# They owe us



## CrazyCanuck (28 Nov 2006)

It seems that the French and Germans still won’t budge on the caveat issue.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061128/harper_nato_061128/20061128?hub=TopStories

 This I honestly do not understand, you would think that of all the nations involved in Afghanistan they would be the most willing to fight. After all tens of thousands of Canadians died liberating France and tens of thousands more were willing to lay down their lives if the Soviets ever invaded Germany. IMO they should be standing shoulder to soldier with you guys over in Afghanistan, it is the very least that they owe us for what we have done for them; their memory’s must be even shorter term than Canadian politicians.


----------



## FredDaHead (28 Nov 2006)

So we owe Great Britain for keeping the Americans out when they tried to invade us, right? And the French for, y'know, settling "Canada", otherwise we'd be a whole bunch of other American states.

Besides, since when do people, let alone nations, owe anything for what another might have done? That's like saying that because I might buy a can of coke at the canex, I owe the canex a buck and some change.

This is a very contentious issue with severe possible repercussion; I don't think throwing a fit and saying "they owe us" is going to help at all.


----------



## armyvern (28 Nov 2006)

Not bad.

Any guests from CTV viewing this thread tonight, you might want to fix this photo caption up. I do not think Turkey would be impressed to hear that Latvian troops are marching through their streets univited.

Photo 3 to the article linked below:



> Latvian troops march through the almost deserted streets of the old city of Riga, Turkey on Tuesday. (AP / Mindaugas Kulbis)



I believe those troops are marching in Riga, Latvia.


----------



## FredDaHead (28 Nov 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Photo 3 to the article linked below:
> 
> I believe those troops are marching in Riga, Latvia.



Latvia invaded Turkey? When did THAT happen? And since when does Latvia do anything newsworthy, anyway?


----------



## George Wallace (28 Nov 2006)

CrazyCanuck said:
			
		

> This I honestly do not understand, you would think that of all the nations involved in Afghanistan they would be the most willing to fight. After all tens of thousands of Canadians died liberating France and tens of thousands more were willing to lay down their lives if the Soviets ever invaded Germany. IMO they should be standing shoulder to soldier with you guys over in Afghanistan, it is the very least that they owe us for what we have done for them; their memory’s must be even shorter term than Canadian politicians.



You know it is nice to have 'selective memory'.  Seems to me that the Canadian Government did exactly the same thing to NATO back in the 1990's.  We pulled our troops out of Europe and said we would send money instead.  We pulled out of Cyprus.  We have pulled out of the Balkins.  We are pulling out of the Golan.  Nice glass house we live in.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (28 Nov 2006)

I believe it's a slightly different situation this time around, as this is more a war than a peacekeeping mission, when we pulled out of those places that you have listed there was really no more need for us to be there. Plus they aren't really pulling out, they're just there and rather stagnant. As to oweing the british for 1812 i admit i had not thought of that but haven't we almost always been there forthem? (with the exception of the suez). Again I admit that the name of this topic was poorly chosen a better name may have been "Why aren't they fighting with us?" I guess what I was trying to get at was is that allies who say they will be there for you should be there.


----------



## FredDaHead (28 Nov 2006)

CrazyCanuck said:
			
		

> what I was trying to get at was is that allies who say they will be there for you should be there.



So, do you believe we're bad allies to the US because we're not in Iraq? We keep telling the US we'll stand by them, and then we just conveniently decide not to. By your logic, we're at least as bad as France and Germany.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (28 Nov 2006)

But we don't have the troops for Iraq, France and Germany have more than the amount of troops that Nato wishes to move south yet they won't


----------



## Trinity (28 Nov 2006)

Boater said:
			
		

> But we don't have the troops for Iraq, France and Germany have more than the amount of troops that Nato wishes to move south yet they won't



Not now..

but we had troops for Iraq when the conflict started. 
We very easily could have gone in with the Americans or at
least supported the war in other ways but we've denounced
the war in Iraq publically.

Now..
However, we are technically supporting the US by freeing up troops
in the sandbox to go to Iraq.  But that is more of a matter of 
political conveniences because we can swallow the mission of Afghanistan,
but not Iraq. So I wouldn't quantify it as supporting Iraq but a 
lucky coincidence.


----------



## cplcaldwell (28 Nov 2006)

Yehh, I really don't want to go there, I have enough trouble ordering at Harvey's without having to make the mental note...

"Freedom Fries, _not_ French Fries, 
Freedom Fries, _not_ French Fries, 
Freedom Fries, _not_ French Fries, 
Freedom Fries, _not_ French Fries...."

and besides who could live in a world without BMW? or Mercedes? or Bratwurst?

Seriously. 

We should just do what we need to do and not worry about them. 

Canadians make a big deal about doing the right thing, stepping up to the plate, punching above our weight... A wise fellow once said something to the effect that 'you shall be known by the things you have accomplished'. ( I see you there, padre, just proving I'm not a complete pagan...)

We've punted a couple of times in the last fifteen years, time to go for it. IMHO.

Let's do this, we had currency in the world for years based on Vimy and Normandy and a dozen other places. I say shut up and get up the hill, once the place is free and stable we will be able to, without sarcasm or undue pride, say what we mean and have people listen. Really, screw the French, they're just being French, as to the Germans, well, gettin' pounded at your national game twice in one century is enough to make one a bit trepiditious eh?

Next time there's a shite storm. we'll be listened to, and for what we stand for, I'm all for it...

_Self righteous patriotic rant ends, over.... _


----------



## George Wallace (28 Nov 2006)

The French were rescuing Canadians in Western Africa; Ivory Coast, Chad, etc.  We weren't there.  The French also took some very serious casualties in Afghanistan. 

Not only did the French pull out their Special Forces, but so did the Australians when they called back their SAS, and the Brits who brought their Para's home.  Nothing said about them.  They all rotated in Regular troops instead. 

The German Constitution, much like the Japanese Constitution, required amendments so that it's troops could leave the country.  Now they are active participants in NATO.

Even if they are doing 'safe jobs', as you say, and not venturing out, they are still there.  If they weren't, then we would have to do those jobs too.  Is it right?  Perhaps it is not perfect, but it is still some assistance.


----------



## cplcaldwell (28 Nov 2006)

Yes, it's a mugs game to engage in this sort of thing, does anyone here keep a ledger of favours done for a friend? Or expect the friend to do the same? 

I suspect this issue is the thin edge of a wedge that certain groups will use to drive into the mission, better to do the job and to look at the history, even the recent history, in a manner demonstrated by Mr Wallace.

Who will want us for friends if we quit? Who will want us for friends if we bitch and moan? Rest assured the message is being passed, the point is being made. 

No matter what contribution the Germans and French _are_ there in some context, take it FWIW

Press on.


----------



## Stout (28 Nov 2006)

Personally I would like to see Canadians get this job done by any means necessary and if the French or Germans won't help....well thats just too bad for them.  WE SHALL GET THE GLORY!!!!!!!!! :cheers:


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Nov 2006)

Stout said:
			
		

> Personally I would like to see Canadians get this job done by any means necessary and if the French or Germans won't help....well thats just too bad for them.  WE SHALL GET THE GLORY!!!!!!!!! :cheers:



Ummmm, what?  Ever been shot at?  Not much glory in it.


----------



## HItorMiss (28 Nov 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> the Brits who brought their Para's home.  Nothing said about them.  They all rotated in Regular troops instead.



Not quite accurate George they rotated in the Royal Marine Commando not exactualy a regular unit. Less then the SAS sure but they did bring in the SBS with them so....one could say they actualy upped the anti slightly.


----------



## HItorMiss (28 Nov 2006)

+1 Kat

I didn't see any glory and I'm sure the others here who have had that happen would agree with me.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Nov 2006)

Stout said:
			
		

> Personally I would like to see Canadians get this job done by any means necessary and if the French or Germans won't help....well thats just too bad for them.  WE SHALL GET THE GLORY!!!!!!!!! :cheers:



No glory in war........


----------



## cplcaldwell (28 Nov 2006)

> WE SHALL GET THE GLORY!!!!!!!!!



I do think that was a bad choice of words, moving along...  if Glory means credibility or is a by product of doing the right thing, great, I'll take it and put it on the shelf besides my bowling trophies....

Enhancing Canada's say, remember because of what we stand for, and doing the right thing are the things I _want_....


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Nov 2006)

This is a dumb topic. Assuming [without deciding] that "they" do "owe us", Afghanistan is hardly the place to start calling in old debts. There is far, far worse approaching around the corner.


----------



## Roy Harding (28 Nov 2006)

Stout said:
			
		

> Personally I would like to see Canadians get this job done by any means necessary and if the French or Germans won't help....well thats just too bad for them.  WE SHALL GET THE GLORY!!!!!!!!! :cheers:



Stout:

Somehow, I get the feeling that you've never served, in any capacity.

As someone above has said - there is no glory in war.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Nov 2006)

As an aside......didn't we just discuss this about a week ago and turf it out with the bathwater then?


http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49752.0.html


----------



## cplcaldwell (28 Nov 2006)

Yup, horse dead.

Count down???


----------



## HItorMiss (29 Nov 2006)

10...9...8


----------



## aesop081 (29 Nov 2006)

7,6,5....


----------



## HItorMiss (29 Nov 2006)

4....3....2....


----------



## CrazyCanuck (29 Nov 2006)

I really didn't mean to bash our allies I just thought that friends should be there when the going gets tough, I apoligise to all offended


----------



## aesop081 (29 Nov 2006)

1.......


----------



## cplcaldwell (29 Nov 2006)

I don't take offence, it's just not the way we think...

and 

0


----------



## dglad (29 Nov 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You know it is nice to have 'selective memory'.  Seems to me that the Canadian Government did exactly the same thing to NATO back in the 1990's.  We pulled our troops out of Europe and said we would send money instead.  We pulled out of Cyprus.  We have pulled out of the Balkins.  We are pulling out of the Golan.  Nice glass house we live in.



There's nothing wrong with winding down missions.  Pulling out of Cyprus, the Balkans and the Golan aren't bad things...eventually, we DO have to back out of missions when it makes sense to do so, because we simply can't maintain large forces in these places forever.  In Bosnia, for example, it makes more sense for the European Union to take over the mission and, in turn, scale it down until, ideally, it's no longer necessary to maintain significant military forces in the theatre at all.  You can revert to what amounts to a monitoring mission, with some "over the horizon" forces tagged in the event of a sudden need.  But let the institutions of civil authority (national police, supported by something like an EU police mission), prosecutors, courts, etc. take over running the "safe and secure environment" gig.

Our withdrawal from Bosnia (which isn't complete, BTW; we still have a small cadre of specialist pers there) is an example of a successful peace support mission.  So is Cyprus.  We should be celebrating our withdrawal of major forces in those places as a job completed.  The Golan...well, harder to say, because it's integrated into a bigger and more unstable picture.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Nov 2006)

dglad said:
			
		

> So is Cyprus.  We should be celebrating our withdrawal of major forces in those places as a job completed.



Cyprus is a failiure........We withdrew OUR troops after 27 years.....the UN is STILL there.....27 years and no resolution to the conflict.....that is NOT success........Success would have been a full and permanent settlement leading to the complete withdrawl of ALL UN forces.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2006)

Sometimes, doing the right thing is very hard indeed. Britain was bereft of allies, armies and even modern military equipment in 1940; withdrawal, isolationism and even surrender was seen as the sensible thing to do by many (maybe even most) people, except for one:



> "We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old."



If France and Germany are unable or unwilling to come to our assistance, we need to realize that *this is inconvenient but not fatal*. After all, WE are the New World with all its power and might, and just need to find the willpower to harness the vast wealth of personnel initiative, economic and natural resources that give Western civilization its distinctive edge over all the others. 

We are fighting one part of a complex and multi faceted war; we need to defeat the Taliban, train the Afghan people to establish their own robust institutions and security, win the information war at home and prepare to defend our own culture, institutions and nation right here. Outside of these areas, we need to realize there are other enemy actors, State powers like Iran and Syria, hostile institutions like Wahhabi massadras and the ISI, transnational movements like the AQ nurtured and protected by these powers, and third parties like China which seek to use these forces to confound or destabilize the West for their own purposes, and devise strategies that will protect us and confound them.

In the end, we will have earned a reputation that will sustain Canada on the world stage for decades, and have trained a new generation of leaders who have been forged in the unforgiving fire of combat; people who will rise in many of our institutions and take them in new directions and overcome obstacles with the skills they learned in Afghanistan and (too soon, perhaps), in other parts of the world. We will have paid a high price in blood and treasure for these lessons, but will have a knowledge and experience base for our leaders that few other nations in the world will be able to match.

They owe us nothing. This is our fight to win or lose, and while Canadians have never started a war, we have always finished them.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Nov 2006)

Not much to say after that.


----------



## ambex (29 Nov 2006)

a_majoor, well said.

cdnaviator, while I am no expert on Cyprus, I have not heard of any fighting there for quite some time. 
While not the best outcome, it is a far cry from the worst possible outcome. IMHO.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Nov 2006)

ambex said:
			
		

> a_majoor, well said.
> 
> cdnaviator, while I am no expert on Cyprus, I have not heard of any fighting there for quite some time.
> While not the best outcome, it is a far cry from the worst possible outcome. IMHO.



Agreed. However.....3 decades of peacekeeping anf still going indicates a failiure of the mission's untimate objective.  The peacekeeping troops were sent there to separate the factction and create the conditions required for lasting peace. The intent of these  is that once the conflict is resolved, UN troops leave.  That after this long, the conflict has not been resolved indicates a failiure of the mission's overall objective.


----------



## delicious_in_t_o (29 Nov 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Yehh, I really don't want to go there, I have enough trouble ordering at Harvey's without having to make the mental note...
> 
> "Freedom Fries, _not_ French Fries,
> Freedom Fries, _not_ French Fries,
> ...



AGREED...First with laughter (cause who doesn't stand at Harvey's and for One. Second. Think UH..) and then intellectually I agree I agree I agree!! In some ways due to our past relationships (politically y speaking) with the UK and now the US, Canada seems to be experiencing a bit of the middle kid syndrome (we can do it on our own...but we need your approval KIND-OF).  I BELIEVE in Canada...I believe that though I don't want to see one more Canadian soldier come home other than on his or her own two feet...aren't we exactly the nation to have a real crack at this?


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Nov 2006)

Stout said:
			
		

> Personally I would like to see Canadians get this job done by any means necessary and if the French or Germans won't help....well thats just too bad for them.  WE SHALL GET THE GLORY!!!!!!!!! :cheers:



Glory?

Ever been on a two way rifle range?

Ever had a Katyusha rocket pay out a visit? 

Ever patroled down a dangerous road in a LAV, with thousands of angry people eyeing you off?

Mate there is no glory in death, killing, and dying, remember that.


Now about Canada not in Iraq, well they are in Afghanistan, and the more soldiers there, the less pressure for the US, allowing them to fill holes elsewhere, so Canada PROUDLY is doing their bit, and paying the price in claret!

Regards from the sandbox,

Wes


----------



## dglad (29 Nov 2006)

You're right...perhaps it's a bit of a stretch to call Cyprus a "success".  But I would maintain that neither is it a bad thing for Canada to withdraw, if there are other, more appropriate forces to do the job (Bosnia) or if, as appears to be the case in Cyprus, an interminable "peace" has settled in with absolutely no end in sight...in which case the failure is a political, not a military one (or, to put it another way, a UN-EU-Greek-Turk failure, not a Canadian one).  Greece and Turkey are not fighting over the island, it's true, but the "conflict" remains; things have probably reached the point at which the situation has fossilized and the island might as well simply be partitioned.  But we did our part in Cyprus.

I guess my point is that we should not be too quick to label Canada leaving a mission some sort of "cut and run".  That would be, IMHO, true for present day Afghanistan, but is NOT necessarily the case for past missions, which was what had been implied.  Missions must end at some point, or else we will remain trapped in one or two unit-sized missions and exhausted of any real potential to contribute further elsewhere.


----------



## bilton090 (1 Dec 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Not now..
> 
> but we had troops for Iraq when the conflict started.
> We very easily could have gone in with the Americans or at
> ...


      We are supporting NATO !


----------



## Trinity (1 Dec 2006)

bilton090 said:
			
		

> We are supporting NATO !



Thanks for coming in late and not reading...

Of course we're supporting NATO.

When giving an argument, or answering a question like I did for someone
else it's also equally important to answer questions or weak points in your
own theory in the same thread to tie up loose ends.  That's what I did.

I didn't say we are supporting the US, I said we are "technically" supporting
the US.. which is GOOD.  Our allies need to know that we have their back.
Yes it is a NATO initiative but that doesn't mean it didn't free up troops
allowing the US to put less in the sandbox and more in Iraq, which, is 
technically supporting the US in a back door mannor

Thus, our American friends feel that we are supporting them.


----------



## bilton090 (1 Dec 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Thanks for coming in late and not reading...
> 
> Of course we're supporting NATO.
> 
> ...


   Was in Wainwright training for 07, some people have to work !


----------



## Trinity (1 Dec 2006)

bilton090 said:
			
		

> Was in Wainwright training for 07, some people have to work !



So that excuses you from reading threads or making comments
that are out of line with the meaning, tone and content of what
the individual meant?

Are you implying that I don't work because I'm not slated for the
current Roto? Or are you just trying to brag that you're on the Roto?

Either way...  it no excuse.


----------



## bilton090 (1 Dec 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> So that excuses you from reading threads or making comments
> that are out of line with the meaning, tone and content of what
> the individual meant?
> 
> ...


     I was saying I was in Wainwright, no way to read Army.ca. I was not out of line, I'm not saying you don't work because your not on the Roto. I was saying I had to work !
  I read your post 3 times !, I said we are supporting NATO !, end of story !  
  P.S- You sir need a time out !


----------



## Trinity (1 Dec 2006)

bilton090 said:
			
		

> I was saying I was in Wainwright, no way to read Army.ca. I was not out of line, I'm not saying you don't work because your not on the Roto. I was saying I had to work !
> I read your post 3 times !, I said we are supporting NATO !, end of story !
> P.S- You sir need a time out !



 :

Ok Bilton.. whatever!

Anyone who reads this thread will see right through you.


----------



## bilton090 (1 Dec 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Ok Bilton.. whatever!
> 
> Anyone who reads this thread will see right through you.


    Good support, for the pointy end ?    Nice, childish ! SON !


----------



## rmacqueen (2 Dec 2006)

bilton090 said:
			
		

> Good support, for the pointy end ?    Nice, childish ! SON !


Not sure what this has to do with the current topic or, for that matter, the attached pic.

The one thing that I find regretable is that both Germany and France have some very good, proud and capable soldiers who, IMO, are probably not too happy with the current situation either.  Unfortunately, they are getting painted with a brush that is not of their making but that of their political masters.  We see it plastered all over the press, and so many of the stories give the impression it is the troops who won't fight, when, in reality, it is the politicians trying to cover their political butt so they can get re-elected.  I believe they call that democracy.


----------



## Danjanou (2 Dec 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Not sure what this has to do with the current topic or, for that matter, the attached pic.
> 
> The one thing that I find regretable is that both Germany and France have some very good, proud and capable soldiers who, IMO, are probably not too happy with the current situation either.  Unfortunately, they are getting painted with a brush that is not of their making but that of their political masters.  We see it plastered all over the press, and so many of the stories give the impression it is the troops who won't fight, when, in reality, it is the politicians trying to cover their political butt so they can get re-elected.  I believe they call that democracy.



Well said Mac, the uniform may be different, as is the national flag patch, but threy are still the same as us. Anyone who wears a uniform or has worn it is by inclusion one of us and a "brother in arms." Besides it's not as if there have not been times in our history when our political masters held us back from helping out our Allies.

Nowa s for the bun fighting duo on this thread, the infantile attacks and johnson waving contest ceases now, or you will both be introduced to the warning system.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Dec 2006)

In line with this discussion there is this letter to the National Post editor today.  It was written by retired Commander Lerhe.  



> Don't blame NATO allies for Afghan problems
> 
> Published: Saturday, December 02, 2006
> The apparent unwillingness of NATO allies to share the burden of our Canadian soldiers in Kandahar has caused many to claim that organization is a failure. This argument has many weaknesses.
> ...



I don't find much there to disagree with.  And I, like him, support the mission.  

The only thing that amuses/bemuses/bothers me is how much of human nature never progresses beyond the playground.  "You didn't ivite me to your birthday party. I'm not inviting you to mine."
The reason I'm a conservative I guess.  I don't see any evidence of progress in individuals or societies over the millenia.  I don't exptect any in the future.  It is what it is.


----------



## STONEY (3 Dec 2006)

AND!!! All things being equal it wouldn't take much to topple the present minority Gov. and it wouldn't be too much of a stretch for any new Gov. to be swayed by public opinion and yank Canada out toute suite. 

Cheers


----------



## captainj (8 Dec 2006)

As one who had to live with these national caveats as a LNO in MOSTAR BiH you get a better insight into the French and Germans. For the Germans there is a real guilt issue of WW II that remains. As for the French I think they have done the biz on a number of missions over the years. I do not think it is wise that we Canadians start throwing stones willy nilly at these two nations. They have in the past been great friends and will remain so. I think we need cooler heads to prevail. 

I do have one small bit of humour to add. So there I was at a staff meeting in MOSTAR with the Germans, French, Italians and Spain. The German Bde Comd ask why we Cdns, Brits, and Dutch were so good at Harvest Ops. When I told him the German BGen said................... Captain you don't understand the German Army dosn't kick in doors. I said when did that change Sir. Well everyone saw the humour, less the Germans. The morale of the story is that this is a real issue for them at home politically one I do not think many of us really grasp. These folks have to live with the history of WWII and the destruction caused by them.

By the way there is NO GLORY IN WAR. I suggest if you think there is pay a visit to anyone one of the wounded in hospital as I do on a daily basis.


----------



## tasop_999 (9 Dec 2006)

Well spoken by Commodore Lehre.  He pretty much makes the case.

Glory in War? What about the selflessness of duty? In my eyes, nobody, I mean nobody, owes me a thing for the time I've spent overseas.  

I think there are several folks who would agree with me.


----------



## Kunu (9 Dec 2006)

> Third, Canadian support of reconstruction efforts in Kandahar is a disgrace. CIDA has not spent not a penny in Kandahar from August, 2005, to August, 2006. In the same period we spent at least $810-million on our military deployment to Kandahar. This summer, when NATO commander General David Richards suggested that he would rather have $50-million in development assistance than 5,000 new NATO troops, Canada promptly spent $189-million to send battle tanks to Kandahar.



Perhaps it's just because I'm in the thick of exam time and just a tad tired out, but I'm trying to figure out what Commodore (Retd.) Lehre meant when referring to the Leos sent over.  Is he objecting to it, saying that the money should have gone towards "development assistance"?


----------



## KevinB (9 Dec 2006)

I think that is exactly what the good Commodore was refering too.

My opinion as someone now outside the CF system is we now have a hammer and are running around looking for nails, however we are running with scissors in the other hand.
  The Army is happy it finally gets to do "the business" -- but it takes more than a hammer to build a house...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (9 Dec 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The Army is happy it finally gets to do "the business" -- but it takes more than a hammer to build a house...



And there is the problem in a nutshell....


----------



## Kunu (9 Dec 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I think that is exactly what the good Commodore was refering too.
> 
> My opinion as someone now outside the CF system is we now have a hammer and are running around looking for nails, however we are running with scissors in the other hand.
> The Army is happy it finally gets to do "the business" -- but it takes more than a hammer to build a house...



Fair enough.  I just expected that the need for more reconstruction $$$ wouldn't be used to knock the Leo deployment.  In other words, perhaps suggest the DND/CF/GC do both.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Dec 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> And there is the problem in a nutshell....



He's getting good at that.  He must be keeping different company these days.


----------



## KevinB (9 Dec 2006)

Kilo Mike said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  I just expected that the need for more reconstruction $$$ wouldn't be used to knock the Leo deployment.  In other words, perhaps suggest the DND/CF/GC do both.


ENTIRELY too many people (especially in the GoC) dont understand the difference in efforts.


----------



## childs56 (10 Dec 2006)

I can see the point of they owe us. 
We have stood beside them for the past few years as a strong supporter of NATO and the UN. Both of these organizations were used to thwart the unruly USSR factions. 

How much money we put into the commitment doesnt hide the fact that when push come to shove, had the USSR factions marched over their countrys we would have stepped up to the plate and gone for the win. 

Again it is the soldiers, the men who are suffering the politicle consequnces of their countrys unwillingness to support the ugly side of the mission. If the tables were reversed and it was them asking us to help them out I am sure that we would step up to the plate. We have done it in the past and will in the future. 

As for France being involved in their own spats for so many years with out support, yes well that is what a self interested, conquring country does. They do their own dirty work. They get to rome free and take care of business. 

What benifit to any country comes out of Afganistan? 
What do we gain, what do we loose?

I dont know. I do know that if we can bring peace and stabilty to one more country then we have done the right thing. 
How many lives does it take, 1 or 100,000. The limit is endless, it is a mission, one that involves bad people with vested interests to keep us out. They will do that at all cost to their hired guns. 
The situation is much greater then just the local area. My questions is what higher dealings do the countrys have. It has been proven in the past that France, Germany among a few have been heavily involved with the scandles such as oil for food in Iraq, they have been involved with other very specific self intrests in some of the former UN patrolled countrys. Involving them selves only to a point of slef interst and then either pulled out or patitioned the UN to pull out. For what, a sale of weapons and oil, diamonds etc. 

Again it is the soldiers who have paid for this. 
Do I think that French or German soldiers are cowards or weak. No, They are both a strong dedicatedforce. Who when given the Green light can cause grave consequences for the opposing force. 
 If they both got heavily involved in the situation in southern Afganistan I think an end to the whole conflict would come sooner then later. 
My question is who is gaining form this war on going. Is their some weapons scandle going on we do not know about? more then likely. 
France jumped aboard the bandwagon to go into Lebanon to seprate the two factions. Only to ridcule the Israelis for their lack of a cease fire. Yet very little is said about the other side and their breeches of the cease fire. 

who is right and who is wrong?
Soldiers are soldiers, savages are savages, politicians are politicians. 
We win wars with over whelming brute force. We win contracts with over whelming politicle dealings.


----------

