they are soldiers.


Well duh, what a revelation.

Of course they follow orders, but no one ordered them to join, get it?

They join fully knowing the risks and possibilities for theatres of service. End of story.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Sinc, care to revisit this or do you not have any idea how the military works? Soldiers do not decide, they are told what to do. Instructions are provided through the chain of command from the Civilian Government (typically from direction through the PMO). You can't honestly think that that the Chief of Defence Staff operates autonomously without direction?
> 
> You keep stating that running away is a cowardly act... So when the Americans pulled out of Vietnam, that was a cowardly act? When the UN retreated in Korea that was a cowardly act? When the British Expeditionary Forces left Europe at the beginning of WWII that was a cowardly act?



Conscription ended years ago....today people join the military either for a job or to Volunteer...and yes they know that there might be some risk involved...Canadian Soldiers should be proud of thier positions and they are...

Should people stop commuting cause they might die going to work? maybe they should move into the same building to avoid the possible threat of a motor vehicle collision...what a waste stupid driving....people die for stupider things and by accident as well

Our soldiers are there for a mission and a mission they believe in....they don't want to die but God bless thier souls they they are doing something they believe in and want to be doing. The world is not a safe place and to think Canada is threat free from the hooligans of the world is a stupid way to think...go bury your head furthur in the sand.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> imac, I've corrected it to Iraq.
> 
> Not making an assumption - this is old news with NBiBooker.
> You know, instead of using the juvenile ASS why not just call me a f-ucker?


I would not call you that or anything else because it would not be true and it's not nice...my point is you assume a lot about people and thier comments before you know the facts sometimes. Doing this makes you look like a big AS$ a lot of the time.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

imactheknife said:


> so why is it that the Soldiers themselves aren't crying to come home? because they believe in thier roles as canadians to help with world matters. I honor and salute them doing thier jobs and doing it proudly.


Soldiers actually have very little ability to contest how their nation deploys them. I had a friend who used to write letters to the editors alot, and write to members of government. He joined the forces and said that we would not be allowed to do be overtly political anymore. He would not be allowed to question the government. 

What crying has to do with, I'm not sure. I believe most soldiers would rather be home than in Afghanistan. Of course that's an assumption, but you could ask them. Only the mentally unstable would rather be fighting in a war zone.



imactheknife said:


> sWhy join the forces if you don't want to ever get put in this type of situation?


Many people join the forces never want to see real combat. One would hope that would be the ideal situation. Many people join because of lack of opportunity, money, and education. Many look at the free education that they qualify for. Others look for work, any work.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Soldiers actually have very little ability to contest how their nation deploys them. I had a friend who used to write letters to the editors alot, and write to members of government. He joined the forces and said that we would not be allowed to do be overtly political anymore. He would not be allowed to question the government.
> 
> What crying has to do with, I'm not sure. I believe most soldiers would rather be home than in Afghanistan. Of course that's an assumption, but you could ask them. Only the mentally unstable would rather be fighting in a war zone.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you are saying...

What is even scarier is that Iran, and Iraq and a lot of Muslim countries are so anti America that even thier kids are growing up hating the US and western nations and not even knowing why....

today on CNN

In Tehran, around 200 students gathered in front of the Atomic Energy Organization, chanting "death to America" and "death to Britain" and burning American and British flags, The Associated Press reported.

is this comforting? now that the world knows that iran has a full scale Nuke program? 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/09/iran.ahmadinejad/index.html


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

IronMac said:


> So, because of a few deaths and the expense of maintaining a mission halfway around the world, the rich Western democracies should be complicit in the breakup of a sovereign nation?
> 
> I can see other parallels here such as with the Ottoman and Chinese empires. Bravo..nice to see that sort of 19th-century thinkinjg is still alive and strong.


Methinks you need to revisit your history. Not only should Western democracies be complicit they should be compelled to do so in the case of failed nations. In most cases where we have failed nations that is because often those nations were arbitrarily formed by colonial powers in the first place... Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples.

The borders were arbitrarily created by colonial powers with little to no thought about the indigenous cultural makeup of those countries.



IronMac said:


> BTW, you never said anything about whether or not Canada should welcome up to 20 million Afghan refugees. Of course, you'd have to wonder how many of those people will resent you for helping to break up their country.


Between the NATO countries they could absorb the refugees, I think your number is high though... In the situation I described only women and children under 16 would be allowed out. Those rescued wouldn't look on their rescuers with resentment. As it stands the current NATO force is being viewed by most of the population outside of Kabul as an occupying force anyway.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

imactheknife said:


> Our soldiers are there for a mission and a mission they believe in....they don't want to die but God bless thier souls they they are doing something they believe in and want to be doing. The world is not a safe place and to think Canada is threat free from the hooligans of the world is a stupid way to think...go bury your head furthur in the sand.


I think it is equally stupid to think that Canada is under imminent threat from Afgan hordes just waiting to spring out and march across China and Russia just to attack Canadian civilians.

Canadians aren't even being given a stand up fight... In previous conflicts soldiers were told there is the enemy go get them, you see someone in a German uniform, have at em. In Afghanistan our soldiers rarely have that luxury. Instead the get to drive around and get picked off by snipers, blown up by roadside bombs or take the occasional axe in the head from a tribal elder.

If Afghanistan is about protecting Canada you show me the current threat related to the commitment and I will shut up. If Afghanistan is about retribution for 30 Canadians killed in 9/11 I think we are even now if we tally up the body count.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

About uniformed enemies: it's important to recall the many many reports we have of attackers/kidnappers in Afghani military and police uniforms. I know in Iraq police stations have been raided by US and/or UK forces. Police groups have been disbanded for being corrupt. Off the top of my head I can't recall police groups being disbanded in Afghanistan... but it's no stretch of the imagination.

It seems like a great deal of the political power structure has shifted from the Taliban to warlords, arms dealers, and drug dealers.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> If Afghanistan is about protecting Canada you show me the current threat related to the commitment and I will shut up. If Afghanistan is about retribution for 30 Canadians killed in 9/11 I think we are even now if we tally up the body count.


That's what you don't get. It's not about "getting even."

It's about stopping the next attack.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

NBiBooker said:


> That's what you don't get. It's not about "getting even."
> 
> It's about stopping the next attack.


Attack from whom? The Taliban? They didn't attack the US in the first place.

As I said before unless you think think that a Taliban mob is going to cross through China and Russia just to attack us we might not be focused on the right thing in Afghanistan.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

NBiBooker said:


> It's about stopping the next attack.


Please spare us the next homily on truth, freedom and democracy.

This has precious little to do with stopping the next attack, and a whole lot more with trying to fix a tactical mistake – using a sledgehammer to quash a mite.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Re: Sad report.

I'm sad that so little dignity and honour is afforded to Canadian soldiers, alive and dead, who have gone to fight in this war supported by successive Canadian governments of various ilk that we, as Canadians, have duly elected.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Don't confuse lack of support for the war with lack of support for Canadian soldiers.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Brainstrained said:


> Don't confuse lack of support for the war with lack of support for Canadian soldiers.


Exactly. In almost every case Canadian Soldiers serve their country with courage and valour. If only Canadian politicians could serve their country and their citizens (specifically in this case our soldiers) in the same way.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> Attack from whom? The Taliban? They didn't attack the US in the first place.
> 
> As I said before unless you think think that a Taliban mob is going to cross through China and Russia just to attack us we might not be focused on the right thing in Afghanistan.


Wow. That's some mighty Kool-Aid you're sipping. No it wasn't the Taliban, it was Al-Qaeda, their ideological kissing cousins.

The Taliban gave Al-Qaeda succor, support and encouragement. Offered the chance to surrender Al-Qaeda to the west or face the consquences, they chose to continue to harbour the terrorists.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Here’s another of those soldiers “ordered” to serve:

“Days before he departed for Afghanistan, one of the six Canadian soldiers killed Sunday in Kandahar told the CBC his military family knew well the cost of war but supported his dedication to the mission.
A reservist with the Halifax-based Princess Louise Fusiliers, Stannix had achieved the rank of master corporal but accepted a demotion to corporal in order to go to Afghanistan.
That was the kind of soldier Stannix was, long-time friend Jonathan Keezer told CBC News on Tuesday. "He believed in serving, thought that there was lots of purpose in what he was doing, and just really wanted to go and be a part of it," Keezer said from Newfoundland.”

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/04/10/slain-soldiers-070410.html?ref=rss


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

NBiBooker said:


> Wow. That's some mighty Kool-Aid you're sipping. No it wasn't the Taliban, it was Al-Qaeda, their ideological kissing cousins.
> 
> The Taliban gave Al-Qaeda succor, support and encouragement. Offered the chance to surrender Al-Qaeda to the west or face the consquences, they chose to continue to harbour the terrorists.


and just who funded USAma bin Laden, gave him weapons, trained him and his followers?

the Taliban? no
the Soviets? no
the Chines? no
Amerika? yes

and instead of Amerika cleaning up their bin Laden mess, they instead invade Iraq and bin Laen goes free...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sadly, one of the two soldiers from the six that were killed recently (Pte. Kevin Vincent Kennedy, 20, of St. Lawrence, N.L.) , is the son of one of my ex-students. Still, we weep for them all.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

NBiBooker said:


> Wow. That's some mighty Kool-Aid you're sipping. No it wasn't the Taliban, it was Al-Qaeda, their ideological kissing cousins.
> 
> The Taliban gave Al-Qaeda succor, support and encouragement. Offered the chance to surrender Al-Qaeda to the west or face the consquences, they chose to continue to harbour the terrorists.


Who's drinking the kool aid buddy? Al-Qaeda is also supported by elements within Saudi Arabia and a host of other countries such as Pakistan and Indonesia.

It can be safely argued that within weeks of the initial hostilities in Afghanistan that any strategic Al-Qaeda operations based out of there were rendered pretty much useless.

Honestly are you even paying attention to what is going on?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I watched an interview with the mother of the one soldier out of seven riding in the troop compartment who survived the explosion.

Her opinion? If here son comes home and wants to go back to Afghanistan, she's all right with that. He's there to serve because he wants to be and if he chooses to return, he has my full support.

That folks, is what "supporting our troops" is really all about. Some could take a lesson from his Mom.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> I watched an interview with the mother of the one soldier out of seven riding in the troop compartment who survived the explosion.
> 
> Her opinion? If here son comes home and wants to go back to Afghanistan, she's all right with that. He's there to serve because he wants to be and if he chooses to return, he has my full support.
> 
> That folks, is what "supporting our troops" is really all about. Some could take a lesson from his Mom.


Sinc, the issue here is not about supporting the troops. Everyone supports our troops. They have an unimaginable job which they are asked to do. The issue is should we support the mission. 

The mission that the have been sent on exposes them to risks which far outweigh their goals.

Bring the troops home.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> That folks, is what "supporting our troops" is really all about. Some could take a lesson from his Mom.


Not in my or many other's opinions SINC. Supporting the troops is getting them out of harms way fighting a bull$hit war that others realized was folly years ago.

I support my troops coming home smiling and embracing their families, not in boxes thank you very much.

As many have said, don't confuse lack of support for the war with lack of support for the troops. It's a cheap tactic.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Canada's military, like that of any other NATO country has entered into an association and an agreement to be present during times of aggression against common enemies.

You can't support the troops without supporting the war. They are one and the same. Choose no support for the war, you automatically choose no support for the troops.

I suppose now you will tell me that well over a dozen other NATO allies being there are wrong too?


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

What doesn't seem to get through many heads here is the fact that the soldiers, the folks with boots to the ground, DO support the mission. If I thought that these people were only going to do their job as ordered by the government then I would agree with the "bring 'em home" sentiment. The fact is nothing could be further from the truth. 

I have personally spoken with soldiers who have done their tour and can't wait to go back. They are incredibly enthusiastic about their accomplishments. I'll take my cue from these people rather than the spin doctors in our news media or politicians. The soldiers are the ones risking life and limb. If they truly believe, and I've seen the enthusiasm, then they have my blessing.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I'm curious as to why some people believe those who enlisted with the military have the belief that they did so without any thought to the possibility of seeing combat or even facing death?

One of the very first things recruiters will do is sit down with potential candidates is to explain to them what their job will entail and what to expect--including showing graphic video of actual combat situations. Far more graphic than anything on YouTube, I assure you. There are soldiers who also go out of their way to convey their personal experiences--one in particular tried to convince one of my friends to reconsider joining the military by relating some of the horrific things he encountered during peacekeeping missions overseas.

So please, don't paint the soldier as the victim.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Adagio confirms what I know to be true living in a garrison town and next door to a 37 year old father of three who leaves for Afghanistan come August. Manny also makes an excellent point.

Being openly anti war is disrespectful to all Canadian troops and serves no purpose other than to show the military you don't support them fully.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Being openly anti war is disrespectful to all Canadian troops and serves no purpose other than to show the military you don't support them fully.


In your mind maybe. This debate makes me feel like it's 1960. I thought we had learned a lot since then.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> Being openly anti war is disrespectful to all Canadian troops and serves no purpose other than to show the military you don't support them fully.





mrjimmy said:


> In your mind maybe.


In my mind, it's a simple observation.

In a Canadian soldier's mind, it's devastating.

When will people realize what effect their unwanted personal views have on our troops?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> In my mind, it's a simple observation.
> 
> In a Canadian soldier's mind, it's devastating.
> 
> When will people realize what effect their unwanted personal views have on our troops?


My apologies! I didn't realize you were a spokesperson for our troops!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> My apologies! I didn't realize you were a spokesperson for our troops!


Seems I am not alone:

Let's not lose focus on mission . . .

“If Canadians are going to be derailed from our mission in Afghanistan by the loss of 51 soldiers and one diplomat, we should never have sent them there in the first place. Honouring the dead and respecting the grief of their families and comrades is one thing.

But using every death to argue the mission should be abandoned, as so many in Canada's chattering classes do, is obscene.”

edmontonsun.com - Commentary - Let's not lose focus on mission


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Seems I am not alone:


Seems I'm not either. Who's right (correct) here?

Afghanistan


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Seems I'm not either. Who's right (correct) here?


I think we should leave the decision to the military, for it is they who want to be there and serve, not the chattering class.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> I think we should leave the decision to the military, for it is they who want to be there and serve, not the chattering class.


Again, apologies! I didn't realize that you _and_ Lorrie Goldstein were spokepeople for the troops! I really should get my facts straight!


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

adagio said:


> What doesn't seem to get through many heads here is the fact that the soldiers, the folks with boots to the ground, DO support the mission.


The military serves the civillian population through elected representatives. It matters less that some soldiers want to be there. We don't engage in military action because soldiers _want_ to see combat.

Every Canadian who pays taxes supports the war in Afghanistan whether they want to or not.

Our NATO responsibilities were to respond to attack on ally. That was done. Funds were cut off. Those who gave aid to those responsible for 911 were attacked and driven off. That was the time to say, job done and leave.

It is not Canada's job to install democracies at the point of a gun. It is not Canada's job to install puppet governments at tthe point of a gun. It is not Canada's place to support warlords, thugs, arms & weapons dealers. It is not Canada's job to change another people's culture at the point of a gun.

It would be different if we spending our money on humanitarian efforts in Afganistan. But sadly the vast, lop-sided majority of it goes to military efforts. I wish the ratio was reversed.

It's 2007 now. The Second World War only lasted 6 years. What's taking this war so long to win? Because it is simply unwinnable the way it is.

Our government tells us that we're there (with NATO) at the request of the Afghan government. Bull. Since when do we serve at the wishes of a foreign government a world away. We served our orignal NATO committment (with few casualties). We could have walked away, heads high and a job well done. But Harper and the Conservatives, and 30 or so Liberals decided to suck up to the US administration. The blood of the 44 Candians who died since 2006 is on the hands of those decision makers. They changed the mission and they extended it.

Support the troops. Bring them home. Any soldier who wants to stay and fight can sign up for the US military. Nothing stops them from doing that.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Nicely done Paul, nicely done!


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

SINC said:


> Being openly anti war is disrespectful to all Canadian troops and serves no purpose other than to show the military you don't support them fully.


And being openly pro-war is the desirable, civilized, prefered, humane, respectful position. Fully supporting peace is in no way disrespectful.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

SINC said:


> I think we should leave the decision to the military, for it is they who want to be there and serve, not the chattering class.


The military trains people to be disciplined and to follow orders. To do what they are told and to like it.

Even so, many soldiers don't agree with the current mission or deployment in Afghanistan. I talked to one soldier who returned home a couple of months ago and he told me that whatever you see or hear in the media, it's twice as worse there.

Instead of the current billions we are spending on the military there now, we could use that money to take in refugees who truly want to live safe and free in a place like Canada.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

For what it's worth, or so it is claimed by the military, it does appear that the Taliban are still engaging Canadian soldiers.




Paul O'Keefe said:


> The military serves the civillian population through elected representatives. It matters less that some soldiers want to be there. We don't engage in military action because soldiers _want_ to see combat.
> 
> Every Canadian who pays taxes supports the war in Afghanistan whether they want to or not.
> 
> ...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Kudos' Paul. Very eloquently put. :clap:


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> The military serves the civillian population through elected representatives. It matters less that some soldiers want to be there. We don't engage in military action because soldiers _want_ to see combat.
> 
> Every Canadian who pays taxes supports the war in Afghanistan whether they want to or not.
> 
> ...


Clearly you do not know what Canada is doing over in Afghanistan--you've merely cut/pasted the same old anti-US Iraqi war diatribe that has absolutely nothing to do with Canada's mission to Afghanistan.

Canada has given millions in microloans to aid people, given humanitarian support and has aided in rebuilding it's infrastructure not to mention helped build schools where girls and women (god forbid) can actually learn to read! Imagine... something that was punishable by death is now a freely available. Unfortunately the Taliban have continually acted aggressively to not only our soldiers but to the Afghan people themselves with the killing of innocents including children.

But oddly enough, the anti-war folk are eager to make noise only when something wrong happens... first comparing them to sadistic American Marines when they shot a youth on a motorcycle not stopping as they approached a checkpoint and then, ironically, lamenting the death of our soldiers when they were killed weeks later by a person on a motorcycle with a bomb strapped to their chest.

And yet people continue to join Canada's Armed Forces. Go figure.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

HowEver said:


> For what it's worth, or so it is claimed by the military, it does appear that the Taliban are still engaging Canadian soldiers.


What's your point? Since our soldiers are there, they make very convenient targets for the Taliban. Why provide them something to shoot at? The Taliban are not a global strategic threat to Canadian interests. It is that simple.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> I talked to one soldier who returned home a couple of months ago and he told me that whatever you see or hear in the media, it's twice as worse there.


Well, good for you. I on the other hand, have interviewed hundreds of them over the past two years, live next door to four families and have yet to find one of the PPLI who did not fully support the government, the mission and the people of Afghanistan they became so attached to while serving there. Like MannyP says, you have no idea what is going on in Afghanistan nor the fine work our troops are doing. What we are accomplishing there has bugger all to do with the US.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> Clearly you do not know what Canada is doing over in Afghanistan--you've merely cut/pasted the same old anti-US Iraqi war diatribe that has absolutely nothing to do with Canada's mission to Afghanistan.
> 
> Canada has given millions in microloans to aid people, given humanitarian support and has aided in rebuilding it's infrastructure not to mention helped build schools where girls and women (god forbid) can actually learn to read! Imagine... something that was punishable by death is now a freely available. Unfortunately the Taliban have continually acted aggressively to not only our soldiers but to the Afghan people themselves with the killing of innocents including children.


Clearly you don't understand the region either. The Taliban ARE Afgani. We are smack in the middle of a civil war. No outside force has EVER been able to pacify this country (well maybe the Greeks 2000 years ago). Ask the British and Russians.

I am all for providing aid and stability, but it can't be done in situations where a civil war is in place.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Ask the British and Russians.


precisely.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

da_jonesy said:


> What's your point? Since our soldiers are there, they make very convenient targets for the Taliban. Why provide them something to shoot at? The Taliban are not a global strategic threat to Canadian interests. It is that simple.


Is that a reason why Canada should opt out of any and all missions? As far as I know Rwanda posed no threat, either.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A mouse looked through the crack in the wall to see the farmer and his wife open a package. What food might this contain?" The mouse wondered. He was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap.

Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning: There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"

The chicken clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, "Mr.Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you, but it is of no consequence to me. I cannot be bothered by it."

The pig sympathized, but said, "I am so very sorry Mr.Mouse, there is nothing I can do about it but pray. Be assured you are in my prayers."

The cow said, "Wow, Mr. Mouse. I'm sorry for you, but it's no skin off my nose."

So, the mouse returned to the house, head down and dejected, to face the farmer's mousetrap alone. That very night a sound was heard throughout the house. The sound of a mousetrap catching its prey.

The farmer's wife rushed to see what was caught. In the darkness, she did not see it was a venomous snake whose tail the trap had caught. The snake bit the farmer's wife.

The farmer rushed her to the hospital , and she returned home with a fever. Everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup. So the farmer took his hatchet to the farmyard for the soup's main ingredient. (The chicken)

But his wife's sickness continued, so friends and neighbors came to sit with her around the clock. To feed them, the farmer butchered the pig.
The farmer's wife did not get well and she died.

So many people came for her funeral, the farmer had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat for all of them.

The mouse looked upon it all from his crack in the wall with great sadness.

So, the next time you hear someone is facing a problem and think it doesn't concern you, remember, when one of us is threatened, we are all at risk.

Such is Afghanistan.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

da_jonesy said:


> Clearly you don't understand the region either. The Taliban ARE Afgani. We are smack in the middle of a civil war. No outside force has EVER been able to pacify this country (well maybe the Greeks 2000 years ago). Ask the British and Russians.
> 
> I am all for providing aid and stability, but it can't be done in situations where a civil war is in place.


They are also Pakistani as well, but that's not entirely the point, is it? Should we have been in Rwanda or Haiti?

Civil war? Hardly. It's much more worse than that.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Well, good for you. I on the other hand, have interviewed hundreds of them over the past two years, live next door to four families and have yet to find one of the PPLI who did not fully support the government, the mission and the people of Afghanistan they became so attached to while serving there. Like MannyP says, you have no idea what is going on in Afghanistan nor the fine work our troops are doing. What we are accomplishing there has bugger all to do with the US.


Sinc, please. It is a NATO endeavor sponsored by the US in the first place. The US has well over 20 000 troops in country. Canadian Sniper teams were assigned to US Rangers during Operation Anaconda. Command and Control is integrated. Even now when Canadian troops are medivacked (spelling?) it is on US helicopters. Canada is not operating alone or in a vacuum.

If it wasn't for the US Canada wouldn't be there in the first place.

I can think of a half a dozen places in the world where our troops would be more effective... Haiti comes to mind.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> A mouse looked through the crack in the wall to see the farmer and his wife open a package. What food might this contain?" The mouse wondered. He was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap.
> 
> Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning: There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"
> 
> ...


A lovely little cautionary tale used to convert innocent children into frightened, hate filled war mongerers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Sinc, please. It is a NATO endeavor sponsored by the US in the first place. The US has well over 20 000 troops in country.


Please da_jonesy, read what I said: "What we are accomplishing there has bugger all to do with the US."

The stories soldiers tell me of setting up schools, assisting families rebuild homes, obtaining clean water and food and seeing the smiles on children's and women's faces for their efforts is what has bugger all to do with the US. That's a Canadian initiative.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> A lovely little cautionary tale used to convert innocent children into frightened, hate filled war mongerers.


That or wise enough to know the difference between a war monger and defending liberty.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> They are also Pakistani as well, but that's not entirely the point, is it? Should we have been in Rwanda or Haiti?
> 
> Civil war? Hardly. It's much more worse than that.


I won't state that the Taliban don't have some Pakistani constituents and it is well established that the Taliban were at one time funded by Pakistani Intelligence Service. That being said the Taliban are an Afgani group, once the dominant political power in the country.

This is a text book example of a civil war. The Taliban aren't nice, but the same can be said about the autocratic rule inside Saudi Arabia, yet you don't see the RCR storming Rihad do we?

And Haiti and Rwanda are both much better examples of where Canadian forces were put to better more meaningful use.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> That or wise enough to know the difference between a war monger and defending liberty.


WHOSE Liberty?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> WHOSE Liberty?


Read the story.  

What happens there affects us all, Canadians and Afghanis alike.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Read the story.
> 
> What happens there affects us all, Canadians and Afghanis alike.



Umm OK, So the Taliban are going to set mousetraps in Canada which will cause Chicken's being used to provide Cattle producers high protein feeds products with some sort of virus which will kill off our farmers wives. This will lead to a massive culling of cattle stock and chicken stock which means the farms will be over run with Taliban mice? I see. So clearly the BC poultry industry, Alberta Cattle industry are at imminent risk from the Taliban mousetraps.

Yeah... That's pretty clear.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Martin didn't put the soldiers into the "riskiest" mission
> the "mission" changed after our "new gov't" came into power


As a father of a son who has made the military his career, I have to agree to the above quote.

The Liberal gov put our troops into Afghanistan on a peacekeeping mission, something Canada has always taken the lead in, and been respected for.
After the election and change in Government, the mission was changed to a full combat role, to free up more American troops for duty in Iraq.
Canada has a reputation for having very well trained military personnel, but unfortunately also a very old and run down infrastructure.
Try to remember that the Russians put all their military might for 9 years into a misguided war with Afghanistan, and ended up going home defeated after suffering between 12000 - 15000 casualties.

I'm frightened to think where our involvement in this war is going to take us.

jb.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nice post Paul. :clap:

••••



> Clearly you do not know what Canada is doing over in Afghanistan


Are you sure you do Manny??

Very few in Canada object to the Canadian aid to the region and in Northern Afghanistan it is making a difference.

Southern Afghanistan - another story entirely - there is effectively a civil war with 23 million Pashtuns ( sp ? ) 1/2 on either side of the border.
The Pakistani portion is considered the NorthWest Frontier and is not really even under Pakistan control and the Afghan section is a total unresolvable mess as it has been for about 4 millenia.....neither Genghis Khan nor the Persian Empire could control the region.

It's the "unwinnable" situation there that I feel most Canadians object to - not the aid to the north. Combine the civil war aspect with some 90% of the poppy trade and the entire planet has a very large....completely intractable problem.

I support our commitment to NATO to 2009 as it's part of the treaty responsibilities but many nations are having a hard look at how effective NATO has been in this venture and whether it falls within the NATO mandate.

What I object to is the amount of resources devoted to the military aspect compared to the aid levels in the North.

There are several instances where a different approach to the problem in the south has prevented the level of casualities



> *Dutch Soldiers Stress Restraint in Afghanistan*
> 
> Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
> Dutch soldiers, who stress reconstruction over combat, with a member of the Afghan National Police recently in Qala-e-Surkh, Afghanistan. More Photos >
> ...


It's a good read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/world/asia/06afghan.html?_r=2&ref=world&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Here is a very recent overview of the intractable nature of the problem.



> *Analysts warn Afghanistan battle cannot be won*
> 
> The World Today - Wednesday, 11 April , 2007 12:31:00
> Reporter: Barbara Miller
> ...


The World Today - Analysts warn Afghanistan battle cannot be won

Time for a serious rethink.......and not just for Canada.

Last time I checked those in the military are there to execute foreign policy when a military solution is called for- not MAKE foreign policy.

That they are there at all is by their choice to join the armed services, the least Canada can do is attempt to take a course of action that shows tangible results for their risk and a positive outcome from their effort.
I am not certain that is the case given Southern Afghanistan's history, tribal issues, drug issues and Pakistan's involvement or lack of control....maybe both.

•••

JB - exactly and thank you for that personal post.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

These are some descriptions from US soldiers in Afghanistan...

_Adds Capt. Phil Bergeron: “It’s like being in a Mad Max movie here.”

“Mad Max and Seinfeld,” said Cunningham, referring to the popular TV comedy show.

Everyone is armed and driving around in crazy vehicles, they said.

“Everyone in the country has a weapon and is not afraid to use it,” said Sgt. 1st Class Kevin Aker, with Triple Deuce Headquarters Company. _

http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=20138&archive=true

That was in 2004, and from every report I hear it is getting worse and not better.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

MAC and jamesB....

Gosh, I love it whenever folks like to rewrite history to suit their own ideas.

The real time-line. Please at least get your facts straight before you babble on about what is currently happening and who's fault it is.

I would also like to remind everyone that the extension to 2009 was voted on in Parliament. Since the Conservatives only enjoy a minority it obviously took a few votes from other parties to pass.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Two more Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan: Report
> Globe and Mail Update
> Two more Canadian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, CTV is reporting.
> 
> Details are scarce. A news blackout is in effect at Kandahar Air Field, where reporters are based. More will follow.


 

globeandmail.com: Two more Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan: Report


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Geez Adagio let's just turn that "ideas" comment around entirely - this is from YOUR source.



> NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told the Globe and Mail in March 2006, “We’ll keep the [NATO] mission distinct from [the U.S.’s] Enduring Freedom. I do, we do, and the allies do consider this a NATO mission.”9
> 
> NATO members knew that the mission in the south would be dangerous and bloody. The alliance refused to take over command of the south until troops from Britain and the Netherlands had joined the Canadians. In those two countries, a debate raged about the role of British and Dutch forces, and whether victory was even possible. In the end, both countries decided to send troops to the south, but only after a thorough debate and vote in the Dutch Parliament.* NATO took command of the south on August 1, 2006.*
> 
> ...


Would you like to tell me who was Prime Minister on August 1st 2006??? .


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

More sadness. : ( 




MacDoc said:


> globeandmail.com: Two more Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan: Report


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> If it wasn't for the US Canada wouldn't be there in the first place.
> 
> I can think of a half a dozen places in the world where our troops would be more effective... Haiti comes to mind.


Exactly. If it's not something we would have done WITHOUT the United States or anyone else, than it stands to reason that it's not a place or cause we would morally be involved in.

I prefer Canadians to be peace keepers not war makers. If we spent in Haiti what we have already spent in Afghanistan, think of all the good that could have been done.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I'd like to state for the record that we did not go to war in Afganistan to teach women to read.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

SINC said:


> Read the story.
> 
> What happens there affects us all, Canadians and Afghanis alike.


Obviously what happens there affects us. We spend millions even billions of dollars there to wage war, while the government here eliminates literacy programs. The money has to come from somewhere.

I put the blame for how the Afghanistan war turned out squarely on the shoulders on the US. If they hadn't gone off like a trigger-happy, cock-sure cowboys into Iraq, all that money and manpower could have gone into a true Marshall-style plan to rebuild Afghanistan and it's institutions.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mmmm Canada has a long history in Afghanistan.
Beyond that tho yes the US leaving the job half done and haring off to Iraq was a major factor keeping Al Qaeda as a factor in play. Taliban is NOT Al Qaeda.

That said...NO ONE HAS TAMED THIS REGION EVER...period.

Why would one ever assume anything different now.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Al Qaeda is not even Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda *was* a loose network for training terrorists. Every terrorist and every terrorist act is not necessarily Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda does not have formal structure or ideology like say... the IRA.

Just because someone tells the media that Al Qaeda in *insertcountrynamehere* takes responsibility for bombing, attack, kidnapping, etc. doesn't mean it's Al Qaeda. Groups routinely take credit for acts they had no part in.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

From my link above:

The Liberal government provided General Hillier with the authority to reshape the military, and wrote him a virtual blank cheque for the largest military spending increase in a generation in the 2005 budget: $12.8 billion over five years – an increase that will eventually take Canadian defence spending higher than any level since the Second World War.5

*According to interviews conducted by the Toronto Star, the decision to ramp up Canada’s military involvement in Afghanistan was made at a meeting on March 21, 2005, a few weeks after General Hillier’s appointment.* Prime Minister Paul Martin, his senior ministers and staff members were present to discuss the upcoming deployment of a 250-member Provincial Reconstruction Team to Kandahar – a mix of mostly military personnel along with development workers and diplomats who would carry out local reconstruction and training programs.

General Hillier arrived at the meeting with something much bigger in mind. He wanted to send a 1,000-strong battle group to Kandahar. *The mission would change Canada’s role at the time from conducting NATO peace support roles in the north, to a combat, counter-insurgency role in the south.* Such a large combat role for Canada would impress the Americans, who had been suffering heavy losses, and wanted to rotate out 4,000 troops from Afghanistan for duty in Iraq.

To Doc and all.... I'm very sorry that your chosen ones didn't feel the need to invite you to their "behind doors meeting" and let you know about their plans. The current mission was signed and sealed prior to the election.

Heck, if you don't believe what I just wrote go back and look through the Hansard to Bill Graham's comments just prior to the vote. He stood there and admitted the Liberals had changed the mission and were proud of it.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

adagio said:


> I would also like to remind everyone that the extension to 2009 was voted on in Parliament. Since the Conservatives only enjoy a minority it obviously took a few votes from other parties to pass.


A quote from your source...
" _Stephen Harper, after narrowly winning a non binding vote in Parliament in May 2006, extended Canada’s mission by two years, to February 2009_."

Note the mention of "non binding", I recall Harper stating the vote was just a formality, the outcome of this vote wouldn't change his intent to extend the missions duration.

jb


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Kind of funny for a "current mission" to be signed and sealed BEFORE the NATO take over of command and that AFTER the takeover NATO leaders commented on Hillier's "zeal" for danger

Once more the current Con responsibility is being ignored with pointing fingers at Liberal decisions. You really think that affects anything??
Where has anyone supported the Liberal decision either. 
Harper wanted this.....parliamanet was a rubber stamp...nature of the danger determined WHEN Harper was PM.

Don't tell me for one minute this was "foisted" on Harper .....it's his policy......and it's rightly questionable just as other nations are questioning approach and outcome likelihood.

You've just got a totally partisan - Harper can do no wrong - mentality that quite frankly stinks when it comes to Canadian soldier's lives being on the line due to "cowboy " mentalities.....in the PM office and in leadership of the military.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> That said...NO ONE HAS TAMED THIS REGION EVER...period.
> 
> Why would one ever assume anything different now.


A common but weak argument. Very weak. Try it with any number of other things. Sorry, down the chute with that one.

Also, "Ever"? Not quite but, I guess, "tamed" is general enough to always apply, given history's violence relative to current standards. Good choice of words, in that case. 

Another thing: it is mentioned how the Soviets lost and, like something completely unrelated, the U.S. was involved in some sort of funding. Strange.

Oh and, would the doomsayers care to clearly define what they expect is the unachievable success that will not be achieved (not you MD, others)? From some of their jumping about (coincidentally after January, 2006), it almost seemed like they expected a Canada (sans hockey) to emerge in a few years. Afghanistan, by our comfy standards, will be an undesirable place to live for generations, as is much of the world relative to our standards. 

The questions, and I don't think the answer is clear, are: what is the likelihood of a better outcome, due to our involvement (not just directly, but as influential for other countries) for their people, and is that worth it to us? Security and such is relevant to the situation, but can be handled as an international organised crime problem, not warfare and nation building.

And, yes, we could easily be doing more "good" by our subjective measurements, but it isn't just about us, lest we follow U.S. policy. For a small power like Canada, such an approach would involve little to no foreign involvement, as was hinted at by the Haiti question.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not in the least weak - expenditure of lives and equipment should have an achievable goal. That this area has defied military subjugation ..by innumerable "invader" nations should in an of itself offer a major caution to similar efforts.

You are taking Afghanistan as if it were one nation - it's not - policies that ARE effective for the north are NOT in the south.
Outcomes that may well have a chance of being achieved in the North have little chance in the south.

"Ever"....all invaders were forced out even if it took a while ( Brits and Russians ).

Starving nation building resources in the north to provide military resources in the south is a questionable approach. History informs very well of the intractable situation in the south as do current conditions.
Pakistan cannot control its NW Frontier either. They pulled their own troops back and Al Qaeda is a growing as well to complicate the issue.

Terror Officials See Al Qaeda Chiefs Regaining Power - New York Times

Pakistan's own efforts have failed.


> When operations were launched against the Taliban-al Qaeda combine in the FATA in 2002, the Army, under enormous pressure from the US, was convinced that a military victory was essential. Four years down the line, it is the proponents of a violent jihad who have achieved strategic success. In more ways than one, it is a signal that the Pakistan Army has failed in its quest for a military victory. The Taliban have de facto control over most of Waziristan and, more importantly, have full freedom of movement and activities across the region. The current round of violence is only a continuation of the manifest retreat of the state.
> 
> Part of President Pervez Musharraf’s operational strategy in arriving at peace deals in Waziristan has been to drive a wedge between the local Taliban and foreign militants. Islamabad’s policy in Waziristan remains a curious mixture of force, economic sanctions and political engagement. But none of these appears to be leading to order and stability in the region.
> 
> *Four years after Pakistani soldiers first entered FATA, there is very little to cheer about for Islamabad. The state has little effective presence in the area, and the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan are nowhere close to governance or stability. Pakistan’s ‘lawless frontier’ is now clearly in the grip of Islamist extremist forces, which have mounted the most serious challenge so far against Islamabad. The Taliban consolidation and violence on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, which shows every sign of consolidation over time, could have disastrous consequences over the long run, for both Islamabad and Kabul*.


in it's own territory........!!!!!!

Waziristan: Taliban’s War Within

Just what outcome do you envision OUR military involvement in the south achieving??


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Not in the least weak - expenditure of lives and equipment should have an achievable goal.
> ...........................
> You are taking Afghanistan as if it were one nation
> ...........................
> ...


The "never been done before" argument is not weak? Take some time to think about that. It's also not accurate, except in the case of a nice subjective term like "tamed". Again, nice choice of words.
...........................
No, but that's another flaw the in the "never been done before" argument. Thanks for pointing it out.
...........................
Reasonable enough but, again, your "never been done before" is being undermined by your own argument (some bits never, other bits maybe), aside from being weak to begin with.
...........................
"Ever": look deeper. Soviets: someone helped push them out. Look deeper before using broad (and inherently flawed) reasoning. Even if you were correct about "ever" that does not mean "never". It just means, "be careful." Otherwise the "ever" argument can be used to prevent all sorts of things in life.
...........................
Now you're getting there. History informs, not sets as Truth. 

So what is the unachievable success? It's much easier to not clearly define it and take pot shots at anything that does not meet our wonderful standards of what a country should be (sans hockey). Reminds me of the ranting about that Christian who was (almost?) killed as proof of failure. Same dumb logic about "sweatshops" where work is evaluated against our life, not their life. I'm not attributing this to you, though.

[Edited as per 'Spec's helpful post at 114.]


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacDoc said:


> Are you sure you do Manny??


Pretty sure--I have several friends and acquaintances in the military who are in Afghanistan at this very moment; my next-door neighbor is retired from the Army but is working as a consultant with the Army (went to Bosnia); another is currently in training in Petawawa but will be ready to go to Afghanistan (probably by the end of 2008 or start of 2009); and I also have a very close friend in Cold Lake Alberta who works to get our soldiers ready for and transported to Afghanistan. He will be heading there late Summer/Early Fall.

Aside from that, a lot of design work I do is for DND (Dept. of National Defence) so I get to talk to a lot of officers and see a lot of the things they do over there.

So I think I have a really good idea of what's going on over there from both the "ground" as well as from "above" so to speak... at least without having to actually be there.

Not a single one of them believe they (or Canada) are wasting their time in Afghanistan nor do they think their goals are unobtainable. Believe it or not, good _is_ being done over there.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

by beej-a-con;


> "Ever": look deeper. Russians: someone helped push them out. Look deeper before using broad (and inherently flawed) reasoning. Even if you were correct about "ever" that does not mean "never". It just means, "be careful." Otherwise the "ever" argument can be used to prevent all sorts of things in life.


you may want to re-visit your history for just a second or two and see that it was the Soviet Union not the Russians

it wasn't a Canada-Russia hockey series either


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Not a single one of them believe they (or Canada) are wasting their time in Afghanistan nor do they think their goals are unobtainable. Believe it or not, good _is_ being done over there.


Good post Manny. 

Sadly, none of the "elite" intellectual thinkers here will agree. 

They will continue to wallow in the curse of their brain power, clouded so badly by supposed intellect, that they will not see the forest for the trees.

Sigh, it's tough to be so smart.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

note that eric margolis, writer for toronto sun and former military man, says that both india and pakistan are preparing for a NATO pullout

pakistan will, if not already begun, peace talks with taliban


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> note that eric margolis, writer for toronto sun and former military man, says that both india and pakistan are preparing for a NATO pullout
> 
> pakistan will, if not already begun, peace talks with taliban


Really?

Either you have a "caps unlock" key, or your opinion about this whole serious issue apparently does not even deserve a capital letter. That speaks volumes of its importance to you Michael. 

"Mumbling" in lower case is just as irritating as "SHOUTING" in upper case.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Really?
> 
> Either you have a "caps unlock" key, or your opinion about this whole serious issue apparently does not even deserve a capital letter. That speaks volumes of its importance to you Michael.
> 
> "Mumbling" in lower case is just as irritating as "SHOUTING" in upper case.



sinc, you'd better lay off the booze
i capitalized the acronym NATO....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> sinc, you'd better lay off the booze
> i capitalized the acronym NATO....


Well, good for you. Think you can find the rest of the keyboard now?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Well, good for you. Think you can find the rest of the keyboard now?


yoU have to aSk nicelY


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you may want to re-visit your history for just a second or two and see that it was the Soviet Union not the Russians


You are correct and I guess this is your way of trying to make amends for your past statements about Russians, so I'll be supportive. Good first step, 'Spec. 

But this also seems like 'Spec trying to strike back. In post 110 I used "Soviets". In response MD used "Russians" and I repeated his mistake. 

Yet you comment on just my post. Retract the kitten claws and continue your healing process.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

jamesB said:


> As a father of a son who has made the military his career, I have to agree to the above quote.
> 
> The Liberal gov put our troops into Afghanistan on a peacekeeping mission, something Canada has always taken the lead in, and been respected for.


It was never, ever a a UN peacekeeping mission. To keep the peace you need a formal agreement between two recognized states with a clearly marked DMZ and a full set of rules. 

Sorry, but Martin did not put those soldiers in for peacekeeping. This was a NATO counterinsurgency operation from the get go. 



jamesB said:


> After the election and change in Government, the mission was changed to a full combat role, to free up more American troops for duty in Iraq.


Also another myth. Now the U.S. forces are increasing their presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides, do you really think the U.S. needs Canada to free up a measly 2,400 troops? That's small potatoes for the U.S. military. 


jamesB said:


> Canada has a reputation for having very well trained military personnel, but unfortunately also a very old and run down infrastructure.


Sorry, I have to disagree, as a former soldier, I can say the CF has signficantly, amazingly modernized in the last 7 years. Does more work need to be done to correct several decades of underfunding? Yep. But from Strategic air lift to new tanks, the Canadian military is reequipping at a rapid pace.


jamesB said:


> Try to remember that the Russians put all their military might for 9 years into a misguided war with Afghanistan, and ended up going home defeated after suffering between 12000 - 15000 casualties.
> 
> I'm frightened to think where our involvement in this war is going to take us.
> 
> jb.


Russia, sorry the U.S.S.R's mission was completely and absolutely different than the NATO goal. They were defeated not so much by the Afghan people, but by the Afghan people and the West, who backed it as a proxy war, another one of the "hidden" costs of the Cold War that we're paying for now.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It takes a former soldier to set the record straight. 

Thanks for that NBiBooker.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

NBiBooker said:


> Sorry, but Martin did not put those soldiers in for peacekeeping. This was a NATO counterinsurgency operation from the get go.


So help me out here... The Taliban (right or wrong) were the de-facto and de-jure government of Afghanistan pre 2002. So when US led NATO forces attack a sovereign country how is that a "counterinsurgency operation"?


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> "counterinsurgency operation"


just another fancy way of saying that we need to install yet another puppet regime that is US friendly.

Laterz


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> So help me out here... The Taliban (right or wrong) were the de-facto and de-jure government of Afghanistan pre 2002. So when US led NATO forces attack a sovereign country how is that a "counterinsurgency operation"?


First, A little history lesson. 

Afghanistan circa 2002 was divided in to, with the Northern Alliance and the Taliban in control of various sections of the country. 

After the Taliban failed to turn over Al-Qaeda, the United Nations authorized military action. 

The U.S. and allies backed the Northern Alliance, which overthrew the Taliban and liberated their country. 

The new Afghan government, a democractically-elected regime, is now recognized by the United Nations and civilized world as the rightful government of Afghanistan. 

That makes the Taliban insurgents and the UN-authorized, NATO-backed mission a counterinsurgency.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

NBiBooker said:


> First, A little history lesson.
> 
> Afghanistan circa 2002 was divided in to, with the Northern Alliance and the Taliban in control of various sections of the country.
> 
> ...


And you fail to look further back in the history to understand the issue, such as mentioning the fact that the US had recognized the Taliban as the defacto government prior to 2001. 

If you use the word insurgency you imply that a group within a country is rebelling or revolting against the ruling government in some manner. If by your argument you claim that the Taliban was NOT in control prior to 2001 then that means there was a civil war in Afghanistan prior to 2002 when the US led forces attacked.

So Canada is smack in the middle of a civil war in Afghanistan. That doesn't sound like a strategic threat to Canadian or NATO sovereignty. Last I heard The Atlantic Ocean was on the OTHER side of the planet than Afghanistan.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

To my knowledge, only Saudia Arabia and Pakistan recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government and not an armed gang of thugs in charge.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Furthermore, the so-called "civilized" nations, rife as they were/are with racism, abuse, hunger, piracy and disease, were already looking at Afghanistan as a supreme horror show for its enslavement of women, their "Burkhanization" as it were.

Overdue.

_(Edit, fixed a typo.)_


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Da_Jonesy: If I recall, only Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government but (as far as I know) every one has since reversed and has rejected them.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

NBiBooker said:


> It was never, ever a a UN peacekeeping mission. To keep the peace you need a formal agreement between two recognized states with a clearly marked DMZ and a full set of rules.
> 
> Sorry, but Martin did not put those soldiers in for peacekeeping.


I completely agree with this. Our role in Afghanistan was never peacekeeping. It was military retaliation for the 9/11 attacks.



NBiBooker said:


> This was a NATO counterinsurgency operation from the get go.


I disagree with this. It was not a counterinsurgency from the get go. It may be more accurate to label it as counter terrorism from the get go. The Taliban were the effective governing or ruling body. We can only label NATO's role as a counter insurgency after a new government was formed. Originally it wasn't a mission under NATO command. 

The way I see it, much of the mess can be directly attributed to US foreign policy. Policy that has it interferring in other nations. It was the US afterall who trained and funded Osama Bin Ladin through the CIA.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> Da_Jonesy: If I recall, only Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government but (as far as I know) every one has since reversed and has rejected them.


Given the Taliban delegation which was working with the US State Department and Unocal prior to Sept 11th, it was well established that the Taliban was the de-facto government of Afghanistan.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

da_jonesy said:


> Given the Taliban delegation which was working with the US State Department and Unocal prior to Sept 11th, it was well established that the Taliban was the de-facto government of Afghanistan.


So you mean that to discuss pipelines with the Taliban makes them a government? Sorry... you need to do better than that.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Diplomatic recognition of legitimacy is a messy and important item in geopolitics. Just ask Taiwan.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

An interesting read from The Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/202978



> In principle, Canadians like the idea of helping Afghans rebuild their country. As long as some progress is being made, a good many are willing to see their fellow Canadians die in the effort – particularly if those who die are enthusiastic volunteers.





> No Canadian government can survive politically if it accepts this prognosis. The New Democrats understand this, which is why they are calling for the troops to come home. So do the Liberals, who now want the Kandahar portion of the mission (which they created) to end in 2009. Even the Conservatives, who like to slam the opposition parties as unpatriotic, are coming to realize that Kandahar is a no-win.
> 
> That's why Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor quietly invited his counterparts from seven other allied countries fighting in Afghanistan to meet in Quebec City this week and begin work on a common exit strategy.
> 
> The only question remaining is how many more Canadians will have to die before that strategy takes effect.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I read this early this morning and think Thomas Walkom has done a pretty good job of summing up my views on the war. It was poorly thought-out in the first place and is unsustainable.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

It's only unstainable because we've raised a generation of soft-belled spoiled-to-death, let-someone-else-do-the-hard-work weaklines. We all know how to enjoy our freedoms. 

Few remember what they're worth, or how to fight for them.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

NBiBooker said:


> It's only unstainable because we've raised a generation of soft-belled spoiled-to-death, let-someone-else-do-the-hard-work weaklines. We all know how to enjoy our freedoms.
> 
> Few remember what they're worth, or how to fight for them.


and remember that the foreign policy of; "the enemy of my enemy is my ally" is inherently flawed for when one enemy is vanquished, you're still left with an enemy

the U.S. trained, paid and created USAama bin Laden

and now our brave men and women are paying for that stupidity 
poppy production is above Taliban levels

the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Afghanistan don't pose a security threat to Canada or Canadians, well at least they didn't before herr Harper changed our troops' mission from peacekeeping to peacemaking aka "search and destroy"


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> Being openly anti war is disrespectful to all Canadian troops and serves no purpose other than to show the military you don't support them fully.


That has GOT to be the most asinine thing I've heard in a long while!

And Paul summed up the NATO issue very well in post #73... :clap: 

I don't believe there is anything that would convince me to support this war at this time... it does NOT compare at all to some others! Now if Canada were to address the ongoing threat of Rwandan style genocide in the Sudan I could probably support that. But NO... we can turn a blind eye to that... it's not important... the US isn't interested.

Afghanistan... let them get over their civil war, if they ever do and IF they request rebuilding and peacekeeping assistance I could probably support that. 
One peacekeeping mission that sticks in my mind and I'm very proud of is Cyprus!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

NBiBooker said:


> It's only unstainable because we've raised a generation of soft-belled spoiled-to-death, let-someone-else-do-the-hard-work weaklines. We all know how to enjoy our freedoms.
> 
> Few remember what they're worth, or how to fight for them.


Did you read the article?

And if so, fighting a ridiculous, ill conceived losing battle for 'generations to come' is 'soft-bellied'?

Hi-larious!


----------

